You can survive without lots of things people want.
You can survive with one outfit, without ever going camping (harms the environment after all), without soft drink or fast food, without recreational drugs, without a video games or books.
That’s poor framing. The question is does the activity someone wants to engage in (and the tools involved) represent an unfair burden or risk to others in society. Now we can have that conversation about firearms in general but this limit is arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. It’s entirely vibes based.
stoy@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I mean it is the gun lobby who called it “the fight of our lives”…
Also, farms can own ten guns according to the limit.
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Is English a second language for you?
They did not say “this is a fight for our lives” they said “this is the fight of our lives”, for vs of do you see?
It reads as “This political fight is likely to be the most significant fight — in the context of gun regulation — that we will participate in during our time alive”.
It’s meladramatic, but that’s part of politics and rhetoric. You have to rile people up.