Law Lets Floridians `Meet Force With Force'

[Adron]

The fact still remains that nobody has even come anywhere in the neighborhood of convincing me that there is a better way to defend myself and my family than with a firearm.

I can readily agree that in some situations, a firearm will be your best defense.


That said, what I am arguing is that the negative consequences of firearms spread throughout the society outweigh the benefits in the rare situations where having a firearm produces a significantly better outcome than not having one.

[Arta]

That's exactly what I've been saying, too. A firearm is a great way to defend yourself. There's a principle here whose name I can't remember: the "would it be good if everybody did it" argument. When you consider everybody owning firearms, the net result is not beneficial: more people die accidentally, or misuse their firearm, than use their firearm to defend themselves.

Therefore, global firearm ownership is not good.

[Hazard]

So lives saved doesn't matter at all? How do you weigh human life Adron? Saving the innocent against the deaths of the evil is better than the alternative.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

That's exactly what I've been saying, too. A firearm is a great way to defend yourself. There's a principle here whose name I can't remember: the "would it be good if everybody did it" argument. When you consider everybody owning firearms, the net result is not beneficial: more people die accidentally, or misuse their firearm, than use their firearm to defend themselves.

Therefore, global firearm ownership is not good.

"Tragedy of the commons"?

[Arta]

So lives saved doesn't matter at all? How do you weigh human life Adron? Saving the innocent against the deaths of the evil is better than the alternative.

Not if the life-saving mechanism costs more lives than it saves.

[Arta]

"Tragedy of the commons"?

Explain?

[Adron]

So lives saved doesn't matter at all? How do you weigh human life Adron? Saving the innocent against the deaths of the evil is better than the alternative.

Lives and pain saved is what matters. Guns take the lives of innocents as well as evils. More innocents than evils too. Specifically 1726 innocents and 154 evil, in one specific statistic. That's means the cost of your playing around with guns was a net of 1572 innocent lives?

Perhaps you want to weigh innocent lives heavier than evil lives? Count 10 innocent lives for each evil life. Then it's 17260 - 154 = 17106 on the "guns are bad" side.

[Hazard]

More innocents than evils too. Specifically 1726 innocents and 154 evil, in one specific statistic.

Please cite your source so I can check your biased statistics.