WannaB wrote:
The sadness is, it comes down to seflishness. And I don't say that with a judegmental tone, but an objective one.
Gun owenership and rights is rooted in selfishness. I want a gun. I want to protect me. I want to protect mine. And then lawmakers go along because I want votes.
There is a degree of selfishness to all that we debate and fight for. But gun ownership, the ability to possess a tool to use immediate lethal force, is the height of selfishness. Justifiable? That is the crux of the debate. To your point, I fully appreciate wanting protection when in remote areas. I fully appreciate wanting one in the backcountry with large animals. Even shooting as a hobby. Many rational arguments can be made.
I am not suggesting some fantastical solution where guns just disapear. Nor am I arguing that folks should not be allowed to legally and respsonsibly own guns. I am just noting that I can't see how our current culture reverses this mindset. Even when something like yesterday happens, half the country immediately thinks more about how to protect themselves.
I think this is a reasonable view of the situation. A person might change "selfishness" to "self reliance" to change the connotation, but generally, the rest of the post would stand.
The same might be said about personal property, money, etc, except those things generally can't be misused to harm another person (not physically anyway).
I fall into all of your categories for rational arguments. I have one AR. I don't especially like it. I personally prefer bolt action rifles as I put a premium on maximal precision. But, I carry a glock 20 for bear protection and I don't see how I can maintain that gun while also eliminating an AR style weapon.
