There really is no point in continuing this discussion because you seem to consider carrying guns as a basic human right whereas I do not.
things that are considered basic freedoms are not universal. where I live, carrying a gun is not a right. it does not constitute our definition of freedom. this is true for most of the civilized world. (and just for the record, to me, we are a lot more free than americans because we can't be randomly held in secret locations just for being suspected terrorists or whatever.)
And yes, criminals will still get weapons but the less weapons there are on the streets, the lower are the chances that they will get their hands on one.
Additionally, there are more instances of ramdom shootings in the US than there are of positive gun violence by civilians. When it comes to protection, civilians are just as dependant on the police with or without guns. Guns are more of a means for assurances, that's all.
To you, gun ownership is a right but to me, it's a privilege. Therefore, from my perspective, gun laws don't really take away civil liberties. I only need my fellow citizen's support to avoid tyrannical governments, not an assault weapon. That may sound too idealistic to you but hey, so does the right to bear arms.
actually, they don't. in time of epidemics, when a cure is a discovered, it is given to health care workers on a priority basis since they are at a higher risk of being infected.
Edit: I said it as if it were universally true but it's not. Priority treatment doesn't occur in every country but does in a lot of them and discussions of priority treatment have been on the table ever since SARS in pretty much every single country because of numerous instances where healthcare workers contracted the virus and then passed it on to everyone who visited them in the following week.
Understandable but unacceptable.
I am only agreeing because I despise hunting as an activity.
To each their own eh?
The two countries I have lived in have pretty strict gun laws and civilians can't own weaponry of the same caliber as in the USA if an y. They both also have significantly lower rates of random gun violence. So, to me, the best way to reduce gun violence is to reduce the number of guns that are out on the streets rather than increasing them in the name of protection.
The probability of everyone's life being endangered by random violence is equal. But people involved in gangs, politics, etc. run an additional risk of being targeted. The probabilities of these two instances where their life may be in danger is added to find the net probability of someone needing protection. So statistically speaking, the president does run a higher risk of being killed by a violent attacker and thus needs more protection.
This is similar to how in time of epidemics, health care workers run a higher risk of contracting illnesses.
Yeah. Sure. Because everyone has an equal chance of facing assassination.
Or loud chewing noises. It is so irritating and yet you can't say anything.
I don't rememeber where I read this but apparently, humans have evolved to to find babies cute for that very reason. But it also causes us to love ppuppies and kittens. Lol
That would be ideal. However, that many people thinking for themselves in a risky and sophisticated operation would be hazardous for everyone.
That is what I have been saying for years and getting horrified looks for. When their is true equality, both sexes have the right to choose. The men should not be left helplessly bound to thw women's decision should they state their intention of not wanting the baby in time for a safe abortion. We should all have rights; to our bodies and our finances.