Running out of reality to blame, they got to make stories.
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
219 points (77.0% liked)
Liberal Gun Owners
517 readers
1 users here now
A community for pro-gun liberals.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"providing evidence that you won't be a danger before being allowed to have a weapon? HOW DARE YOU!"
...That's a logical impossibility though. You can't prove a negative.
And now we're right back to laws that prevented non-white people from owning firearms.
Don't argue semantics.
You can provide evidence that you are capable of safely using and storing your weapon.
Require weapons training, licensing and certification, require passing a background check, require renewal of said certification & license (ideally with refresher tests required. I'd like to see the same for drivers licenses too), revoke licenses when certain law enforcement actions happen (again, just like a drivers license), and most importantly actually remove the property when there is nobody licensed to have it (this needs to happen with cars too!) easy peasy
Where did I say prove?
Oh, gee, sorry, I assumed you were speaking in good faith.
"Provide evidence that you won't be [...]"
You can't provide negative evidence.
Yes, you can. I can provide evidence that my walls aren't painted black by uploading a picture of them.
I can provide evidence that Leprechauns don't exist by showing the science that you can't just scale down a human body to that degree and have the organs function.
And I can provide evidence that you aren't speaking in good faith because I said "Provide evidence for" and you responded with "You can't prove".
Evidence is not proof. Every single criminal trial the defendant provides evidence that they did not commit a crime.
This is... Not how evidence works. I know that you think it is, but you're simply not correct.
Evidence provides a positive proof, not a negative. If a coroner says that a murder occurred at 5pm on Saturday, and I have tickets, video evidence, and eyewitness accounts showing that I was across the country at 5pm on Saturday, that does not prove that I didn't commit the murder. It proves--probably--that I was across the country at 5pm on Saturday. Perhaps, for instance, the coroner was incorrect about the time the murder occurred.
But, even if we accept your premise, you run headlong into two issues: first, you're saying that civil rights aren't rights at all, and secondly, who defines "risk"? I can tell you for certain that there are a whoooooooooole lot of people on the right that don't think that anyone that is trans- or gay should be allowed to own any firearms, because they're all 'mentally ill'. What about political ideology? Should that be a valid reason to deny rights too? If you won't pledge allegiance to the American flag, should you lose your right to speech, religion, and so one? (That, at least, was clearly decided in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 1943.)
As an aside, the number of people that claim to be liberal gun owners, yet still advocate for revocation of their own rights is... Sadly, not very surprising.
I agree, but it is evidence that you did not commit the murder.
I don't think you know what "prove" means. "It proves --probably-- " is nonsense, either something is proven or or isn't. Nothing is "probably" proven. It is however common to have evidence that something is probable or not probable.
All rights have limitations on them:
Free speech/expression: you cannot display your pornography collection on the street outside an elementary school.
Right to vote: felons cannot vote, 17 year olds cannot vote
Freedom of movement: private property
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: any idiot can purchase a gun, not handle it safely, and shoot you.
There is no civil right that all civilians can take part in any time they want with no restrictions. (This ignores the fact that guns do not need to be a civil right).
And here you dive into a slippery slope fallacy. Drivers licenses are regulated with restrictions on who can acquire them, somehow no one has tried to deny drivers licenses to minorities or political opponents. Creating a reasonable restriction does not necessitate the creation of unreasonable ones. Each can be taken on a case by case basis.
Is it reasonable to require training before being allowed access to a deadly weapon? "What about LGBT?" What about them? We're talking about training here.