Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Xpost: Austrailian gun control... [View all]Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)64. Then we have a very different idea of what is rational.
These are the 2 definitions I would use in this context.
1.
agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible:
2.
having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:
a calm and rational negotiator.
You made references earlier to seatbelts and fire extinguishers. Would you carry a fire extinguisher around with you? Would you carry an umbrella if no rain was foredast?
If there was mayhem in the streets, I would have no second thoughts about carrying, but living in fear of the possible, potential, highly unlikely unknown is a tad over the top. Does not fall into either of the above definitions.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
125 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
it was undemocratic in that he didn't put the question to a formal referendum.
SwissTony
Sep 2015
#26
FFS, do you really claim that knife and gun are the same in a mass murder? Which would you....
Logical
Sep 2015
#31
Are you saying all confrontations favor or are equal to the capabilities of the victim?
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#56
"It's how we deal with them that determines what kind of society we live in."
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#58
No, but I think the fear of them should be dealt with in the appropriate way
Starboard Tack
Sep 2015
#59
It's definitely irrational if you think criminals don't strike in public.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#62
What is reasonable about demanding people not defend themselves outside their homes?
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#66
"If the US wants to remain credible in terms of basic societal norms..."
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#79
It's amusing that you can fabricate so many things about what freedom is or isn't and yet
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#96
It only makes a difference if you care about what kind of society you want to live in
Starboard Tack
Sep 2015
#72
Anyone living in the country should have equal rights in terms of self defense
Starboard Tack
Sep 2015
#106
Do you know how many guns have been confiscated from the total in the country?
Eleanors38
Sep 2015
#12
The pro-gun regulars also don't defend those who work against Democrats seeking reelection...
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#25
This is the same person that finds it acceptable to attack Dems seeking reelection:
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#38
So if some future president abolished voting but paid each voter $475 you'd be okay with that.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#47
"bring back to a more satisfactory state" Back to something that did not exist previously...
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#45
If the owners had no choice and the government did not own the property then it was confiscation.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#51
"Icon and I simply know how to read a dictionary..." No doubt James can also read quite well
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#53