Tonight I discuss the gun legislation with a friend during dinner.\u00a0 He against the citizen are allow to own hand guns, and I take the default libertarian position to support citizen’s freedom to own guns.\u00a0 He initial argument is hand gun has no practical use, is dangerous and induce damage to things.\u00a0 I don’t want to use the self defense argument, so I try to counter his arguments one by one.\u00a0 I use the example of Ferreira racing car to demonstrate no practical use is not a necessary condition to make something illegal.\u00a0 Then I use archery to\u00a0 demonstrate something is dangerous in the wrong hands cannot justify the take it away from law binding citizens.\u00a0 Causing damage to things per se is nothing wrong, except when you start shooting irresponsibly.\u00a0 However, my friend made a very good point, hand gun is has all these three properties combined, only katana or medieval swords falls in this category to a certain extend.\u00a0 Then the discuss shifted to where to draw the line marking what’s legal and what’s not.\u00a0 Fully automatic and high power amour piercing guns is already illegal.\u00a0 Why should we extend the coverage to hand guns or even rifles but not katana?\u00a0 Who has the authority to draw this line?\u00a0 Should we simply use majority rules, so that the minority has to follow the majority regardless of their moral argument?\u00a0 I don’t have a good answer other than the plain old libertarian argument to support allowing citizens to guns.\u00a0 Maybe I will think a bit hard to justify the cause when I got my firearm license.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"