To forbid them to use it and protect them from harm, or to allow them to use it and grant them free agency - surely you realize that you're creating a false dichotomy?
[His tone isn't accusatory, however; rather, it's vaguely amused.]
For example, it's disregarding the possibility of moderating their usage of it - suppose they were permitted to use it, but only in situations where it was appropriate and not for frivolous purposes? Forgive my saying so, miss, but if one owns a gun, they usually don't fire it off across their neighbors' yards, unless they want to be branded some sort of psychopath; rather, they do it for self-defense, or at a shooting range, or they find a field and set up cans if they're particularly hard-pressed for money.
Of course, it's also not taking into account that any damage incurred from these sort of moves isn't permanent, but that's destroying the spirit of the argument, isn't it?
no subject
[His tone isn't accusatory, however; rather, it's vaguely amused.]
For example, it's disregarding the possibility of moderating their usage of it - suppose they were permitted to use it, but only in situations where it was appropriate and not for frivolous purposes? Forgive my saying so, miss, but if one owns a gun, they usually don't fire it off across their neighbors' yards, unless they want to be branded some sort of psychopath; rather, they do it for self-defense, or at a shooting range, or they find a field and set up cans if they're particularly hard-pressed for money.
Of course, it's also not taking into account that any damage incurred from these sort of moves isn't permanent, but that's destroying the spirit of the argument, isn't it?