No. of Recommendations: 1
I would have thought it would be obvious to you. In any given year, the overwhelming majority of homes are not broken into. They're not invaded. They're not threatened. Fewer than 1% of homes in the U.S. are the subject of a burglary in any given year
Sure. I also have a very small chance of being hit by lightning. Does that mean I should run around in a thunderstorm with a 2-iron in my hand? After all, the joke goes "Even God can't hit a 2 iron".
Again, what does my risk profile look like?
Do I have a 0.00001% chance of shooting myself? Or is it 50%?
Not if you consider the possibility that you might use the firearm to kill an innocent person - then, whether it's "worth it" depends on whether it's more likely that the firearm will result in an innocent person dying than protecting yourself.
And what is that probability? If you insist on making numeric arguments you need to show some numbers.
You're arguing the existence of natural rights. If natural rights exist, they generally will cover those things that it would be egregiously immoral for any country to deny to their citizens.
You guys understand that literally the entire premise of the United States is the concept of natural rights...right?
Here it is again: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
If you an pg1 want to argue that Natural Rights don't exist, you're essentially arguing against the 1 single ideal on which the country was founded. An ideal, by the way, that negates your notion of bringing in other countries to back up your position. It. Doesn't. Matter.
