[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
My point is that this guy was going to kill these people anyway. He had guns, so that's the method he used, but if he'd had something like a knife or poison gas or explosives or something, he wouldn't have hesitated to use those methods. It's the people behind the gun you have to worry about...not the gun itself. [/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, and I do understand what you're saying... but... :)
...without a gun to threaten everyone - without a gun but with a knife - he wouldn't have been able to accomplish as much as he did. To slit someone's throat, you'd need both hands. It's a quick death, but the manner of killing takes more time than firing at the backs of heads in rapid succession, as was done here.
And... here, he waved a gun and everyone jumped. If he'd waved a knife around and ordered everyone out, I wonder (though they WERE Amish)if they would have filed out the way they did or if they would have fought him. Face it, you stand a better chance of surviving a fight when someone has a knife than when someone has a gun.
To your point, yes, if he wanted to kill, he would have killed with whatever weapon he deemed appropriate. But without a gun, I believe there would have been more survivors in this instance. Besides, he wanted to torture them first. The cops' presence prevented him from doing that. If they hadn't arrived so quickly and in such force, and he had been able to carry out his sick plan, he could have held a knife to the neck of the child he intended to rape and be assured of HER complete submission. But with the wave of a gun, he'd have them all under control.
I don't know. The criminal mind is not one I want to get into too deeply. It just seems that firearms give the criminals extra power and confidence, and therefore make the crimes easier and faster to carry out.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I don't understand. How do they have it right? By forgiving? Why? To let go of anger so it doesn't fester like this guy's anger did? If that brings them peace, then yes, they have it right. Especially since the bastard is dead. But, what if he didn't die in this siege? Would they still have it right? Should he be forgiven for snuffing out the lives of these children or should he be punished?
Maybe this paragraph from the article you posted says it all (though I found it deeply disturbing) -
"We think it was God's plan, and we're going to have to pick up the pieces and keep going," he told AP. "A funeral to us is a much more important thing than the day of birth because we believe in the hereafter. The children are better off than their survivors."
So they believe in the hereafter where, I assume, they feel he'll be punished for his sins, yes? So perhaps they're at peace knowing this and that's why they can forgive.
IMO, forgiveness is a way to heal and move on, but it is in no way an answer to criminal behavior - especially of this magnitude.
[/QUOTE]
What you are seeing are the Amish practices and traditions that the American (colonial) way of life was based. A real snapshot of the people who escaped persecution of the Church of England. Back in those days, there wasn't a great deal of difference between the Amish and mainstream colonists.
Yes, they believe in forgiving acts of evil on earth with the understanding that God will be the final judge. The rest of society will punish him in their own way. That is okay with the Amish, as long as they don't look forward to it. That in itself would be a sin to them.
The Amish are incredible people.
I don't understand. How do they have it right? By forgiving? Why? To let go of anger so it doesn't fester like this guy's anger did? If that brings them peace, then yes, they have it right. Especially since the bastard is dead. But, what if he didn't die in this siege? Would they still have it right? Should he be forgiven for snuffing out the lives of these children or should he be punished?
Maybe this paragraph from the article you posted says it all (though I found it deeply disturbing) -
"We think it was God's plan, and we're going to have to pick up the pieces and keep going," he told AP. "A funeral to us is a much more important thing than the day of birth because we believe in the hereafter. The children are better off than their survivors."
So they believe in the hereafter where, I assume, they feel he'll be punished for his sins, yes? So perhaps they're at peace knowing this and that's why they can forgive.
IMO, forgiveness is a way to heal and move on, but it is in no way an answer to criminal behavior - especially of this magnitude.
[/QUOTE]
What you are seeing are the Amish practices and traditions that the American (colonial) way of life was based. A real snapshot of the people who escaped persecution of the Church of England. Back in those days, there wasn't a great deal of difference between the Amish and mainstream colonists.
Yes, they believe in forgiving acts of evil on earth with the understanding that God will be the final judge. The rest of society will punish him in their own way. That is okay with the Amish, as long as they don't look forward to it. That in itself would be a sin to them.
The Amish are incredible people.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
My point is that this guy was going to kill these people anyway. He had guns, so that's the method he used, but if he'd had something like a knife or poison gas or explosives or something, he wouldn't have hesitated to use those methods. It's the people behind the gun you have to worry about...not the gun itself. [/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, and I do understand what you're saying... but... :)
...without a gun to threaten everyone - without a gun but with a knife - he wouldn't have been able to accomplish as much as he did. To slit someone's throat, you'd need both hands. It's a quick death, but the manner of killing takes more time than firing at the backs of heads in rapid succession, as was done here.
And... here, he waved a gun and everyone jumped. If he'd waved a knife around and ordered everyone out, I wonder (though they WERE Amish)if they would have filed out the way they did or if they would have fought him. Face it, you stand a better chance of surviving a fight when someone has a knife than when someone has a gun.
To your point, yes, if he wanted to kill, he would have killed with whatever weapon he deemed appropriate. But without a gun, I believe there would have been more survivors in this instance. Besides, he wanted to torture them first. The cops' presence prevented him from doing that. If they hadn't arrived so quickly and in such force, and he had been able to carry out his sick plan, he could have held a knife to the neck of the child he intended to rape and be assured of HER complete submission. But with the wave of a gun, he'd have them all under control.
I don't know. The criminal mind is not one I want to get into too deeply. It just seems that firearms give the criminals extra power and confidence, and therefore make the crimes easier and faster to carry out. [/QUOTE]
I know your point, and I think we both have the same POV that it's not neccessarily the weapons themselves. I know you aren't giving me a hard time, it's just a debate, and I love to debate!
I do have to wonder if someone would have fought him had he had a knife, but then again the hijackers on 9-11 only had boxcutters, and no one fought back on them until the last plane, when the passengers figured out what was going on with their cell phones (they must have claimed to have a bomb or something).
My point is that this guy was going to kill these people anyway. He had guns, so that's the method he used, but if he'd had something like a knife or poison gas or explosives or something, he wouldn't have hesitated to use those methods. It's the people behind the gun you have to worry about...not the gun itself. [/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, and I do understand what you're saying... but... :)
...without a gun to threaten everyone - without a gun but with a knife - he wouldn't have been able to accomplish as much as he did. To slit someone's throat, you'd need both hands. It's a quick death, but the manner of killing takes more time than firing at the backs of heads in rapid succession, as was done here.
And... here, he waved a gun and everyone jumped. If he'd waved a knife around and ordered everyone out, I wonder (though they WERE Amish)if they would have filed out the way they did or if they would have fought him. Face it, you stand a better chance of surviving a fight when someone has a knife than when someone has a gun.
To your point, yes, if he wanted to kill, he would have killed with whatever weapon he deemed appropriate. But without a gun, I believe there would have been more survivors in this instance. Besides, he wanted to torture them first. The cops' presence prevented him from doing that. If they hadn't arrived so quickly and in such force, and he had been able to carry out his sick plan, he could have held a knife to the neck of the child he intended to rape and be assured of HER complete submission. But with the wave of a gun, he'd have them all under control.
I don't know. The criminal mind is not one I want to get into too deeply. It just seems that firearms give the criminals extra power and confidence, and therefore make the crimes easier and faster to carry out. [/QUOTE]
I know your point, and I think we both have the same POV that it's not neccessarily the weapons themselves. I know you aren't giving me a hard time, it's just a debate, and I love to debate!
I do have to wonder if someone would have fought him had he had a knife, but then again the hijackers on 9-11 only had boxcutters, and no one fought back on them until the last plane, when the passengers figured out what was going on with their cell phones (they must have claimed to have a bomb or something).
Well, it is a terrible tragedy. Crazy people like that seem to be on the rise. And I don't think anyone knows why yet.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME] a derringer could cause the above mentioned tragedy just as an M16 could. In fact, so could a baseball bat or a knife. The only really important factor is the intent to do harm.[/QUOTE]
and that's that. So no, gun control laws would have done no good whatsoever.
The only thing that could have stopped this particular case is obvious.
BAN THE AMISH!
and that's that. So no, gun control laws would have done no good whatsoever.
The only thing that could have stopped this particular case is obvious.
BAN THE AMISH!
Somehow, somewhere, a Liberal is blaming this on George Bush.
Sad, but true.
Sad, but true.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I'm kinda surprised by the big opposition of a stricter gun law. Why is it so important for you Americans, to own a gun? I miss the point here.[/QUOTE]
Ack, you ARE missing the point. The important issue is not owning a gun. The important issue is the preservation of our absolute negative freedoms. Our entire culture and democracy was founded on such beliefs, and these beliefs profoundly pervade the mindset of the United States of America. This mindset is as follows: above everything (safety, economy, equality, etc.) is FREEDOM; above all else, negative LIBERTY is sacred.
Therefore, since owning a gun does not infringe upon the rights of any other person, government does not have the right to legislate against it.
I will admit that our government has, over time, perverted the nature of our liberal democracy. Some of these perversions do make sense. But where do we draw the line? That is the real issue here. Owning a gun harms no one. Using one does. There are plenty of laws against the latter, and I believe that any further legislation on the former would be excessive.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I can't agree with you Musicman... I think your post is highly ignorant. The figures tell us that legalizing firearms causes thousands of deaths. In the US, 38.000 people die of murder, accidents or suicide with guns while 'only' a few thousand die of firearm accidents in Europe. And is Europe less liberal? I dare to say that we are even more liberal than the US.[/QUOTE]
Regardless of that figure, I can hardly think that guns are anything close to a leading cause of death, and gun deaths are few and far between. Europe, on this issue, at least, is DEFINITELY less liberal then the US. Any state that would restrict the negative liberties of its citizens is clearly not practicing liberal democracy.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You compare the use of firearms with driving cars. Well, we all know that some cars are important for the current economy. People need to be mobile. But what are the arguments for owning guns? I agree that a hunter should be able to have one, same as police officers. But people like you and me? You're probably going to say "self defence"... but realise that you need a gun for self defence, because your neighbour has one as well.[/QUOTE]
You do not need a reason to have a right. You need a reason to NOT have a right. And that reason must always be that this right infringes upon the rights of another citizen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Musicman - I understand your post and on the surface agree, but I cannot get the point or reason for the average person to own a gun. Why is that 'right' even still on the books, so to speak? It's an archaic right that no longer serves a legitimate purpose. [/QUOTE]
The right in question is not the right to bear arms, which in this modern time does not serve a legitimate purpose. The right in question is the right to absolute negative liberty.
I'm kinda surprised by the big opposition of a stricter gun law. Why is it so important for you Americans, to own a gun? I miss the point here.[/QUOTE]
Ack, you ARE missing the point. The important issue is not owning a gun. The important issue is the preservation of our absolute negative freedoms. Our entire culture and democracy was founded on such beliefs, and these beliefs profoundly pervade the mindset of the United States of America. This mindset is as follows: above everything (safety, economy, equality, etc.) is FREEDOM; above all else, negative LIBERTY is sacred.
Therefore, since owning a gun does not infringe upon the rights of any other person, government does not have the right to legislate against it.
I will admit that our government has, over time, perverted the nature of our liberal democracy. Some of these perversions do make sense. But where do we draw the line? That is the real issue here. Owning a gun harms no one. Using one does. There are plenty of laws against the latter, and I believe that any further legislation on the former would be excessive.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I can't agree with you Musicman... I think your post is highly ignorant. The figures tell us that legalizing firearms causes thousands of deaths. In the US, 38.000 people die of murder, accidents or suicide with guns while 'only' a few thousand die of firearm accidents in Europe. And is Europe less liberal? I dare to say that we are even more liberal than the US.[/QUOTE]
Regardless of that figure, I can hardly think that guns are anything close to a leading cause of death, and gun deaths are few and far between. Europe, on this issue, at least, is DEFINITELY less liberal then the US. Any state that would restrict the negative liberties of its citizens is clearly not practicing liberal democracy.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You compare the use of firearms with driving cars. Well, we all know that some cars are important for the current economy. People need to be mobile. But what are the arguments for owning guns? I agree that a hunter should be able to have one, same as police officers. But people like you and me? You're probably going to say "self defence"... but realise that you need a gun for self defence, because your neighbour has one as well.[/QUOTE]
You do not need a reason to have a right. You need a reason to NOT have a right. And that reason must always be that this right infringes upon the rights of another citizen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Musicman - I understand your post and on the surface agree, but I cannot get the point or reason for the average person to own a gun. Why is that 'right' even still on the books, so to speak? It's an archaic right that no longer serves a legitimate purpose. [/QUOTE]
The right in question is not the right to bear arms, which in this modern time does not serve a legitimate purpose. The right in question is the right to absolute negative liberty.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Ack, you ARE missing the point. The important issue is not owning a gun. The important issue is the preservation of our absolute negative freedoms. Our entire culture and democracy was founded on such beliefs, and these beliefs profoundly pervade the mindset of the United States of America. This mindset is as follows: above everything (safety, economy, equality, etc.) is FREEDOM; above all else, negative LIBERTY is sacred.
Therefore, since owning a gun does not infringe upon the rights of any other person, government does not have the right to legislate against it.
I will admit that our government has, over time, perverted the nature of our liberal democracy. Some of these perversions do make sense. But where do we draw the line? That is the real issue here. Owning a gun harms no one. Using one does. There are plenty of laws against the latter, and I believe that any further legislation on the former would be excessive.
[/QUOTE]
My point is that some (too many) people do use their guns, for wrong issues. And it seems that you can't give me one good reason to own a gun, beside of being free and liberal.
Hmmm.. Now I don't see why it's illegal to use/own drugs in the US. Owning drugs does not harm anyone, does it? Well, using it does... but it only does harm yourself and only if you take too much.
See? For me, freedom is being able to say what I want, to think what I want to think, to see what I like to see and to be who I want to be... For me, freedom doesn't depend on the right to own a gun. I'm not allowed to own one here in Holland, still I think I live in one of the most Liberal countries of the world.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Regardless of that figure, I can hardly think that guns are anything close to a leading cause of death, and gun deaths are few and far between. Europe, on this issue, at least, is DEFINITELY less liberal then the US. Any state that would restrict the negative liberties of its citizens is clearly not practicing liberal democracy.
[/QUOTE]
At this point yes... But in general, Europe is far more liberal then the US. Think of drug issues, prostitution, gay marriage and on and on. Censoring boobs on television... how liberal.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You do not need a reason to have a right. You need a reason to NOT have a right. And that reason must always be that this right infringes upon the rights of another citizen.
[/QUOTE]
I guess this is the same discussion. You bring freedom as an argument... But I still think that freedom shouldn't cause deaths.
Ack, you ARE missing the point. The important issue is not owning a gun. The important issue is the preservation of our absolute negative freedoms. Our entire culture and democracy was founded on such beliefs, and these beliefs profoundly pervade the mindset of the United States of America. This mindset is as follows: above everything (safety, economy, equality, etc.) is FREEDOM; above all else, negative LIBERTY is sacred.
Therefore, since owning a gun does not infringe upon the rights of any other person, government does not have the right to legislate against it.
I will admit that our government has, over time, perverted the nature of our liberal democracy. Some of these perversions do make sense. But where do we draw the line? That is the real issue here. Owning a gun harms no one. Using one does. There are plenty of laws against the latter, and I believe that any further legislation on the former would be excessive.
[/QUOTE]
My point is that some (too many) people do use their guns, for wrong issues. And it seems that you can't give me one good reason to own a gun, beside of being free and liberal.
Hmmm.. Now I don't see why it's illegal to use/own drugs in the US. Owning drugs does not harm anyone, does it? Well, using it does... but it only does harm yourself and only if you take too much.
See? For me, freedom is being able to say what I want, to think what I want to think, to see what I like to see and to be who I want to be... For me, freedom doesn't depend on the right to own a gun. I'm not allowed to own one here in Holland, still I think I live in one of the most Liberal countries of the world.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Regardless of that figure, I can hardly think that guns are anything close to a leading cause of death, and gun deaths are few and far between. Europe, on this issue, at least, is DEFINITELY less liberal then the US. Any state that would restrict the negative liberties of its citizens is clearly not practicing liberal democracy.
[/QUOTE]
At this point yes... But in general, Europe is far more liberal then the US. Think of drug issues, prostitution, gay marriage and on and on. Censoring boobs on television... how liberal.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You do not need a reason to have a right. You need a reason to NOT have a right. And that reason must always be that this right infringes upon the rights of another citizen.
[/QUOTE]
I guess this is the same discussion. You bring freedom as an argument... But I still think that freedom shouldn't cause deaths.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME] The right in question is not the right to bear arms, which in this modern time does not serve a legitimate purpose. The right in question is the right to absolute negative liberty. [/QUOTE]
I'm trying to get your point, truly, I am, but it's just not happening for me.
I need to go back and work with a previous comparison -
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Likewise, illegalizing automobile transportation would decrease the death toll considerably, however, we have the freedom to drive and be driven as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else. [/QUOTE]
According to what you're saying here and what's implied, a car used incorrectly can be dangerous and deadly or it can even be used as a weapon. That makes sense. It also makes sense that, despite this fact, it is not possible to make owning or operating a motor vehicle illegal. However, I'd have to say it's not do to the freedom to own and operate a car as much as it is to do with the necessity/benefits of owning a car - getting to and from work, taking children to school, shopping for groceries, making doctor appointments...
All of that makes sense. However, no matter how hard I try, I can't fathom a necessity served by owning a gun. There is no other use for a gun other than to kill, hurt or threaten. All of which are crimes to some degree - with "threaten" being right up there with terrorism depending on whomever you're speaking.
Negative freedoms? I have the right not to be afraid that my child may accidentally get shot at a friend's house because that friend's parent has a weapon in the house.
I have the right not to be terrorized by a lunatic pointing a gun at my head and ordering me from my car.
I have the right not to fear sending my child to school because some prick with a gun decides to line the kids up then shoot them all down.
I wasn't sure where I stood on this issue before, but I think I have a better sense of that now.
I'm trying to get your point, truly, I am, but it's just not happening for me.
I need to go back and work with a previous comparison -
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Likewise, illegalizing automobile transportation would decrease the death toll considerably, however, we have the freedom to drive and be driven as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else. [/QUOTE]
According to what you're saying here and what's implied, a car used incorrectly can be dangerous and deadly or it can even be used as a weapon. That makes sense. It also makes sense that, despite this fact, it is not possible to make owning or operating a motor vehicle illegal. However, I'd have to say it's not do to the freedom to own and operate a car as much as it is to do with the necessity/benefits of owning a car - getting to and from work, taking children to school, shopping for groceries, making doctor appointments...
All of that makes sense. However, no matter how hard I try, I can't fathom a necessity served by owning a gun. There is no other use for a gun other than to kill, hurt or threaten. All of which are crimes to some degree - with "threaten" being right up there with terrorism depending on whomever you're speaking.
Negative freedoms? I have the right not to be afraid that my child may accidentally get shot at a friend's house because that friend's parent has a weapon in the house.
I have the right not to be terrorized by a lunatic pointing a gun at my head and ordering me from my car.
I have the right not to fear sending my child to school because some prick with a gun decides to line the kids up then shoot them all down.
I wasn't sure where I stood on this issue before, but I think I have a better sense of that now.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Until the majority of Americans are against the right to bear arms, the Bill of Rights will continue to give us that right. [/QUOTE]
With the number of school shootings on the rise (as it seems) the majority of Americans might be against it sooner than we think.
With the number of school shootings on the rise (as it seems) the majority of Americans might be against it sooner than we think.
I'l quote Chris Rock...
There shouldn't be gun control. Instead there should be BULLET CONTROL. Every single bullet should cost at least 5,000 dollars. Every time someone shoots a bullet they should be reminded of how much that bullet is worth.
There shouldn't be gun control. Instead there should be BULLET CONTROL. Every single bullet should cost at least 5,000 dollars. Every time someone shoots a bullet they should be reminded of how much that bullet is worth.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I'l quote Chris Rock...
There shouldn't be gun control. Instead there should be BULLET CONTROL. Every single bullet should cost at least 5,000 dollars. Every time someone shoots a bullet they should be reminded of how much that bullet is worth. [/QUOTE]
I love this.
I'l quote Chris Rock...
There shouldn't be gun control. Instead there should be BULLET CONTROL. Every single bullet should cost at least 5,000 dollars. Every time someone shoots a bullet they should be reminded of how much that bullet is worth. [/QUOTE]
I love this.
So the main difference in our arguments, to sum it up, is negative liberty vs. positive liberty. It's a very interesting and philosophical discussion.
Sometimes, even I admit, the advantages of certain positive liberties outweigh those of negative liberties, and therefore government regulation is in line. However, there is a constant impending danger of the government assuming too much control over peoples' lives.
For instance, in the United States, the current administration is protecting a freedom that is very high on the positive liberty scale. That is, freedom from fear and harm (the same liberties that are being defended with gun control laws). Of course, to defend these freedoms, it is almost inevitable that negative freedoms will be expended. In the case of the current administration of the USA, prisoners are being kept and abused from around the world without so much as a single charge against them. The NSA is surveilling the communications of its citizens for terroristic leads. Does this assure to a greater degree our positive liberties? Yes, it does. However, would you want these liberties if they were made at the expense of our freedom from the government - the most precious of negative liberties? Maybe you would. But I would never.
This details the biggest caveat of positive liberty. That is, where do we draw the line? Exactly how much can the government interfere before it's too late, and we're all conforming to this dystopic Orwellian state? I'm not saying that this issue of gun control directly or significantly effects that. I'm also not saying that we are on the verge of 1984. I am saying that if you give the government an inch, they may very well take a mile (and I do believe that the current administration has taken a mile and then some).
Sometimes, even I admit, the advantages of certain positive liberties outweigh those of negative liberties, and therefore government regulation is in line. However, there is a constant impending danger of the government assuming too much control over peoples' lives.
For instance, in the United States, the current administration is protecting a freedom that is very high on the positive liberty scale. That is, freedom from fear and harm (the same liberties that are being defended with gun control laws). Of course, to defend these freedoms, it is almost inevitable that negative freedoms will be expended. In the case of the current administration of the USA, prisoners are being kept and abused from around the world without so much as a single charge against them. The NSA is surveilling the communications of its citizens for terroristic leads. Does this assure to a greater degree our positive liberties? Yes, it does. However, would you want these liberties if they were made at the expense of our freedom from the government - the most precious of negative liberties? Maybe you would. But I would never.
This details the biggest caveat of positive liberty. That is, where do we draw the line? Exactly how much can the government interfere before it's too late, and we're all conforming to this dystopic Orwellian state? I'm not saying that this issue of gun control directly or significantly effects that. I'm also not saying that we are on the verge of 1984. I am saying that if you give the government an inch, they may very well take a mile (and I do believe that the current administration has taken a mile and then some).
I don't understand any of your points about negative and positive liberties. I've actually never heard those terms before.