Quite often, those who support the strongest anti-gun laws are those with this viewpoint. If you don't trust yourself with a gun, why trust anyone else? If you don't want that power, why should anyone else have it?roid wrote:I don't want to protect anything with a gun because i don't trust what i could be tempted to do with it. I don't want the power.
The same is often true for drug laws. People don't trust themselves to drink/smoke/snort responsibly, so they don't want anyone ELSE to be allowed to either.
There's certainly a degree to which each of those things should be regulated. When people have used them to unnecessarily harm others, they should be restricted from having them again. When people have a history of behavior that shows they're unlikely to refrain from unnecessarily harming others, they should be restricted from having them. But why restrict those who use them responsibly as tools to accomplish certain tasks? Certain drugs can be used to treat certain illnesses, and guns can be used to protect lives and property and to hunt. Why not allow people access to both? You may not be trustworthy, but others are.