McLaren
Premium
- 45,414
- Texas
The entire point of training is to prepare you, to give you an idea of what to do if you're put in a situation. That's miles better than nothing at all.And you think training equals action? It doesn't work that way in football, why in God's name do you think it will work precisely the same when your life and many others are in danger?
You're the one who said you would grab and take the rifle off them, wording it as if it was just that easy. The reality remains: you're not doing a damn thing because you'd be piss scared like most people to mess with someone holding that weapon. Your buddy would be too, because should your fantasy go the other way (despite you thinking "nothing" would stop you), both of you are likely to be injured in self defense.I'm amused you thought I thought that. Of course I would need to forcefully remove it from him/her. I would go behind his back and know him out, or have a buddy help me.
You said the basis of law is someone else making decisions for you that you would make for yourself as support that your preferences "apparently do" get to decide for others. I asked what happens when that someone makes a decision for you that you wouldn't make yourself. The point is the your preferences aren't going to be given any more favor than another. You don't prefer rifles, others do. For now, the law stands in favor of the opposing side.Who says I can't make a decision? If I know what I like and I know what I don't like, it's easy for me to make a decision for myself.
What the law does is take decisions for us because we are born into it. Do you think I would follow everything the law tells me to do if I didn't have to and weren't punished because of it? Or anybody else, for that matter?
You spoke on the terms of rifles not needed except for being fun and that there are substitutes to them to have fun. The same can applied to anything used for fun.And in my opinion, there are no substitutes at all to things people "do not need" that can't be banned on the basis of "it may kill someone".
Otherwise we would only have our bodies and nothing else to do things. No cars, no tools, no nothing.
The correlation is that people wanted certain video games banned because the crimes wouldn't have been committed if the game wasn't available to influence them to commit the crimes. People argue this crime wouldn't have been committed if the AR-15 was banned from the public to use to commit the shooting. They're blaming an object instead of the person. If the gun was banned from the public & he still got a hold of it who would be to blame? Can't blame the gun, it was banned.Exactly. Except there's no correlation at all between playing a video game and killing people because of a videogame. At all.
I'm tired of this and frankly I don't care anymore. I guess I'm just lucky to live in a place that shares my beliefs.