Wars in this sense means armed conflict. The belief that some things just cannot be settled peacefully is ridiculous. It makes no sense for governments to teach children about the importance of non-violence, compromise and negotiation when they cannot practice it. Furthermore, the lives of innocent citizens are lost on the battlefield. Countries fight for resources when treaties have just as much power to divide it and foreign exchange can be used to gain these resources. Wars for human rights require murder. Ambassadors and diplomats are becoming more needed than soldiers. Conflict between nations can be resoluted more peacefully.
A revolver type for personal protection? What if you miss? Would you really put your life in the hands of a slow gun when the enemy is a swift attacker. Furthermore, how does using a one round at a time rifle help anyone. The rifle is just as deadly as automatic weapons only it is way more slow and ineffective. Tough gun restrictions are a restriction on freedom, choice and safety.
An important question is: why did the American government consider it important to allow citizens the right to bear arms? After all guns are dangerous. Can it be concluded that at the time the government was mad? Citizens have a right to possess guns. Entertainment e.g. hunting, shooting ranges, etc. are one thing but there is also the issue of protection. There are people who have callous disregard for the law. What if a thief or murderer breaks into your home. Will you stand by and accept your fate or will you reach for a gun and defend yourself. Survival is a choice and the law should encourage it. Thus, the right to bear arms must be upheld.
Let me start by stating the obvious, it IS required by law that you help someone who's life is at risk if you are in a position to do so. Also, blood transfusions are very different from drowning. Your blood transfusion scenario is highly unrealistic. Hospitals have a special area called the blood bank where the donated blood is kept. It is highly unlikely that they would extract more than a fraction of the blood from your body. Likewise, saving a drowning person when you are an experienced swimmer or by contacting an experienced swimmer does not pose a severe threat.
Yes. First of all, why would you refuse to help a drowning person? Imagine the level of evil it takes to just stand there and watch a person drown to death. If you cannot swim you can still contact someone e.g. Lifeguard, passers by, emergency services, etc. Secondly, it is negligent behavior. If you are in a position where you can help to save someone's life and you neglect such an opportunity resulting in death, legally you are responsible.
