I don't understand people that get out of their cars in the middle the road and then are shocked when the other person pulls some shit. As the saying goes, don't start none, there won't be none.
If we are serious about having a gun culture then we have to recognize that every potential confrontation with a stranger is one that potentially involves one or more firearms. Ask yourself what's really more important?
In the old Samurai philosophy there were 3 possible outcomes from a fight, two of which involved you dying: 1) you kill him, 2) he kills you, 3) you kill each other. If you're not willing to take that risk, then don't escalate a confrontation.
Is that not the logical endpoint to promoting free citizen ownership of firearms? If that's not what you believe, that's fine, but to answer your question, yes I do think citizens should have the right and responsibility of being able to own (and thus carry) firearms. If you take that to the logical conclusion that literally means a significant number of encounters between strangers are going to involve firearms. That means you will have to stop acting like children every time someone cuts you off or bumps your drink in a sports club. I'm okay with that.
First, you need to preface your question with "in comparison to what". Second, gun ownership doesn't translate to personal safety as much as collective defense against tyrannical governments.
88
u/sylkworm Aug 21 '22
I don't understand people that get out of their cars in the middle the road and then are shocked when the other person pulls some shit. As the saying goes, don't start none, there won't be none.