General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: if this guy walked into a theater loaded with knives only... [View all]whopis01
(3,498 posts)I agree with the concept of erring on the side of freedom. However that doesn't mean that a course of inaction is the correct one.
It seems to me that too often people react to this type of event by saying "we need to get rid of guns" and then are countered by people who say "guns aren't the problem / we have a right to firearms / etc". Then the discussion turns into an argument about gun control rather than trying to address the actual problem.
One group puts forth the idea that getting rid of guns would solve the problem. Maybe they are right, maybe they are not. But then it always seems to turn into an argument about just that idea and rarely are any other potential solutions put forth.
I know that earlier in the thread you said "enforce the laws that are in place" (or something close to that effect). What laws aren't being enforced in this situation that could have helped prevent it? And if there aren't any, what could be done?
You are correct that we must err on the side of freedom - but that doesn't mean the way things are being done is the best possible way of handling them. And changing how things are done doesn't mean that we are taking freedom away.
It is important to protect freedom - but that doesn't mean that we should only care about the freedom of the survivors. A lot of people lost their freedom last night in Colorado.