it's just my opinion. let's simulate the situation. let's say we have full access to buying weapons. a person comes (mv do not know what he has with his psyche) and buys a gun, then they go to the street and see a boy who is very similar to the boy who offended him at school. and he pulls out a gun and killed the guy. because this can be ??! it's just an example. I for the fact that before you allow someone to buy a gun, you need to check the psyche of a person. and your position is also correct. if forbidden, then it violates the laws.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You cannot use individual events to justify how to deal with something. I could say that a home owner buys a gun, and a robber comes into their home that very night with another gun. The homeowner defends the home and saves the day. Does that justify letting everyone own a gun? Ofcourse not.
The real question here is how do we find the middle ground, and unless you are open to that middle ground (which requires you to understand the whole picture) it becomes a standstill.
Thats where we are in this country right now. we are at a complete stand still because both sides are unwilling to understand the other side.
but how do you see the solution to this issue? where is the middle?
There is no middle