PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on November 03, 2016, 06:53:20 AM
-
http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/the-gun-control-debate-explained-with-dogs/ (http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/the-gun-control-debate-explained-with-dogs/)
Me: I don’t want to take away dog owners’ rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What’s an “attack dog”?
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
Seems to be spot on....
-
I don't care for using "attack dogs" as a substitute for firearms to explain the argument. A dog may "go off" at any time with or without a person involved, some folks act like it's the same with firearms. One a living breathing being that can make choices or suffer mental illness, the other simply an inanimate object/tool.
-
I don't care for using "attack dogs" as a substitute for firearms to explain the argument. A dog may "go off" at any time with or without a person involved, some folks act like it's the same with firearms. One a living breathing being that can make choices or suffer mental illness, the other simply an inanimate object/tool.
Then how about a similar analogy using cars. Or chain saws.
-
That works better for me.
-
I don't care for using "attack dogs" as a substitute for firearms to explain the argument. A dog may "go off" at any time with or without a person involved, some folks act like it's the same with firearms. One a living breathing being that can make choices or suffer mental illness, the other simply an inanimate object/tool.
Agreed. At the end of the day we can use whatever analogies we'd like, but it all comes back to the individual and their actions. Either a person chooses to use a weapon for ill-intent or they do not.