Could not agree more. While i have made the personal choice to not own a firearm, I fully support the right of every individual to do so, especially those who lack the physical strength to defend themselves from violence.

I don't own a firearm, but I'm happy to have friends that do.

Well, I own guns and Id be happy to protect my friends, the meek and myself with them.

Same here. I have friends in various military branches and some who are just firearm enthusiasts, who all have received proper training as far as safety is concerned. I believe that it's very important to take gun ownership seriously and ensure that one is well educated before carrying, which is why I have yet to purchase one. I've never even held a loaded gun, and refuse to do so until I am positive that I won't become a statistic used to erode our 2nd amendment rights.

I'd suggest anyone that is interesting but timid to take a concealed carry course. They're usually a one day thing and will teach you all the safety and legal ramifications of owning/using a firearm.

I used to be put off by guns until I got into them. Now I can't imagine not owning and carrying one. They really aren't as scary as the media makes them seem.

What if I talked shit on Facebook and said I'd cap your ass, given the chance?

Threats via facebook.

Yeah, that's not corny at all.

Thanks for getting the joke imbued within a question about opinions on a serious issue.

It was hilarious to hear the sarcasm about it.

How about the mentally ill?

Or stupid people who are quick to anger?

Or the career criminals?

Or the over zealous mall security guard?

Or the racist homophobic KKK leader just itchin for someone to set him off?

Honestly, I'm amazed that you have as few murders as you do.

Keeping guns out of the hands of those type of folks would not prevent them from killing people. Chicago, IL has arguably the strictest gun control laws in the country, and the highest murder rate. It's illegal to possess a gun in the UK, yet it's considered the violent crime capitol of the world. How would gun control help any of the circumstances you mentioned?

EDIT: Check out some actual data, instead of media sensationalism. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638 (Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58 (equivalent to 290 US murders)

http://www.juancole.com/2013/01/firearm-murders-equiv.html

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

Eh? Increase in gun ownership decreases suicides? My BS detector is going off.

Regardless, comparisons with other countries is difficult because of history and culture. I don't profess to know what's best for the US as I'm from England. But I am pretty sure that making firearms legal and widely available in my country would not bode well.

Obama had the CDC conduct a study on guns. One of the first things they found was that guns are used 1,000 times to 8,000 times daily for self-defense in the United States. Easily 3 times those numbers are deterred from crime due to gun ownership. Realize that Illinois just lost a court battle denying people concealed carry licenses. Realize that 400,000 immediately got online to get one, and the backlist is now millions long. Realize that since all these people started signing up for concealed carry licenses that crime has started to drop. Here's that CDC study for you: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

This data shows us two things:

1. Murder rate per capita is higher in the US than in the UK.

2. Firearms are the preferred method of murder.

It's the preferred method because it's rudimentary and effective, but taking the method away is not going to change someone's mind about murdering another person. Likewise, possessing the object is not going to make someone have thoughts and feelings that lead to murder.

Is taking away the ability to defend one's self with over 100 year old technology, which affects 311 million people, worth diminishing the likelihood of murders using that same technology, which only affects 0.002% of the population? No, absolutely not. Will it reduce murder rates? No, absolutely not.

It's the preferred method because it's rudimentary and effective, but taking the method away is not going to change someone's mind about murdering another person. Likewise, possessing the object is not going to make someone have thoughts and feelings that lead to murder.

Are you combining manslaughter with murder? It's far easier to accidentally "go to far" and kill someone with a gun than it is with your fists.

That's just it, you don't present a firearm unless you intend to use it, and you don't use a firearm to slow someone down or scare them, you use it to STOP them. There is no going too far or just enough, the implications of presenting a firearm are absolute. So you only present it when your life is in imminent danger and you have no other choice, and you better damn well pull the trigger, because you'll be killed if you don't.

Obama had the CDC conduct a study on guns. One of the first things they found was that guns are used 1,000 times to 8,000 times daily for self-defense in the United States. Easily 3 times those numbers are deterred from crime due to gun ownership. Realize that Illinois just lost a court battle denying people concealed carry licenses. Realize that 400,000 immediately got online to get one, and the backlist is now millions long. Realize that since all these people started signing up for concealed carry licenses that crime has started to drop. Here's that CDC study for you: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

Who the hell votes you down for sourced statistics?

1.) Lies.

2.) Damned lies.

3.) Statistics.

Obama had the CDC conduct a study on guns. One of the first things they found was that guns are used 1,000 times to 8,000 times daily for self-defense in the United States. Easily 3 times those numbers are deterred from crime due to gun ownership. Realize that Illinois just lost a court battle denying people concealed carry licenses. Realize that 400,000 immediately got online to get one, and the backlist is now millions long. Realize that since all these people started signing up for concealed carry licenses that crime has started to drop. Here's that CDC study for you: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

because you understand media but not reality

You seem to be an amalgamation of them all.

HEY-O!

Don't forget the Black Panthers, tinkerbell

Sure, might as well, tootsie.

Thank you, snookums

Play nicely pookies.

I think this is when we need to get a room, right?

Who are quicker to own weapons and then use them on defenseless individuals? All of those people you listed.

That's my point.

Which is why we should ensure that no one is defenseless.

I was born and raised in Southern California, which heavily stigmatized gun ownership. If you owned a gun, you were seen as "there is something wrong with that guy." I now live in Central Arkansas, where everyone owns guns.

I now own 5 guns, including "assault" weapons, and conceal carry just about anywhere I go. I like to target shoot and hunt, and so do many people here. Guns out here are the norm and gun-related violence, although it does happen, it is very low.

2nd amendment was designed for the protection of tyranny from government. To date, 93/100 Americans own firearms, which means there are more than 285,000,000(285 million), privately owned firearms in this country.

Think what you want about guns but there is one thing I can promise you: they will not go away, at least not without a viscous fight.

I dont think 93/100 Americans own guns based on my experience. I think 31/100 Americans own 3 guns.

Still, ~90,000,000 Americans. That trumps any military the world could muster, except the Chinese military, which could have hundreds of millions if it wanted to.

Ever heard of missiles or the airforce?

They can't just bomb their own infrastructure though, a fight on American soil will be more like the middle east where targets are mixed with friendlies and the friendlies would be friends and families of the soldiers. Supply lines and power grids in the hands of both sides, would be very messy. What would the military do if the cities surrounding their bases cut them off from the outside but the cities were still full of regular people not fighting?

I wasn't suggesting missiles and air superiority could instantly kill all 90 million. I was countering the argument that those 90 million could overpower any military. This isn't true. They may have arms but most of them do not have combat training or advanced weapons.

As far as your scenario goes, I don't think anyone could possibly predict the outcome of this disastrous confusion cluster. It would be one of the weirdest scenarios in history because the US government would make a policy that most people support, however the minority that doesn't support it makes up almost the entirety of the law enforcement and military. So I don't think the government could support its own legislation. It might look for outside help from European countries if that minority violently opposes the legislation and begins winning. As always France surrenders almost immediately.

As far as your scenario goes, I don't think anyone could possibly predict the outcome of this disastrous confusion cluster.

Exactly, I agree completely, I was just pointing out that this kind of conflict would not easily be determined by classic military might and would be wildly unpredictable. I mistook you original comment, thank you for the clarification.

No problem. I love talking about this because in my opinion it is the most likely cause of a world war 3. The school and public shootings are only going to increase. Soon gun control has a strong majority of around 60%. US government attempts passes legislation that it can't enforce because nearly all law enforcement and military members are strong supporters of the 2nd amendment. Suddenly outside help is called and then the scenario plays out.

what happened in Waco?

they had guns, the feds bombed them.

Air Force is useless without fuel. I'm absolutely certain 90,000,000 people could completely stem the supply of fuel. The same goes for all of the supplies that the military would need. Look at the wars in the Middle East. Entire convoys can be wiped out by only a handful of people,so long as those people know what they are doing.

As for weapons of mass destruction, they wouldn't use them. Nothing like a good old mass killing of innocent civilians to bring more people into a rebellion.

As someone who works POL (fuels) in Air Force this is completely true! Pilots are pedestrians without fuel is what a lot of us say. But that being said the fuel tanks are always in the back of the base on the flight line which I'm assuming would be heavily guarded if a civil war might break out. But let's just hope it doesn't cause IMO half the military would be gone too to fight with the people and not the bs the Gov wants everyone to fight for.

The Navy just started making jet fuel from seawater. Russia just deployed the first submarine that runs on seawater. Some guy just made a life size lego car that runs on air. Things are a changing.

So, all you have to do then is cut off their access to sea water, which would be a number one priority, anyways, since sea ports would allow for them to get supplies. Once that is cut off, all of the other supplies, like food and clean water, will be cut off as well.

No, they're making it on the fly in the aircraft carriers. So yes, you could cut off their food supply, but realize if they don't have to fill those old portions of the aircraft carrier with fuel anymore, because you can make jet fuel on the fly, you can now replace those holds with food and other supplies, which can extend the ability for an aircraft carrier to stay in the sea for quite a while. Clean water I don't think will be a problem either. Northropp Grummann just developed a thin sheet of graphene that is very cheap and removes salt and all other pollutants from water or seawater to make it drinkable. You guys need to subscribe to the /r/science and /r/technology subreddits and keep up on the news. Like how England is making gasoline from the air, or algae that produce oil in hours that used to take millions of years through decay. There is a lot going on out there.

This is more of a response to "trump any military the world could muster." The US airforce could be useless but allies could set up bases in Canada, Mexico, or other Central American countries. Eliminating the problem of fuel.

So, we've entirely driven them out of the US at this point. This means that were now on the defense. Assuming we've gotten this far, many enemies of the US , from Iran to North Korea would gladly sell weapons to a rebellion, maybe even lend troops. In case you haven't noticed, the US has pissed off a lot of people.

Have you seen Iran or North Korea's economy? They are in no position to send troops. As far as weapons I don't think any attempt would be possible. Any shipments of weapons powerful enough to successfully resist a United Nations coalition force would be stopped. Russia is one of the few countries that might be able to supply arms and troops. It is interesting because the politicians and people of the US south are the ones who refuse to negotiate with the countries that would oppose the US government. It's such a weird situation almost impossible to predict an outcome. I think it's an interesting topic and in my opinion the most likely cause of a possible world war 3.

The argument that Americans with small arms couldnt resist a conventional military is easy to destroy. What have Al Queso and the Taliban been doing these past 11 years? And theyre extremely uneducated and untrained.

Forgot China. They make everything else for us already, might as well supply us with guns, too.

According to this study, I was slightly wrong. 89/100 Americans own guns, the most heavily armed nation in the world; 270,000,000+ firearms. In the famous words of Ice T: "...so suck a dick!"

The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in the United States is 101.052 firearms per 100 people. In the United States, the number of rifles in civilian possession is reported to be 110,000,000. In the United States, the number of shotguns in civilian possession is reported to be 86,000,000. There are reportedly 114,000,000 handguns in civilian possession in the United States. The defence forces of the United States are reported to have 2,700,000 firearms. Police in the United States are reported to have 1,150,000 firearms.

To date, 93/100 Americans own firearms

93 guns to 100 Americans, but only about a 50% (claimed) ownership rate.

Still a lot, just wanted to ensure that you are using correct information when discussing firearms, fellow ex-southern-kalifornian.

Nothing worse than a viscous fight.

I'd say showing up to one with your hands down your pants would be worse.

True.

The 2nd amendment is partly responsible for why America was not invaded suring the second world war.

When the Emperor was questioned by his generals as to why they were not going to invade he answered "because there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass"

Even a country as big as China would.be crazy to try and land troops in America.

That quote was attributed to Yamamoto. And there is not proof he actually said it. Source

A slippery fight? Sounds kinda sexy!

If your society is so deep in the toilet that you need to worry about carrying a gun, you have bigger problems.

Strict gun laws in Canada, yet my grandma is safe. Why? Because I don't live in a shithole. Fix the root cause of the problem - poverty and inequality. Try some social services on for size. Don't need to rob grandma cause there's food, healthcare, jobs, etc.

Arming yourselves to the teeth might help, don't get me wrong.. But it fails to address the root cause of why people need to arm themselves in the first place.

As an individual, I have no control over the country as a whole. I wish we could live in a world that poverty and inequality didn't exist, but I can't change it.

So what CAN I do? I can protect myself, and that means carrying a firearm, being aware of my surroundings, and avoiding potential violent situations as much as possible.

As an individual, I have no control over the country as a whole.

well that's just factually wrong. guns are the lazy man's excuse to avoid real political participation.

Voting in America is a fucking joke. The system is rigged, and a vote does just as much good in a ballot box as it does in a trash can.

The media is bought and paid for by special interests and corporations. Even if you can untangle the cluttered mess of confusion and misinformation they leave in their wake and come to a decision about what needs to be done, you still can't do shit about it. See above.

Protests accomplish precisely nothing. From the recent "Occupy" movement to the protests of the Vietnam War, they haven't done shit to change anything for decades. Absolutely useless.

About the only thing in this country that is more useless than voting & protesting is that silly website for creating petitions.

Voting = waste of time

Petitions = waste of time

Protests = waste of time

Hate to burst your bubble, but "real political participation" does not exist in America. It is the ignorant man's placebo.

Personally, I'd much rather own a gun than participate in the illusion of democracy that is American government. At least I know the gun is real.

Protests accomplish precisely nothing.

that's because everyone is too scared to risk arrest. have some guts, and protests won't fail.

this is exactly what i'm talking about- people try exactly zero things, then act like they have no other option than to do what they always wanted to do from the beginning.

having a gun allows people to feel like they're helping, when they're really too spineless/out of shape/untrained to be useful in a military rebellion. so we end up with the worst of both worlds in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

so go ahead, tough guy. you claim our democracy is rigged. so start shooting. walk the walk.

lazy man's excuse to avoid real political participation

Implying getting into politics is not the laziest and least effectual method of change there is.

i didn't imply it, i said it outright. the laziest possible form of political participation is buying a gun and taking zero other risks, all the while pretending like one will be a hypothetical general in the imaginary rebel army that they will never live to see. fuck that.

[deleted]

I was attacked by a homeless guy in Toronto.

How many guns did he have?

Don't act like there aren't any crazy people in Canada, no home invasions, no carjackings, no rape, no robbery.

Of course there are. How many people are murdered with guns during these events, more or less than in America?

According to crime stats, 1 in 480 people in Toronto will be robbed this year, there are ~600 people on r/conspiracy right now. Do the math.

According to toothpaste, 4/5 dentists agree it's the cats ass. There are ~100 dentists in my area. Do the math.

Seriously though, I don't follow your logic. Do the math for us and enlighten us.

And One of every 17 Canadian women is raped at some point in her life.

How many at gun-point? How many rape/gun murder?

I agree that America has more shit holes than Canada, but to say that you don't need to worry about a thing since you live there is naive.

There's lots to worry about, thank goodness guns aren't one of them!

So, wait.. A gun will make these shitty occurrences better?

Ok so if someone attacks you, wouldn't you want protection? Wouldn't you want some way of defending yourself. You don't think carrying a gun would have stopped the attack?

Frankly, it's not about me using a gun but other people. I don't know who's hiding a weapon and I don't know what they're going to do with it. When someone has a gun I have to assume they will use it on me. The less people with guns, the better my life.

I do understand you. People like you and I obey the laws, so if guns were illegal, we wouldn't have them. But criminals don't obey the laws anyways and they will have guns. So by banning guns, the only thing you can count on is less GOOD people with guns, and that, trust me, will not make your life better.

They'll prevent them. We just had 2 cases in one day where 2 armed citizens presented their guns and the armed robbers ran off. They weren't armed with pizza slicers, they had guns themselves.

So, what happens when they don't run away?

You shoot them if they threaten you or others. Pretty simple responsible gun ownership. http://theuspatriot.com/2013/12/10/93-year-old-kills-knock-out-game-thug/ "A homeless man who witnessed the attack told reporters that Bennett acted like a superhero. “I saw her get sucker punched from behind really hard. She hit the ground and then they all started kicking her. She got this huge gun out of her purse and BOOM! Headshot! Game over son, you know what I’m saying? Poor n*gga never had a chance.” Respond to deadly force with deadly force.

I was attacked by a homeless guy in Toronto.

so your solution is to execute the mentally ill? how are guns a solution to mental illness?

1 in 480 people in Toronto will be robbed this year

you conveniently omitted the relative gun-related death rates. i'd rather be robbed twice in canada than shot to death once in the US.

[deleted]

...which was?

The root cause is societal. The problem is that guns are under attack.

That said, nobody needs to worry about using a gun. Most people that have one never NEED to use it, or even worry that they do.

Personally, I would rather just have it and not need it, then need it and not have it. Shit happens, even in "safe" areas.

The price you pay for guns everywhere for anyone is that even bad guys get guns. You acknowledge most honest gun owners never need to user theirs as a weapon. Why arm all the bad guys then? Wouldn't it be a lot simpler not to have so many guns around, for the bad guys who want them, and the honest guys who never need them anyhow?

Yes but when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

I know people who have illegal knives, brass knuckles, and all other sorts of shit. It's not difficult to get illegal items if you want them. Gangs and organized crime have incentives for guns, you damn sure know they'll have them whether it's legal or not. Criminals will make sure that they are armed, so why should we have a law which would disarm those honest enough to comply?

Not true. A fully automatic AK-47 is available in the United States on the black market for $500. Tell me how a gun that is completely illegal in every state in the United States is readily available for bad guys because good guys aren't allowed to own one or even import it into the country? The gun laws we are implementing do nothing to disarm criminals and everything to disarm responsible citizens.

They exist for the bad guys regardless.

They can be manufactured at home, which a recent bust showed a crude firearms manufacturing ring in canada.

They can remain in circulation in the black market, which the fact that australia and england still have a way of purchasing them for seedy individuals proves.

And then you have the problem of the fact that the bad guy can be bigger and stronger than you, so why would you disarm the innocent other than to believe that the innocent are criminals and cannot be trusted by the state?

Who causes the poverty?

The bankers that pay-roll the government might be a place to begin inquiry.

Those banker-bought politicians are the ones who give us our shitty social services.

I'd like to see the people in charge banished to an island.

That would go a lot futher than the same social services line we've been getting for decades.

I'd link to that excellent video that recently went viral that illustrated the wealth gaps within society, but I can't recall it's name. Chances are most reading this sub have seen it.

Sometimes I have a hard time knowing that the wealthy could buy and entire cities.

And yet they are only able to do this because we agree that they have power.

What would happen if we simply no longer agreed that they were more powerful than us?

I think those popularizing that opinion would find themselves 6 feet deep.

We work their machines. We up-date their software systems. We make the buildings. We mow their lawns. We open their stores. We file their paperwork. We cook their food. We literally feed these people. The only thing the population needs to do is take a good long look at the situation. No shots fired. No voices raised. All we'd have to do is shift our thinking and stop bowing to them. No violence. No destruction.

Even the people they'd send after us would be bought mercenaries.

They're helpless without us to do their work.

They only have as much power as we agree that they have.

Not sure if you know or not, but this is Marxist rhetoric...

No, I was not aware. I'll look further into that, thanks.

And there are only 30 million people in Canada.......

http://imgur.com/NV7AeZx

And Canada with the win.

This couldn't be any more right. I fully agree with you and am astonished at how naive people can be when it comes to actually thinking through why it's not a good idea to have them banned. Besides all this, guns are the only thing holding the dictators at power from fully controlling OUR country.

guns are the only thing holding the dictators at power from fully controlling OUR country.

Really. The trillion dollar war machine that is the Government of the United states is held in check by the public with guns...?

yes. read a fucking history book.

They don't have full support from our military and do you realize how many guns the citizens have? Every single family in my county owns about 1-20 each and some of which are not little.

An armed society is a polite society. Look at Switzerland. You MUST own a gun there if you are a citizen.

Do a little research on that. ;)

Iceland as well. Israel too.

i wish i could live my life in one big mexican standoff. i would be so happy.

Don't we all. :(

I like your hyperbole! It really makes your argument seem logical.

It isn't so much a permanent mexican standoff as it is putting everyone on equal ground, because as much as we like to think otherwise, we're really just a bunch of high functioning monkeys who still have territorial and competitive instincts. Guns happen to be a nice tool that levels the natural playing field for the less genetically advantaged.

Guns happen to be a nice tool that levels the natural playing field for the less genetically advantaged.

nukes level the playing field too. do you think people have the right to use nukes in personal self-defense? if not, what makes nukes fundamentally different from guns? not quantitatively different (i.e. they are more effective weapons), but qualitatively different. anything?

Your question is so hyperbolic and stupid that I don't know how I can actually answer it.

Why would you be using a mass-casualty weapon designed as part of a strategy meant to wipe out the entire human race as retaliation for a similar attack to defend yourself against one person? The fact that you feel like you need to jump from gun to nuke to prove your point shows just how little of the debate you actually understand.

You're right. Congratulations. You set your question up in such a way that I can only answer by agreeing with you. Pat yourself on the back for being so clever, because you're right. Both are weapons designed to threaten, injure, and kill.

The point you're choosing to ignore is that the situations where each would be used are vastly different. Using a gun to protect yourself from a home invader is not the same thing as pushing the red button and ending the world. It's kind of disgusting that you think equating the two is some kind of brilliant argumentative point. One weapon will indiscriminately kill millions of non combatants in an instant and afflict millions more with radiation poisoning. The other one contains an explosion to launch a projectile at a target to wound or kill one thing, depending on where it lands.

Most people who have a gun for self defense never end up needing to actually use it, and that's a good thing. Taking another life is never good, but in the cruel calculus of the real world, if all other options have failed and it's either my own life or theirs, I'm gonna choose my life every time. So are you, idealism be damned.

That doesn't mean I lack compassion for other people and just want to indiscriminately kill others. Taking a life is a horrible thing and a last resort. It's better to have the means and training and not ever need to use then than it is to need them but not have them and wind up dead or severely injured.

You're right. Congratulations. You set your question up in such a way that I can only answer by agreeing with you. Pat yourself on the back for being so clever, because you're right. Both are weapons designed to threaten, injure, and kill.

Way to bypass the rest of my counter argument. You'll make a wonderful politician someday

thanks! :)

If all you can do is gloat over the part of my post that was written sarcastically but not address a single other thing I wrote, all it really says about you is that you have no real argument and don't actually know anything about the topic at hand.

I applaud your efforts, though. You have the art of trolling down.

Edit: after reading your comment history, it's really hard not to see you as someone with his/her head so far stuck up his/her ass with idealism that he/she doesn't understand that reality is an entirely different thing. MLK and Ghandhi were anomalies in history, not precedents. And the movements each inspired spurred on plenty of violence and death.

Honestly, I don't really see the point in arguing with you further because you're so arrogantly convinced of the heinousness of guns, something you've obviously never used before in your life and fear because of a total lack of understanding and unwillingness to challenge and test your own views. You don't understand self-defense and why some people might consider it necessary to have an advantage in a shit hits the fan situation. You don't understand human nature, evil, psychopathy, and the disregard others may have for you and your life. Nothing productive will come of any futile attempt to persuade you otherwise. Maybe you're still in high school, maybe you're still in college, maybe you're in your 40s. I don't know. But it's pretty clear to me that you've never experienced true danger from another human being in your life. And until you do, you'll never truly comprehend the reality of human nature: some of us aren't good, aren't peaceful, and only seek to assert our physical dominance by any means necessary. Those kinds of people care only for themselves.

But whatever. You don't care to understand and see reality, so good for you. Keep enjoying that freedom while you still can.

anomalies in history, not precedents

you have a very interesting definition of the word precedent. did MLK and gandhi lose their struggles? kinda tough to argue with results. tell me what anomalous circumstances existed that make their tactics otherwise ineffective. what were they able to do that you aren't?

And the movements each inspired spurred on plenty of violence and death.

[citation needed]

something you've obviously never used before...

spooky psychic powers!

You don't understand self-defense and why some people might consider it necessary to have an advantage

i do understand. your ego fears death and makes you willing to kill others. it's also what keeps you up at night worried about having to kill the people you really should be working to help. drug addicts and the mentally ill need help, not to be murdered.

Maybe you're still in high school, maybe you're still in college, maybe you're in your 40s. I don't know.

then why mention it?

you've never experienced true danger

then where did i find this?

http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/spd/provtools/ois/owners-manual.pdf

You don't understand human nature, evil, psychopathy

lol k buying a gun makes one a philosopher. got it. what did you write your neurocriminology doctoral thesis on, may i ask?

some of us aren't good

[citation needed]

your moral absolutism is the result of sheer ignorance of human development. what is the mechanism behind "evil"? there fucking isn't one. it's a meaningless word. you just don't know any more scientifically valid definition. if you did, you wouldn't promote shooting your patients for having a disease affecting the brain. psychopathy, sadism, poor impulse control, these all have biological underpinnings. but instead of studying them to prevent crime, you propose that we spend a couple decades feeding and educating sick people before they fuck up and you blow them away. nice plan.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323335404578444682892520530

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121093343.htm

srsly, get past the antiquated idea of "evil". it makes people use bronze age solutions to information age problems.

Holy shit. I don't know why I'm still doing this. I'm wasting precious vacation time and I only have my phone. My stubbornness and obstinance win again.>>anomalies in history, not precedents

you have a very interesting definition of the word precedent. did MLK and gandhi lose their struggles? kinda tough to argue with results. tell me what anomalous circumstances existed that make their tactics otherwise ineffective. what were they able to do that you aren't?

They didn't lose, no. But you will be pretty hard-pressed to find many more historical examples of purely peaceful revolutions totally working out. Look at how the Arab spring turned out for your most recent historical example.

And the movements each inspired spurred on plenty of violence and death.

[citation needed]

Well, given that I don't wanna spend a whole lot of time on finding everything...ever heard of the Black Panthers?

something you've obviously never used before...

spooky psychic powers!

I stand by my point. You've never held or operated a firearm. Prove me wrong.

You don't understand self-defense and why some people might consider it necessary to have an advantage

i do understand. your ego fears death and makes you willing to kill others. it's also what keeps you up at night worried about having to kill the people you really should be working to help. drug addicts and the mentally ill need help, not to be murdered.

Now, whether you've intentionally misunderstood me or not, I don't know. I've never said anything about fantasizing about killing people. Killing in self defense is a last resort when all other options have failed. If you're at that point, whoever your up against has made it up I their mind to kill you. Hell, I agree with you that addicts and the mentally ill need help. The mental health system is the biggest joke in our complete joke of a health system in the US. I also feel very strongly that we need to be working to eradicate poverty and giving more people opportunities to learn job skills and have viable alternatives to crime. I don't think a street hood breaking in to your my deserves death, and that kind of person is likely to run away anyways if they see you as a threat.

Maybe your spiritual/religious views entail an afterlife. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any of that. So yeah, I'd rather keep on living.

Maybe you're still in high school, maybe you're still in college, maybe you're in your 40s. I don't know.

then why mention it?

I dunno, because your seem kind of devoid of real life experience but could be one of those people who clings to ideals their whole life

you've never experienced true danger

then where did i find this?

http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/spd/provtools/ois/owners-manual.pdf

Thanks for omitting the part where I mentioned other people. And I can't load the pdf on my phone, sorry.

You don't understand human nature, evil, psychopathy

lol k buying a gun makes one a philosopher. got it. what did you write your neurocriminology doctoral thesis on, may i ask?

Probably on the same topic you wrote yours on.

some of us aren't good

[citation needed]

Well, let's see. We're on r/conspiracy. Would you call any of the people attempting to enslave us with debt, blind us from the truth, and brainwash us into pacification "good?"

your moral absolutism is the result of sheer ignorance of human development. what is the mechanism behind "evil"? there fucking isn't one. it's a meaningless word. you just don't know any more scientifically valid definition. if you did, you wouldn't promote shooting your patients for having a disease affecting the brain. psychopathy, sadism, poor impulse control, these all have biological underpinnings. but instead of studying them to prevent crime, you propose that we spend a couple decades feeding and educating sick people before they fuck up and you blow them away. nice plan.

Fuck up on my part for using an absolute term like evil.

Your problem is your idealism. You sincerely believe that every person with these diseases can be cured, or even want to be cured. That the rare kind of person that gets gratification from repeatedly and remorseless ly killing and torturing and abusing other people actually will somehow give all that up.

The caveat I have been including in almost every one of my posts in this thread is that taking life is a serious last resort not to be taken lightly. It only should happen after every other alternative has failed. The implication is that these circumstances are very rare, and, likewise, the offenders on these circumstances are very rare as well.

If a murderous psychopath breaks into your house and corners you and tries to stab you to death, all your empathy and desire to rehabilitate them aren't gonna stop you from getting killed. I don't know, maybe you believe in an afterlife and dying isn't that big a deal to you. But for me, death is final and I'd much prefer to survive and live on.

I don't know why you like putting all these words in my mouth...I never proposed killing off mental ill people when they fuck up. Like I said before, I agree with you. We need better systems to treat the mentally ill, and we need to change our culture to be better at legitimizing mental illness without stigmatizing it. We need to work on reducing poverty and providing a comprehensive enough system of education where a maximum of people can gain job skills in a huge variety of fields. We need to change our penal system to make it more about rehabilitation and eliminate needles punishment.

All these things are likely to be impossible to bring about because of firmly entrenched financial interests, but that's an entirely different debate.

The point is, all of these things are not going to fix and rehab all the people who will indiscriminately take lives, and/or derive pleasure from it. It's not going to stop abuse, murder, and unfairness. Until we can find a way to completely detach our primal natures and breed away psychopathic tendencies and perfectly empathize one with another, peace and non-violence are impossible. Violence will always be a constant.

srsly, get past the antiquated idea of "evil". it makes people use bronze age solutions to information age problems.

You're right. Evil was a bad term to use. But these problems are of a far deeper and longer-term scope than just the information age.

you will be pretty hard-pressed to find many more historical examples of purely peaceful revolutions totally working out.

not really. it's moving the goalposts to demand "purely peaceful" revolutions that "totally work out", since we only need to do better than a civil war. which isn't hard to do. if anything, military conflict is now the anomaly considering how often power transitions occur peacefully around the world. also, you forgot to tell me what anomalous circumstances existed that make MLK/gandhi's tactics otherwise ineffective. what were they able to do that you aren't? did gandhi and MLK misunderstand human nature, or did they succeed?

ever heard of the Black Panthers?

what do the black panthers have to do with pacifism?

You've never held or operated a firearm. Prove me wrong.

burden of proof isn't on me. you enjoy raping puppies to death, prove me wrong.

Killing in self defense is a last resort when all other options have failed.

and yet here we are talking at length about your "last" resort, when you STILL haven't told me what you're doing as a first resort! how many fire extinguishers do you have in your house? are you a vegetarian? because fires and heart disease kill more people than street violence. your comment history doesn't reflect either of those topics. it seems almost as if guns are some kind of...fetish. perhaps a phallic stand-in for those who feel small and weak?

Would you call any of the people attempting to enslave us with debt, blind us from the truth, and brainwash us into pacification "good?"

i would call them ignorant, or possibly pathological. good and evil are pretend. are tigers evil because they eat people? are doctors good because they allow us to further overpopulate the planet? these words are meaningless and antiquated.

You sincerely believe that every person with these diseases can be cured

so it's either cure everyone of everything this instant, or a firearm free-for-all? read the pdf i linked for more information.

That the rare kind of person that gets gratification from repeatedly and remorseless ly killing and torturing and abusing other people actually will somehow give all that up.

i agree, they are quite rare. rare enough perhaps, that we could somehow sequester them safely away from society? rare enough perhaps, that maybe it isn't a good idea to have a deadly weapon in every house to protect against something pretty far down on the list of common causes of death? we don't have a defibrillator in every home.

It only should happen after every other alternative has failed.

and i've said in every post, with the money and energy you waste on weapons to hurt others, you could improve your community and never need to kill anyone in the first place! investing in violence is a self-fulfilling prophecy that ensures a continuing spiral of violence. when all you bought is a gun, all your problems start to look like "evil madmen" that can't otherwise be helped and just have to be murdered.

If a murderous psychopath breaks into your house and corners you and tries to stab you to death, all your empathy and desire to rehabilitate them aren't gonna stop you from getting killed.

since i'm not crippled by fear, shit like that doesn't even enter my mind. your doors and windows have locks. plant some rose bushes under your windows, get a big dog, and grow a pair. life isn't as scary as you fantasize that it is.

I never proposed killing off mental ill people when they fuck up

what's your gun for then?

All these things are likely to be impossible to bring about because of firmly entrenched financial interests, but that's an entirely different debate.

you're willing to buy a gun as a "last" resort, but how many times have you been arrested in protest of these root causes of violence? zero times?

We need to work on reducing poverty and providing a comprehensive enough system of education where a maximum of people can gain job skills

what if i told you that not everyone needs to work in order to provide enough for everyone. would that blow your capitalist mind?

It's not going to stop abuse, murder, and unfairness.

guns only add to these problems. instead of one robbery you get a murder and possibly some injured bystanders.

Until we can find a way to completely detach our primal natures and breed away psychopathic tendencies and perfectly empathize one with another, peace and non-violence are impossible.

how did gandhi manage it then?

Violence will always be a constant.

there you go again with that telepathy, just looking into eternity and reporting back that everything in the future will stay the way it is now, forever and ever. just the way you like it. so convenient!

But these problems are of a far deeper and longer-term scope than just the information age.

the solution to brain disorders that result in violent behavior is not shooting bullets through the brains. of the patients who suffer from the disorders.

not really. it's moving the goalposts to demand "purely peaceful" revolutions that "totally work out", since we only need to do better than a civil war. which isn't hard to do. if anything, military conflict is now the anomaly considering how often power transitions occur peacefully around the world. also, you forgot to tell me what anomalous circumstances existed that make MLK/gandhi's tactics otherwise ineffective. what were they able to do that you aren't? did gandhi and MLK misunderstand human nature, or did they succeed?

If it's not so hard to do, why is Syria destroying itself right now?

You could probably write volumes on each topic, but international attention focused on a weakening imperial power/growing world power played a large role in influencing the powers in charge to allow circumstances to peacefully develop, instead of violently suppressing them as powers-that-be are wont to do

what do the black panthers have to do with pacifism? Absolutely nothing, which is my point.

burden of proof isn't on me. you enjoy raping puppies to death, prove me wrong.

Instead of hiding behind a logical fallacy accusation, I'll give you a straight answer. I love puppies and have Chihuahua that's totally adorable and I could never imagine causing her or any other dog harm.

I accuse you of whati do because you're continually convincing me that you're one of those people who wants guns gone but has never operated one before. How can you be so opposed to something you don't even understand?

and yet here we are talking at length about your "last" resort, when you STILL haven't told me what you're doing as a first resort! how many fire extinguishers do you have in your house? are you a vegetarian? because fires and heart disease kill more people than street violence. your comment history doesn't reflect either of those topics. it seems almost as if guns are some kind of...fetish. perhaps a phallic stand-in for those who feel small and weak?

Why do you need such a detailed description of what should be logically deductible? It shouldn't be that hard to infer that you try as hard as you can, multiple times, to verbally and then physically get the conflict to de-escalate.

About all those other things...I have fire extinguishers in my house. I like being prepared. And if fires and heart disease are deadlier than street violence, doesn't that work against your argument that firearms are evil and unnecessary? If most owners are able to responsibly enjoy shooting, why punish them for it?

i would call them ignorant, or possibly pathological. good and evil are pretend. are tigers evil because they eat people? are doctors good because they allow us to further overpopulate the planet? these words are meaningless and antiquated.

Heh...it's so simple it's kind of adorable.

How can you even categorize it as something to rebel against if you don't find it to be heinous?

so it's either cure everyone of everything this instant, or a firearm free-for-all? read the pdf i linked for more information.

We already have plenty of laws preventing a firearm free-for-all. Realistically, we have no possible way of eliminating genetic mental disease until we achieve a singularity. In creating this false dichotomy you weaken your argument.

i agree, they are quite rare. rare enough perhaps, that we could somehow sequester them safely away from society? rare enough perhaps, that maybe it isn't a good idea to have a deadly weapon in every house to protect against something pretty far down on the list of common causes of death? we don't have a defibrillator in every home.

That begs the question, though, how are you going to get them to willingly participate?

Note that I've never once argued for putting a firearm in every house. It's one of those things that comes down to personal choice.

And hell, I'll play along. We should have a defibrillator in every home. It should be part of a standard first-aid kit.

and i've said in every post, with the money and energy you waste on weapons to hurt others, you could improve your community and never need to kill anyone in the first place! investing in violence is a self-fulfilling prophecy that ensures a continuing spiral of violence. when all you bought is a gun, all your problems start to look like "evil madmen" that can't otherwise be helped and just have to be murdered.

Not really. Both things are possible, as much as I know that idea breaks your mind.

And I don't really see all my problems as "evil madmen" that need to be murdered. I thought I'd made that pretty clear.

I know it's hard for you to wrap your mind around, but it is, in fact, possible to have a nuanced view of the topic and handle each situation as an individual case. I mean, I know I'm just an ignorant simpleton with a phallic obsession and no balls, and that's why I'm really surprised that a person as intellectually mature and intelligent like you wouldn't be able to see that.

since i'm not crippled by fear, shit like that doesn't even enter my mind. your doors and windows have locks. plant some rose bushes under your windows, get a big dog, and grow a pair. life isn't as scary as you fantasize that it is.

Wanting to be prepared is different than constantly living in fear. By your logic, locks and dogs are also measures taken by a person living in fear. But I'm happy that your balls are so gigantic that they ward off home invaders. It must be nice being so tough.

what's your gun for then?

Protecting myself in the hopefully rare but still possible chance that someone wants me dead.

Also, shooting is a pretty fun hobby and I enjoy it when I can.

you're willing to buy a gun as a "last" resort, but how many times have you been arrested in protest of these root causes of violence? zero times?

How is that a measure of my devotion to "the cause?" Sorry, I don't know if you've been paying attention to how fucked up our justice system is, but I'd rather not lose my security clearance and means of providing for my family. My wife has already been fucked over by it and won't really be able to make up for my lack of income.

what if i told you that not everyone needs to work in order to provide enough for everyone. would that blow your capitalist mind?

Funny, because if you'd actually read my comment history, you'd have seen that I'm neither a big fan of capitalism nor money. My comment was supposed to be a proposed solution taking place in the current system we're stuck with.

Your arrogance is kind of endearing, really. It's almost like you prove stereotypes true.

guns only add to these problems. instead of one robbery you get a murder and possibly some injured bystanders.

Self-defense isn't murder. And something went seriously wrong in that situation if a shot was actually fired.

how did gandhi manage it then?

How come George Washington, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, and Cyrus the Great couldn't? That list could go on for days. One man achieving that means nothing for the rest of the human race

there you go again with that telepathy, just looking into eternity and reporting back that everything in the future will stay the way it is now, forever and ever. just the way you like it. so convenient!

Well, at least my telepathy is grounded in realism. Yours prophecys the entire human race hurdling the barriers of race, religion, culture, and greed and all becoming Gandhi. Joe Haldeman already wrote a really good novel about that, but it was still science fiction.

the solution to brain disorders that result in violent behavior is not shooting bullets through the brains. of the patients who suffer from the disorders.

Again, I never proposed that as my solution and in fact agreed with you that treatment is the best course of prevention, so I don't know what you're trying to argue here.

Self defense isn't a solution to a problem. It's a means of self preservation.

If it's not so hard to do, why is Syria destroying itself right now?

who said it wasn't hard? i said it's not hard to do better than slaughtering people as a solution to problems. we can do better. maybe if the US didn't arm al qaeda and instead actually supported non-violent people?

you keep forgetting to address these questions, so i'll put them in bold for you:

what anomalous circumstances existed that make MLK/gandhi's tactics effective in their cases but ineffective for the rest of us? what were they able to do that you aren't? did gandhi and MLK misunderstand human nature, or did they succeed?

now this one you'll definitely have to explain to me:

what do the black panthers have to do with pacifism? Absolutely nothing, which is my point.

we're talking about pacifism. you brought up non-pacifists, and somehow them having nothing to do with pacifism... is the point?

you're continually convincing me that you're one of those people who wants guns gone but has never operated one before.

you're reaching here. i won't tell you what my history with weapons is, because it's not relevant. you've never raped a child, does that mean you're not qualified to have an opinion on the subject? think about these things before you say them.

I like being prepared.

how many automatic external defibrillators have you purchased to prepare yourself for the number one cause of death among americans? my point is that people have a gun fetish where they imagine that guns are much more important and useful than they actually are. you'll alienate those around you, injure and kill people accidentally, and continue the cycle of violence just to make sure you can keep your toy that doesn't even prevent anything in the top ten causes of death. my weapon of choice is pandemic flu virus, but you have no problem infringing on my right to bear weaponized flu. what's up with that, huh?

We should have a defibrillator in every home.

tell that to the NRA. i resent that so much of our political energy is spent debating something that are at best toys and at worst a bane on humanity. we need bullet trains, not extended mags.

It must be nice being so tough.

know what the best part is? YOU can be tough too! :) get to know your neighbors and form a night watch. help those in need. make your community better and that fear that currently cripples you will fade like a nightmare at daybreak.

I'd rather not lose my security clearance

yep, you are willing to take zero political risk, but more than happy to put the rest of us in danger. a real team player, you are. every day you let this country be awash in weapons without the benefit of revolution is one more day that kids are shot in the ghetto for nothing. and you won't even get arrested for fear of losing your government job! that's so fucking rich.

the current system we're stuck with.

i thought your plan was to save us all by starting a civil war? did you chicken out? fyi, that will probably make you lose your security clearance too.

Self-defense isn't murder.

i already cited sources to support the idea that "self-defense" is just the mental health strategy of murdering the mentally ill. we know they're sick. we have the resources to help them. you can't claim that you have no choice than to murder people for their brain pathologies.

How come George Washington, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, and Cyrus the Great couldn't?

because they didn't practice non-violence.

One man achieving that

you realize both MLK and gandhi had millions of followers right?

grounded in realism.

were the successes of gandhi and MLK fictional?

the entire human race hurdling the barriers of race, religion, culture, and greed and all becoming Gandhi.

that would be a great start. or we could just keep punching holes through each other over TVs and patches of dirt until the sun explodes. how long do you expect the human race to survive, anyway? 100 years? 100,000 years? after a hundred thousand years of human civilization, do you think we'll still be stabbing projectiles through the mentally ill? will there be mental illness and poverty after that many years?

I never proposed that as my solution

yes you did. you've repeatedly claimed that mentally ill people are trying to break into your house and murder you. your solution to their mental illness is to kill them and traumatize their families.

Self defense isn't a solution to a problem.

we're not talking about self-defense vs. no self-defense. we're talking about murdering people to solve problems vs. finding better solutions.

who said it wasn't hard?...maybe if the US didn't arm al qaeda...

Yeah, go ahead and tell that to someone firmly entrenched in an authoritarian power system. I'm sure they'll listen to your idea.

Strangely, though, I agree with your second point. We need to get the fuck out of that kind of business.

**what anomalous circumstances existed that make MLK/gandhi's tactics effective in their cases but ineffective for the rest of us?...

They only succeeded because they reached a critical enough mass of people that they could avoid brutal suppression at the hands of the state. They had further assistance by being populist movements. Again, they are part of a small minority of historical examples that actually achieved a populist revolution without needing to escalate to violence. They're an anomaly because nowadays the state run media has enough clout to fizzle out a peaceful movement before it can reach a critical mass. Look at what happened with OWS. It accomplished nothing and was doomed by the media. That's our reality now.

now this one you'll definitely have to explain to me:

what do the black panthers have to do with pacifism? Absolutely nothing, which is my point.

Yes, but they were spurred on by a pacifist movement. My point was that even pacifist movements can inspire violence

you're reaching here. i won't tell you what my history with weapons is, because it's not relevant. you've never raped a child, does that mean you're not qualified to have an opinion on the subject? think about these things before you say them.

More like non-existent. If you want to interfere with my legal right to own and use firearms, it would at least do you some good to educate and experience what it is you're trying so hard to be smarter than me about. Unless you're afraid it still somehow change your mind...

That's the point I'm getting at. There's no constitutionally guaranteed right to rape a child. There's no legal way to be able to do so, no legal protection. There's also no legal right to premeditate the murder of another person, or to break into their homes. You don't have to experience such a thing or participate in it to want to make sure it stays illegal.

But rather than disagree with me and yet allow people like me to continue in doing something that was important enough to the framers of the constitution to put in the bill of rights, you'd like to take it away. And you're doing it without basing your opinion on any kind of experience and actual knowledge, only fear. I wouldn't exactly call that an intellectually responsible way of forming a policy. It's about on the same level as legislators in Utah placing asinine restrictions on alcohol because none of them drink and none of them understand how intoxication actually works.

my point is that people have a gun fetish where they imagine that guns are much more important and useful than they actually are. you'll alienate those around you, injure and kill people accidentally, and continue the cycle of violence just to make sure you can keep your toy that doesn't even prevent anything in the top ten causes of death. my weapon of choice is pandemic flu virus, but you have no problem infringing on my right to bear weaponized flu. what's up with that, huh?

Yeah, because your weapon is a weapon of mass destruction meant to take as many lives as possible as indiscriminately as possible. There's no self-defense in mass murder. It's really not that hard, but apparently Nuance is a foreign concept to you and black and white are the only colors you are currently capable of seeing.

I picture you as an indignant 20-something college kid, because your thinking is incredibly dichotomized and condescending and it reminds me of how I was at that age.

If you're older than that, though...God help you, man. You need to get some life experience or something. Eventually you learn to see shades of grey and potentially even become able of continually challenging and modifying your opinions based on new evidence and experience.

And if your wondering why I haven't changed my mind and accepted your obviously superior way of thinking, it's because your side's arguments are horrible, hyperbolic, and contain no real knowledge on the subject, nor any kind of view grounded in reality.

I have a few guns and literally none of those things you talked about have ever happened. We fear what we don't understand, and you clearly don't understand firearms or the ouwnership of them. That's why I keep accusing you of what I do, and that's why your refusal to give me a real answer keeps telling me I'm right in my assumptions.

We should have a defibrillator in every home.

tell that to the NRA. i resent that so much of our political energy is spent debating something that are at best toys and at worst a bane on humanity. we need bullet trains, not extended mags.

Yeah, I rode the bullet train in Japan a while back and it was fucking awesome. Something like that here would be revolutionary. And I'll give you props for using correct nomenclature. Most people say "ammo clips." I almost have a percentage of a shred of respect for your opinion now.

Hell, I like finding common ground when I can and I'll throw you a bone here. I agree that one of the more disgusting things about our currently military-industrial complex dominated political system is the complete misallocation of finance and resources to things that aren't as important as things like improving education and infrastructure and human rights and health care.

But I'm sorry, I'm not going to budge on giving up ANY ground on any of my conditional rights. Whatever gets given away is gone forever and won't be coming back.

go ahead and tell that to someone firmly entrenched in an authoritarian power system. I'm sure they'll listen to your idea.

you mean someone like gandhi?

go ahead and tell that to someone firmly entrenched in an authoritarian power system. I'm sure they'll listen to your idea.

you mean someone like gandhi?

I don't really see a movement like his succeeding against a guy like Josef Stalin or Basher al-Assad.

I don't really see a movement like his succeeding

that's a nice unsupported opinion ya got there.

I don't really see a movement like his succeeding

that's a nice unsupported opinion ya got there.

It's got about the same support as your opinion that all these movements could be non-violent and find success. Just sayin'

about the same support as your opinion that all these movements could be non-violent

gandhi proved it. MLK confirmed it. how many more times will it take before you believe it's possible?

know what the best part is? YOU can be tough too! :) get to know your neighbors and form a night watch. help those in need. make your community better and that fear that currently cripples you will fade like a nightmare at daybreak.

I can do all of those things and still keep my guns and my self-defense training. They aren't somehow mutually exclusive, and I don't actually live in a crippling fear, despite you somehow knowing what's best for me.

I really don't get why that's so hard for you to understand. Again, I think Nuance is somehow lost on you and you live in a world defined by dualism. I find it ironic that you reject "antiquated notions of good and evil" yet somehow continue on with a very dichotomized view of morality. I'm also impressed that you haven't used "bad" or "evil" in regards to firearms and their owners, despite some clearly obvious indications of your true feelings.

yep, you are willing to take zero political risk, but more than happy to put the rest of us in danger. a real team player, you are. every day you let this country be awash in weapons without the benefit of revolution is one more day that kids are shot in the ghetto for nothing. and you won't even get arrested for fear of losing your government job! that's so fucking rich.

Oh man, that was so dramatic that I almost shed a tear. You still treat every firearm and owner like some sort of baby killing fear machine that sweeps through the country, reaping souls like a combine harvester.

It's okay, though. You're either young and dumb or just dumb, but you'll grow out of it eventually ;)

Didn't you yourself say that gun violence isn't even in the top ten leading causes of death in America? If that's the case, why are you still thinking the way you do? Why do you care so much that they're around, and why aren't you focusing more on heart disease and cancer?

Tell me, what do YOU actually do? Do you get arrested for protesting? Do you put your livelihood on the line all the time?

It must be nice playing armchair activist without any dependents.

i thought your plan was to save us all by starting a civil war? did you chicken out? fyi, that will probably make you lose your security clearance too.

How was that ever my plan?

See, the more exaggerate my views and create my arguments for me, the more you convince me that you don't have the maturity or intellectual capacity to function in a pluralistic society that grants a modest amount of freedom to people to choose opinions and courses of life that differ widely from one another.

My problem with you and people of your ilk isn't really that you disagree with me and what I like to do. Go for it, it's within your rights. Debating is a fun way of refining one's opinions if it's done correctly.

My real problem is that because you disagree with me, you want to restrict my rights and my freedom to make my own choices. You're no better than the people who want to stop the LGBT community from getting married. In both cases, you're trying to stop other people from living their lives as they choose, and you decide to see us as a danger instead. You deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent us and somehow think that you're better. It boggles my mind

i already cited sources to support the idea that "self-defense" is just the mental health strategy of murdering the mentally ill. we know they're sick. we have the resources to help them. you can't claim that you have no choice than to murder people for their brain pathologies.

How do you know that they're all sick? How is it committing murder if you're in a situation where someone is trying to murder you first? What do you propose as an alternative? Let the person go ahead and overpower and kill you because they have a problem and you should just be understanding of it? Fleeing isn't always an option, especially if it's in the confines of your own home.

The thing that I really don't get about this logic of yours is that you could apply it to someone like the BTK killer and it would imply that he deserved more sympathy than they little girls he manipulated and murdered. And that by allowing him to kill them, they did the right thing.

I don't disagree with you that we shouldn't help our mentally ill. I just know that you have no fucking clue what a manipulative, conscienceless psychopath can be capable of. Study up on some serial killers some time. You'll be in for a shocker.

How come George Washington, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, and Cyrus the Great couldn't?

because they didn't practice non-violence.

Why do you think they didn't? Would they have been successful had they practiced it?

One man achieving that

you realize both MLK and gandhi had millions of followers right?

And those followers would have done nothing without them. And those millions were still a tiny drop in our 7 billion person population.

grounded in realism.

were the successes of gandhi and MLK fictional?

No, but was the human race's inability to replicate a purely peaceful nonviolent populist revolution afterwords a fictional either?

Don't get me wrong. They're both men who had great ideals. But in pretty much every other case, there comes a time when peaceful protest fails and greater action becomes necessary.

that would be a great start....

Honestly, I'll be shocked if we collectively can pull through the next hundred years. People in general ate decent and good, but also controllable. The real people in charge have a sociopathic disdain for anything that's not money or power, and their influence on us as a whole will be what ultimately dooms us.

It's cool that you have such high hopes for us, and I'd truly love for you to be right. Like, I legitimately agree with how retarded it is that we won't stop killing over tvs and patches of dirt. But from everything I see and know, it's never gonna turn out much better barring a total miracle or something like in the book Forever Peace.

I never proposed that as my solution

yes you did. you've repeatedly claimed that mentally ill people are trying to break into your house and murder you. your solution to their mental illness is to kill them and traumatize their families.

I've never claimed they're trying to break into my house, or that they were all mentally ill. I was using hypothetical examples to illustrate my point. Apparently Nuance isn't the only thing lost on you.

And returning to the situation you proposed...what about me? If someone hypothetically (I even italicized it for you so that you can't miss it this time ;) ) got into my house and murdered me and my wife and our unborn child, what about our families and their trauma? Is that just inconsequential? I bet you didn't even think it through that far.

Unfortunately, a situation like that turns out ugly and traumatic no matter what happens. Whoever wants to live more is the only one that actually gets to see and live with the consequences. That's why I kept emphasizing how serious a thing it is.

we're not talking about self-defense vs. no self-defense. we're talking about murdering people to solve problems vs. finding better solutions.

Okay, again, killing in self defense is different from murder both legally and etymologically. And yes, there are generally better solutions. But sometimes there aren't. That's the entire crux of this debate we're having. It's about those times when every solution or option has failed and it comes down to your life or theirs.

I'm also impressed that you haven't used "bad" or "evil" in regards to firearms and their owners, despite some clearly obvious indications of your true feelings.

i don't think you're bad. just afraid, and you picked a counterproductive strategy to alleviate that fear. like an alcoholic drinking to forget the regrets they collected by drinking.

did you read the OIS owners manual i posted?

I'm also impressed that you haven't used "bad" or "evil" in regards to firearms and their owners, despite some clearly obvious indications of your true feelings.

i don't think you're bad. just afraid, and you picked a counterproductive strategy to alleviate that fear. like an alcoholic drinking to forget the regrets they collected by drinking.

did you read the OIS owners manual i posted?

See, you keep using that fear word as if I'm somehow living in a shadow of terror always. I'm not. I simply feel more confident knowing that I have the means to protect myself and my family should shit ever hit the fan. Doesn't mean I go around flashing it around or hoping to fuck someone up. Hell, I sincerely hope I will never have to use it. I also have a fire extinguisher so my house can not burn down in the event of a fire, but that doesn't mean I'm always in terror of my house burning down. I also hope that I will never have to use it.

And no, I didn't read the manual. I likely won't till I'm off my vacation.

And no, I didn't read the manual.

alright, well i'd be ok with tabling all this until you have a chance to read it. it's a proven approach to dealing with violent individuals safely without violence or punishment of any kind.

And no, I didn't read the manual.

alright, well i'd be ok with tabling all this until you have a chance to read it. it's a proven approach to dealing with violent individuals safely without violence or punishment of any kind.

Haha, I'd be okay with tabling all this anyways since it's getting exhausting

it shouldn't be exhausting, intellectual growth is invigorating! especially while enjoying a nice vacation.

srsly tho, it's important to me because it shows how effective it is to treat "evil" people as hurt children. it works! treat people with compassion, and the world is a better place. remember, your gun isn't scary to someone who hates themselves enough to be suicidal, or who is sick enough to be psychotic. we need to understand what motivates their behaviors (i'm sad/poor/crazy/abused), and address that. you can't shoot your way to a functioning society.

And no, I didn't read the manual.

alright, well i'd be ok with tabling all this until you have a chance to read it. it's a proven approach to dealing with violent individuals safely without violence or punishment of any kind.

Okay, I found a way to read it.

...and I'm not that impressed. They don't actually describe any of the techniques used in the document and I don't really know that it's "proven." Or seems designed around getting people with mental disabilities to calm down, but it says nothing about fully intelligent and functional sociopaths.

Like, I'm not disagreeing with you that there is probably some good stuff in there for resolving conflicts non-violently. But I am questioning your understanding of intellectual/developmental disabilities. There's a huge difference between someone who's retarded or autistic and someone who doesn't care about other people.

They don't actually describe any of the techniques used in the document

it totally depends on how high-functioning the client is.

I don't really know that it's "proven.

well, every group home in oregon uses it exclusively in the care of severely mentally disabled and often violent individuals with personal histories of abuse. how much more proof is needed?

but it says nothing about fully intelligent and functional sociopaths.

is there a difference lol? the beauty is that it doesn't matter. you just plug in the behavior and the motivation, and design supports to make that behavior ineffective. sociopath embezzles to gain money, motivated by greed. you support them by auditing the account, and providing an incentive chosen by the client for every month they don't embezzle. the nature of the client really doesn't matter at all.

the point of it all is that we need to stop hurting people and thinking that will give them the tools they need to stay out of trouble. we need to move from a punitive model to a medical model. remember, people from happy homes with lots of enjoyable opportunities aren't the ones committing crimes. it is the mentally ill, the poor, and those from oppressed social classes. so when you propose to kill them as a solution, you're really just supporting the extermination of these classes of people.

There's a huge difference between someone who's retarded or autistic and someone who doesn't care about other people.

funny you should mention autism, because one of the symptoms of autism can be exactly that- lack of social interest or awareness. it only changes what incentives we use to serve them.

the next article i recommend is that wsj article about neurocriminology. if we can predict with medical diagnosis who will act violently, it seems unfair to use violence to hurt them for exhibiting a symptom of their illness.

An indiscriminate weapon with massive collateral and decades of lasting effects is hardly in the same category as a kinetic weapon that shoots a small metallic object at hundreds of feet per second.

not quantitatively different (i.e. they are more effective weapons), but qualitatively different. anything?

indiscriminate weapon with massive collateral and decades of lasting effects

this is a quantitative argument.

The point is equating everyone having kinetic weapons to everyone having nukes is completely ridiculous.

is completely ridiculous.

but why?

what makes nukes fundamentally different from guns? not quantitatively different (i.e. they are more effective weapons), but qualitatively different. anything?

Think if police officers didn't have guns, but instead bombs/grenades. Don't you think that would be a bit ridiculous?

Let's say as a concealed carrier, someone comes at me with a knife. Now instead of neutralizing the threat with a gun (or maybe simply presenting), I have to threaten any innocent bystanders and the property with a bomb?

It's not about efficiency, it's about precision and lack of collateral.

It's not about efficiency, it's about precision and lack of collateral.

[facepalm]

tell me in your own words what the difference is between the word quantitative and qualitative.

Even for that sub, that was a pretty dumb comparison.

Switzerland doesn't regulate guns, it regulates ammunition.

Did you get that from the Legal Library in your ass?

Here in REALITY: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp

Snopes is not a legitimate source of information. It is biased and incorrect constantly.

Prove it.

Well for instance, they claim that Nostradamus' prophecies about the twin towers collapsing weren't on the internet before it happened. Not that I believe that crap, but I know for a fact they say a Nostradamus quatrain predicting 9/11 was false and created in an essay in 1997, they also used to claim that prophecies by Nostradamus did not exist on the internet before 9/11 (which was obviously false and they changed it after the fact). But in reality there is a book printed in 1979 that translates Nostradamus' quatrain to in fact mean that two planes will crash into the World Trade Center and both buildings will fall. I think it's more likely that someone may have read this and maybe made it happen, or by chance these things happen, but snopes was definitely wrong. I have seen other examples, and I think all that snopes does is that once they are found out they edit their content to match what has been disproven or proven. I don't care to remember which very relevant issues these are, after the fifth time I just stopped using them as a source altogether, and not because of some chain mail letter, but because I saw it for myself, because I myself used to consider them a legitimate resource. This is the book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0552112062/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 I just ordered it because it was under $3, give me a few weeks, I'll find the passage and show it to you. Because when my buddy showed the book to me, it was kind of spooky at first, and interesting. This does not mean a man from the 14th century predicted 9/11. It doesn't mean 9/11 was an inside job. I don't comment on that stuff. I only question the third building that "fell".

Well, you can live with "belief", and I'll live with facts. Do you know any Swiss. I know several; Some of which are family.

How about you? How much do you know about the subject/country? (Beliefs pulled out of your ass don't count)

I'm not saying that the information isn't true, there are plenty of biased sources that have truth along with bias, or else people wouldn't pay attention to them. I never disputed the information, I disputed the source. I in fact completely agree with the information there, I'm just saying don't use snopes, use a better source.

...this is such a bullshit comment.

1. Their country is REALLY small
2. Everyone serves in the military
3. Since everyone serves in the military...everyone is given weapons TO DEFEND THE COUNTRY

My point. The Government doesn't step out of line.

I agree

Couldn't agree more.

Any thread that starts off with "We need to talk" gets an automatic downvote. I'm not your fucking husband.

hahaha anytime i hear those words i figure its best to go home and burn down the house. Easier to deal with im sure.

[deleted]

And this isn't group therapy, bitch.

Couldn't agree with you more, as someone who's lived in New York, Oakland, SF, LA and the bad areas of Seattle (white center), i can tell you from multiple personal experiences that the depravity and desperate nature of people stuck in the hood far exceeds their desire to avoid violence and use persuasion to communicate what they wan't from an individual.

What's really scary is the On-going push to pit african americans against whites, you might not see this unless you live in a major urban area but i REGULARLY see groups of African Americans in downtown SF, oakland and fruitvale bart station picketing and handing out pamphlets calling for the enslavement and murder of white americans. I thought this was an isolated group exclusive to the bay area, i come to find out this is a national movement with a presence in most major metro areas, what really frightens me is the age of the participants (all 15-19 years of age)

What's my reason for bringing this up? I honestly think the elites are going to push civil/class/race war if people wake up to the point of overthrowing their government. And if you live in a major metro area and you don't own some form of protection you're absolutely in immediate danger.

Do you happen to have names or organizations that are doing this?

That's the worst part, they seemingly have NO web presence and i can't find an organization (i was also a bit scared to grab a pamphlet), i actually just walked by around 15 of these nuts on powell street next to the Gap in SF on friday night. I'll make sure to take photos next time i run into them. But i've seen these people in venice beach, LA, DC, oakland, SF and seattle.

I'm going to do a bit of googling and see if i can find anything. I'm also hoping that others from the bay area chime in on this comment because it's pretty normal to see these guys in the bay.

they seemingly have NO web presence

kinda sounds like you're making the whole thing up.

I can vouch that when I worked for the TSA at LaGuardia (please forgive me) that co-workers pointed out a guy I worked next to would spend all his free time at the subways and bus stops with others preaching that the white man is the devil and they needed to kill them all off. They all thought it was funny because I was the only white guy he worked alongside that he got along with. Didn't bother me any though, I thought he was a nice guy, he's free to have his views, I just hope I helped him realize we aren't all this evil devil race.

when i worked as a gigolo for your mom and grandma, i can vouch for the fact that they both said you had a tiny flaccid weiner.

see how people can just make stuff up on the internet?

You are fucking lying, I live in Oakland take Bart to sf everyday never have I once received a pamphlet talking about killing white people... don't lie about things like this and spread false information

It's funny that you're calling me a liar just because you haven't personally ran into this group of individuals. May i ask what city you live in? What line do you ride? Obviously you're not going to find these people at the concord bart.

But i'll make it my mission to find these guys again and grab some of their pamphlets and post them here. I'm not trying to demonize the people participating, they're being lied to and manipulated just the same as every other american. I carry no ill will, this is the systems doing.

Edit: good job editing your comment, you clearly didn't have enough ambiguous "credibility" with your previous comment.

Shills gonna shill

Obama had the CDC conduct a study on guns, and one of the first things they found was that guns are used anywhere from 1,000 times to 8,000 times daily in self-defense. Easily 3 times that number are deterred from crime due to gun ownership. Don't be a shill, educate yourself. (Australia's gun violence decreased after the gun ban because suicide was counted in those numbers and 60% of their gun violence was from suicide, after England enacted their ban gun violence jumped so badly, I actually believe there were a few police officers shot, which lead to police in England carrying guns for the first time ever. Now they're issuing permits for gun ownership in England all over).

edit: I would like to point out that the majority of times when guns are used in self-defense and there is no crime committed (i.e. someone pulls out their gun and an armed would be robber runs off) there is nothing reported to crime statistics, because a crime has not been committed. This happens a majority of times that a person pulls their own gun to stop a would be criminal, which in turn means that self-defense use of guns that prevent any crime from being committed are actually a lot higher than we can figure out.

You've never not been able to get a firearms licence in the UK for shotguns or rifles. Gun violence also hasn't risen particularly in the UK, there were 3 shootings of police from 2000/2011. This is the death rate for firearms for the last few years:

Data is since the firearms act 1997 which banned handguns after the dunblane massacre.

1998/99 = 49 1999/00 = 62 2000/01 = 72 2001/02 = 96 2002/03 = 80 2003/04 = 68 2004/05 = 76 2005/06 = 49 2006/07 = 56 2007/08 = 53 2008/09 = 39 2009/10 = 39 2010/11 = 58 2011/12 = 42

It's really not hard to legally own a gun in the UK.

According to gunpolicy.org you are wrong. 1997 saw 187 deaths or injuries, 1998 196, 1999 212, 2000 saw 234 gun deaths and injury. So there was an instant increase in gun violence due to the 1997 handgun ban. The drop in gun violence from 2000 to 2001 is due to police carrying handguns themselves in 2000. Even Wikipedia references drops in gun crime after police were forced to have armed patrols, they instituted the armed patrols...dun dun dun....in the areas where gun crimes were highest, and that doesn't prove that guns in the right hands actually lower gun crime? In 2002 you begin to see another dip in gun violence that keeps dipping...as gun ownership increases until 2005. In 2006 we see a HUGE increase from 162 gun deaths and injuries to 211 gun deaths and injuries when the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 was instituted. I hope you're not leaving out Scotland and Northern Ireland in your stats because the gun legislation being enforced affects them as well, and you would then be purposely leaving out information to skew results in favor of your stance.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#The_Firearms_.28Amendment.29_Act_1988 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

[deleted]

The CDC does plenty of studies on things besides diseases. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347 That's lasting damage on the gun control advocates position. You guys really need to learn to use google instead of posting blind retorts. Here is the actual CDC study. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

you need to realize reddit is REALLY liberal and naive.

Whenever someone tells me they support gun control or gun regulations I show them this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKMgxuHBasI

That pretty much ends the conversation with a curb stomp right there.

Disagree. I'm from Europe, I like the fact that no one has guns here better. The situation is different in America though. A gun can make a confrontation result in a fatality which otherwise might have not happened. Look at the recent Zimmerman case. I don't think someone should be shot for beating someone up. There's a fixation in American society, especially in the south, to protect yourself in any case with any means nescesary. Keeping heavy guns, such as sniper rifles and machine guns, in case of a revolution might make a better case. I wouldn't find it cool if everyone started carrying handguns anywhere they go. Intimidating.

In the US the genocide of the natives I believe solely happened due to them not having guns.

I can point to numerous cases of gun control in Europe that lead to genocide; some notable ones are the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.

The situation where you live isn't "no one has guns". Only the government has guns; the citizens will be put in a cage or killed if they attempt to have their own guns.

Using the example of the natives might not be the best argument here. This was hundreds of years ago and so much has changed since then that we can't make a significant analogy. I don't see the other ones particulary good either, times were a bit different 100 years ago.

For the second part of your argument, I'm pretty sure that the governments won't turn against the people in Western Europe. There is more solidarity and they're more connected to the people, we also have many parties to choose from and each of them get some say in how things are run. I don't see that particulary being the case in the US, so that's why I said that it might be a good idea to hold guns for when something happens in the US. And I'm still pretty sure something like that is unlikely to occur. Change usually happens over time, gradually.

The KKK and Democrats tried to prevent African Americans in the South from owning guns for a long time. The NRA fought to arm them.

Iceland and Switzerland have the most guns per person in the world and have the lowest overall crime and gun crime rates, far more than any other European country. Germany easily has 1 gun for every 3 people. Other European countries also have fairly high gun ownership. The idea that Europe is gun free is a farce.

In the UK at least gun crime is just substituted with knife crime. Instead of being robbed with a gun you're robbed with a knife which can be just as deadly.

The worst thing is the restrictions on any kind of self defense, during the london riots police were discouraging communities from banding together to protect their property or individuals buying baseball bats even though they knew full well they weren't going to protect the public.

You also can't even buy pepper spray or a taser so in the case of a rape for example where the woman is almost always physically at a disadvantage to the attacker their only option is to endure it, the state is basically saying you must endure it for the supposed greater good of society. It's depraved.

Intimidating? sounds like your opinion is based off of fear and ignorance. anti-gun views are what powers the elite to control the populace.

You're a cunt.

Well written. It has been said, "An armed society is a polite society." I think this is true. You don't mess with others when you just don't know whether or not they have a gun.

imagine how polite everyone would be if we all carried remote controls for the doomsday nukes buried in the earth's core!

no man could boss me around if he knew i could destroy the world!

good idea, right? tell me why i'm wrong and your above statement is right.

What does destroying the planet have to do with self defense? I've read at least ten posts of yours in this thread and you sound like you're having a hard time.

What does destroying the planet have to do with self defense?

because gun nuts selfishly focus on only their rights while ignoring everyone else's right not to live in one big mexican standoff/ongoing bloodbath.

so it may be true that a heavily-armed society is a polite society, but it would also be a nightmare, illustrated by how polite a society would be if any mentally-ill member could instantly unleash hell on everyone else. sure, it's polite. but at what cost?

Because you're retarded ahhahahahha. What you said compared to what he said, makes absolutely no sense.

makes absolutely no sense.

i agree. can you articulate why it doesn't make sense to have everyone armed with world-destroying weapons?

do you think people have the right to kill any number of innocents in pursuit of self-defense? do people ever lose the right to self-defense?

That is a bastardization of what I said and you know it.

what you said was that people will be polite to each other if they are constantly in fear of being shot. is that correct?

No that's not what I said. The point is this: one will be less eager to rob someone (or otherwise) if there is that unknown as to whether that person is armed. There is absolutely no reason for decent people to be afraid of decent people. It is the one that would do someone harm that should be afraid. Do you object because you are a mugger? Murderer? Rapist? If you are not a criminal, why on earth would you be afraid?

unknown as to whether that person is armed.

i probably wouldn't rob someone if they had swine flu. so let's give everyone swine flu and no one will get mugged! yay!

do you see how just because some positive effect might result, that we shouldn't automatically ignore all other negative effects?

is the drop in violent crime worth all the extra gun deaths? i don't think it is.

There is absolutely no reason for decent people to be afraid of decent people.

accidental discharge. alcohol intoxication. children. house fires. many, many reasons not to keep flammable explosive projectiles near people.

It is the one that would do someone harm that should be afraid.

...and anyone behind them. or standing in the way of a ricochet. or the family members of those people who will never see their loved ones again because selfish people would rather kill others than assume any semblance of risk like the rest of us do every day.

Do you object because you are a mugger? Murderer? Rapist?

i object because i think shooting holes through people is not a good way to solve conflicts. nice ad hominem though.

If you are not a criminal, why on earth would you be afraid?

see above.

A. Not ad hominem. I don't know you. But I did wonder why you would adopt such a stance, which you have explained. B. Swine flu not a good analogy. At any rate, I respect your opinion.

Not ad hominem. I don't know you.

knowing someone isn't a requirement for an ad hominem. all it means is that you attack the identity of the critic (i'm a rapist?) rather than the content of their criticism. you used an ad hominem.

I did wonder why you would adopt such a stance

was it explained clearly enough?

i think shooting holes through people is not a good way to solve conflicts.

make sense?

Swine flu not a good analog.

why not? both guns and swine flu are dangers to the public. both will prevent muggings. seems like a good analogy to me...

I respect your opinion.

thanks, similarly i understand the motivations for gun ownership. i would be doing good people a disservice if i let things devolve into a blood bath when a non-violent path to success is available. MLK and gandhi succeeded even without the internet. it can be done. so why kill each other? even street crime defense is poor people killing poor/addicted/mentally ill people. i'd rather heal society than let the rich stay safe in their gated neighborhoods while we slaughter each other in the ghettos. in a revolution it would still be our poor people killing the rich's hired poor people. even a "victory" would be pyrrhic.

so basically, live in fear because we might get shot?

i'm for guns, but this is a terrible argument.

[deleted]

A saying from the Old West in the US; "God made all men, Sam Colt made them equal."

Thank you for pointing out that it isn't about fear but empowerment.

the vial of pandemic flu virus i carry isn't because i'm afraid (or insane), it's for my empowerment and equality! who cares if the world is a shittier place for my violence? i'm equal yay!

Shuffle along little troll.

nice ad hominem! seems kinda crazy that you support civilians owning pandemic flu vials for self-defense though.

You cannot use the pandemic to defend yourself. The comparison is false. Also your argument is a strawman fallacy.

Are you paid to troll like this? I hope so, because otherwise you are displaying a rare kind of stupid.

The comparison is false

great, you've made an assertion. now if you could just support it with evidence, that would be awesome.

(normally debates aren't won by simply claiming that the opponent is wrong and leaving it at that. just fyi)

So now I need to carry a gun to be someone's equal?

Maybe. But others who are unequal should definitely carry.

Your straw man argument is a fallacy. What you said is not what I said. You're twisting the point. Besides, I was only quoting an old saying. So yeah, make sure your own arguments aren't terrible before commenting on others'.

Questions are not arguments, they are questions. It was related to what you said, because that's what the quote sounds like when I read it.

live in fear because we might get shot?

If you are a douchenozzle that is of no benefit to society and can't even scrape together the decency to treat fellow humans nicely, then yes, you should live in fear.

For the rest, it's just a reminder that no argument, point, or otherwise, is worth taking a life, so just be polite.

Or...be afraid to attempt robbing/raping/murdering/hurting someone else because they might be able to make you seriously regret trying to assert your physical dominance over them?

That's bad...how?

Then why are Canadian tourists known worldwide for their politeness, while Americans are known for being douchebags? Maybe you don't bring your guns when you travel, and your politeness is left at home?

You maybe haven't been to the south where all the guns are. If you are referring to people on the costs, then yeah, they are mostly douches. They are also unarmed by the state mostly.

At least America isn't known for being supremely mediocre.

You're worse than mediocre by many measures. Healthcare, education, literacy, your "democracy", and on and on. You should shoot for mediocre, it would be an improvement.

Hehe. You're right. But Canada is pretty mediocre, also. I will say this, though. Come hang out with the right Americans and you will see there are Americans that are damn decent and enlightened people.

Yay broad generalizations I read on the internet and now spout as 100% fact!

If you need me to cite world opinion of American vs Canadian tourists, you're woefully ignorant. American travel agencies go as far as advising American tourists to wear Canadian flags and to keep American flags to a minimum. That speaks volumes.

As a Canadian who has spent a lot of time in the US I can say that is total BS.

Rudeness and politeness are not constrained by political borders.

perhaps we should...

I hate how every one uses Australia as a statistic that shows how gun control reduces gun violence.

The Port Arthur massacre was used to push legislation through parliament, and since then gun violence has stidly reduced.

What people dont mention is that as gun ownership was rising leading up to 1996, gun violence was already decreasing before the legislation was introduced.

And as for the massacre its self, well thats its own conspiracy......

The only reason why gun violence decreased after the ban was because suicides were also included in gun violence statistics, and suicide represented over 60% of all gun violence at the time...realize Australia is actually in the middle of a gun violence crisis right now as gangs are shooting each other. Those aren't legally owned guns they're shooting...

100% Agreed, also agreed with GrandpaSkitzo, main reason is overthrown of Tyranny other are just added benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I am for guns, but the idea that the idiots I meet in online games are out there driving cars and wielding guns makes me very afraid.

Not to mention WORLD STAR.

Arm yourselves. If you don't need the guns, no harm is done. If you do need the guns, you will be glad you have them.

Well said.

Unless you use them to kill yourself, or if your kid finds them because you stored them improperly, or dozens of other reasons having a gun in your house is generally a bad idea.

Do you really plan on getting in to a shootout with someone? So ridiculous to me.

do you really plan on having nothing going wrong in your life? so ridiculous to me.

Nothing going wrong that involves me needing a gun. If I need a gun, things have already gotten to a point where I should've taken action a long time ago. Like moving to a different area, or not befriending violent people. If you need a gun, you've already lost, in my opinion. Guns have been shown to be much more likely to accidentally kill a family member than be used in an intruder scenario. Some studies I've read say 22x as likely. I don't think it's ridiculous at all to want to keep my family safe by not owning a gun.

Thank you for calling for a discussion on this. It is unsettling to find that anyone would venture to advocate violating a person's right to reliably assure one's own personal defense, or any natural right for that matter. The right is a matter of choice, to choose to bear arms or to choose not to. Those arms might be projectile, martial, or electrical, whatever form it takes; it levels the playing field. Considering this, there is no sense in un-leveling that field by increasing the gap between the capacities of the otherwise empowered, and the everyday risk the vulnerable must already abide by, yet it is the call for action we often find publicized and deliberated on with various legislation passed, the benefits and detriments of which are not easy to fully illustrate.

I have observed that this [Disarmament] also acts on disrupting the communal rationale, by introducing a capacity for deviation from a societal imperative to negotiate interactions amicably and respectfully, stemming from all parties being equally empowered by the possession of lethal force. When the option of abusive behavior exists without the guarantee of immediate and dire consequence, be guaranteed that it will be taken to the levels of contemptability and ludicrousness we find exhibited in everyday modern life, and beyond...

Somewhere along the line, the notion of tolerating, and even celebrating lack social graces, without decorum, and without everyone's best interests (including 'your' own,) became the norm. That alongside the gross misrepresentations of physical trauma, and the kind of person 'it takes' to possess, or use a firearm presented by 'the media' contributes to the propensity for some to make the inaccurate assumption that the possession or use of a firearm by those not in a position of authority must be regarded with suspicion and fear.

It could be said that any law abiding, self-determined individual would do especially well to hold themselves personally accountable and capable to defend against threats to their nation, or their community. Why stop at having one police officer with a gun in a school when you could have every person of majority present armed with lethal force against an attacker? How effective would it be for a 'lone gunman' to shoot up anything if those conditions were present? Not very. The same applies to two, or three, or four 'gunmen', when the entire staff and present population of majority is carrying; it becomes a logistical impossibility to carry out an operation like a school, or mall, or airport, or train/bus/boat/gas station shooting, the likes of which that require only non-civilian hardware.

I can just imagine the classic 'lone gunman' scenario playing out in a room filled with responsibly armed citizens now...

"Put your fucking hands in the air! This is a..... shit, oh fuck, my bad guys, I'll just ah... put this down and ah... yeah... oh no, that's cool, I'll just interlock my fingers, put my hands on top my head like... this... and get on my knees for the ah, yeah the police... oh wow, that was quick, they're already ah... Shit."

The big idea here is that when chances are really good that a person one might want to do harm to, for whatever reason, can kill one in the act; one's potential future crime has been prevented by one potential criminal's own natural sense of self preservation, the one exception is for those with little regard for their own life. A mugger is mugging people to make money to live, if you think of it (robbery) like an ordinary job [bearing in mind the job requires physical strength and familiarity with brutality], it becomes clear that the assumed minimal risk of loss of life present in a predominantly disarmed society leaves only the risk of being apprehended, which leaves victims to potentially grisly realities should the offender need to guarantee their getaway.

As has been said, it is mandatory for a citizen in certain countries to carry arms, what is the general attitude on that, relating to such a thing being a matter of social or national policy? Not just the option, but the obligation to assume control of lethal force?

I have always been on the fence about gun ownership. I really have a hard time taking a stance either way. i see it like drugs. some can handle them and some cant. im open to discussion and opinions.

I see guns as being the ultimate expression of equality. If you are white and you hate blacks, a sure way to quickly mature past your racism is to arm a black man. Better yet, to campaign for blacks to arm themselves.

If you are sexist, fight to arm women. Armed women are not sex objects.

Widespread gun ownership is a means to create equality across all lines of gender, race, culture, and religion.

It is lots of other things too, but that is one way I look at it.

[deleted]

Exactly so.

I enjoyed learning about the NRA's role in helping blacks protect themselves from the KKK during the 60's.

Bingo! Some guns are for hunting animals, others are for hunting humans. The only difference is the owner.

But how do you decide who makes the rules on gun ownership? There needs to be some kind of system in place, but you don't want 51% telling 49% what to do. What if one psychiatrist says a patient is too unstable to own a firearm, but the second opinion differs?

I think decentralized regulation, such as state statutes, is the best option.

It's about defending ones self. And as a group of well armed civilians you can pose a threat. Why would all the dictators in the past disarm the masses before reigning death on their heads. If the government has all the "military style weapons" then we're just a bunch of sitting ducks. Your average person can't buy rocket launchers, so that argument is a red-herring. I'm not so naive to think that if the government really wanted to take me, they could just drop a 500lb bomb on my house, but if they want to keep us from owning certain style rifle's, then let's see them give em up first. Then we can have a conversation. Until then, give me my AR-15's and you can pry them from my cold dead hands, after they drop the bomb.

I'm not talking about anything that you just referenced. You've got your opinion on that, and that's all fine and good.

What I want to know is this: where do you draw the line? Clearly not everyone should own a gun. People such as James Holmes, Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza, and Seung-Hui Cho should not have been able to go out and purchase a firearm (in hindsight, of course. And not that they did, as in Lanza's case). In other words: there are people out there who would not be responsible with a firearm, and who would certainly cause more harm than good by owning one.

The party line I always hear is "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". I, for one, think that maybe the easiest solution to the problem is to disqualify those people who are most likely to be the "bad guys" from being able to obtain a firearm. The problem that I find, is that "bad guy" and "good guy" are subjective. And just because someone takes a gun safety course is no guarantee they're going to apply the principles in real life.

Most of these guys didn't own the gun they used. You can't stop shit like this from happening by imposing more gun legislation. It's just like trying to limit people who drive drunk from owning a car. No amount of laws will keep a drunk driver from getting behind the wheel. I say look at the psychotropic drugs each and every one of these crazies were taking. That's the root cause of this. Not guns.

Most of these guys didn't own the gun they used.

In Canada, with our heavy gun legislation, there just aren't a lot of guns around. If you get mad, you can't just go buy a gun or take your Dad's or borrow your buddy's.

I also agree with you that there needs to be more investigation and reporting about the psychotropic drugs.

Also it might have something to do with a particular ideology they all share, that values the "society" over the lives of individuals.

I'm not about to blame the drugs [EDIT: guns], just like I'm not going to blame the drugs. Because it's the user's fault above all else.

So how do we limit the assailant if they shouldn't have a gun? Is there any way to implement a password to take the safety off? I personally don't like fingerprint recognition, because what if I need to use my friend's gun? But in this day and age, weapons are much too available to those who shouldn't have them; we have to do something besides staying strapped 24/7 in order to ensure that a bad guy with a gun or a bad guy who happened to get ahold of a gun can't cause too much damage.

[deleted]

I think your argument draws too much on assumptions for my tastes:

Do you think any of these mass shooters would have done this if they knew they would simply be shot for their troubles?

That's an assumption, and it's totally plausible. How did they think it was going to end? They had to know they'd be shot or arrested.

would have been quickly shot

Another assumption. Cho managed to evade police for a couple hours after they arrived at VA Tech.

They want fame, to go out in a blaze of sadistic glory.

Again, that's an assumption. Unless you know the inner workings of the mind of a sociopath, that is.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know there isn't a single "right" answer on this subject. I'm just speculating. But I don't think [this is an opinion piece] you're going to nominally decrease the amount of violence caused by guns by adding more guns to the situation. Everyone thinks of "what could have been" if the teachers at Sandy Hook, Columbine, VA Tech were armed, and it's always the best-case scenario.

Nobody ever explores the option that a mistake occurs: a teacher has bad aim, someone gets trigger-happy and shoots a student/visitor over something that isn't a gun, an angsty emotion-ridden student makes a lunge for a teacher's gun in some misguided split-second decision.

"Arm Everybody" is a flawed argument, and I think we can do better. Obviously something needs to be done so these mass shootings become less frequent, but I think throwing guns at the gun problem is a really fucking stupid idea.

EDIT: Wording.

Another assumption. Cho managed to evade police for a couple hours after they arrived at VA Tech.

The point is not to arm police. The point is to arm teachers and have armed security in schools. When this is done, we have the situation just a couple days ago. Mass shooter enters school, encounters armed resistance, shoots himself. The end. Only death is the shooter.

Police enter 18 minutes later, and instead of corridors littered with bodies, there's only one.

Again, that's an assumption. Unless you know the inner workings of the mind of a sociopath, that is.

I'm working from the diaries and notes they leave behind. Primary source, pretty reliable.

But I don't think [this is an opinion piece] you're going to nominally decrease the amount of violence caused by guns by adding more guns to the situation.

Seems nonsensical, right? But that's what happens. We saw it happen a couple days ago in Arapahoe.

Nobody ever explores the option that a mistake occurs: a teacher has bad aim, someone gets trigger-happy and shoots a student/visitor over something that isn't a gun, an angsty emotion-ridden student makes a lunge for a teacher's gun in some misguided split-second decision.

Your concerns seem valid, but the fact is that none of this has happened in the states and cities that allow their teachers to carry firearms into school. There are 2 states that allow teachers to carry firearms into primary schools, and one of them has been allowing it for several years (around 8, as I recall).

"Arm Everybody" is a flawed argument, and I think we can do better. Obviously something needs to be done so these mass shootings become less frequent, but I think throwing guns at the gun problem is a really fucking stupid idea.

The flaws you mention are not flaws, as I have discussed. The "arm everybody" argument does not have those flaws. Would you care to explain further why you think it won't work?

Mass shooter enters school, encounters armed resistance, shoots himself. The end.

I don't see it going that way, but okay. I see the shooter shooting at resistance.

Your concerns seem valid, but the fact is that none of this has happened in the states and cities that allow their teachers to carry firearms into school. There are 2 states that allow teachers to carry firearms into primary schools, and one of them has been allowing it for several years (around 8, as I recall).

I actually had no idea that this was the case. My guess is Texas and maybe Kansas, maybe NH? Either way, the states that allow teachers to carry must have a strong gun culture. My worry isn't for the teachers who are gun advocates and know what they're doing, it's that I think there are too many teachers who shouldn't be armed. All it's going to take is for one teacher to be careless and leave their gun out before this turns into a problem. Maybe have a light weapons cache somewhere in the school? But I think it should be pretty heavily monitored/controlled by the administration.

My middle school had a cop. I can't remember if he was armed all the time, but why isn't that as viable of an option? What does your average town have, three or four schools? Three to four cops ought to do the trick, in my book.

Any way you cut it: there's not going to be a solution that works for the entire country. I'm in favor of leaving this up to jurisdictions, even though I don't agree with it personally.

The only point that I want to touch back on is this (my thoughts from another thread):

Is there any way to implement a password to take the safety off? I personally don't like fingerprint recognition, because what if I need to use my friend's gun? But in this day and age, weapons are much too available to those who shouldn't have them; we have to do something besides staying strapped 24/7 in order to ensure that a bad guy with a gun or a bad guy who happened to get ahold of a gun can't cause too much damage.

I'd be in favor of gun control: in as far as making them less available to those who we can agree shouldn't have them, and as far as limiting their use to the proper owner or an authorized user. Not banning guns, just more controls in place.

I don't see it going that way, but okay. I see the shooter shooting at resistance.

I felt the same way as you. That is not how it works in reality, however. It turns out that shooters suicide at the first sign of armed response. This does not make sense to me, but it is what happens.

With that said, the shooter in Arapahoe did shoot at the responding School Resource Officer, but missed.

Personally, I think this makes the case for there being additional armed personnel at school, ideally who are not identifiable as being armed.

My guess is Texas and maybe Kansas, maybe NH?

Excellent guesses. Kansas is recent, Utah has allowed it for years. Some schools in Alabama are allowing their staff to carry concealed in defiance of board regulations. I haven't really kept up with the news on the topic, but I know there are a lot of schools looking at it.

I think there are too many teachers who shouldn't be armed

In Utah and Kansas, teachers must attend considerable additional training. Generally speaking, the teachers who shouldn't be armed are the same ones who are vociferously anti-gun. I don't know why it works out that way but it does.

In Utah, the instructors who provide that extra training are booked solid. It is a quietly popular law, as it turns out.

Maybe have a light weapons cache somewhere in the school?

Having to retrieve a weapon means more innocents die. It may be a good idea, but children die very quickly when these events happen. Also, armories are remarkably expensive and the security involved is non-trivial, well beyond what most schools could probably afford to do properly.

why isn't that as viable of an option?

It is. This is what the NRA would like to do, and what saved the people at Arapahoe. It is also quite expensive, and many people have (understandable) objections to police in schools.

Any way you cut it: there's not going to be a solution that works for the entire country. I'm in favor of leaving this up to jurisdictions, even though I don't agree with it personally.

I agree with this. Personally, I think it should be left up to the individual schools. Many of the applicable rules are made up as policy statements by unelected officials at the state level, and I think this model is pretty badly broken.

I'd be in favor of gun control: in as far as making them less available to those who we can agree shouldn't have them, and as far as limiting their use to the proper owner or an authorized user. Not banning guns, just more controls in place.

This argument is a totally different argument. I am adamantly opposed to this, but for very different reasons. Lots of other people have explained why this is actually a really terrible idea. If you are curious, a brief google search can turn up lots of info, or I can explain my rationale but it's not really different from anyone else's.

The answer is to arm their victims.

Yes, we need to arm the elementary school students! </s>

You laugh, but the sikhs arm their children. In fact, sikh children (in some areas of the US) can bring knives to school, since self defense is a part of their religion.

In Canada, devout Sikh children usually bring a really tiny kirpan ("knife" for people who speak American) to school. Most Sikhs see the kirpan as symbolic and don't need a really big, throat slashing knife.

Americans schools are zero-tolerance. Kids are suspended for having butter knives in their lunch box. Yet the Sikhs go to school armed. Is it symbolic? Sure it is... symbolic of their religious duty to protect themselves and defend others from attack.

Geez, you didn't take any side and got downvoted ridiculously. "I hate you for not taking my side!", said retardedly biased people everywhere.

A conversation was had so ill take it as a victory.

Everybody can handle drugs if you take the proper amount typically the more the better and with proper intentions and the right setting. If you feel weird at a stoplight with a cop behind you sober and innocent, imagine how you would feel on an illegal substance.

Love the argument really hits home the reason guns should be allowed in society.

Or you could evolve your society to the level of those of other nations, and eliminate the need for guns in the first place.

Or you could evolve your society to the level of those of other nations, and eliminate the need for guns in the first place.

Hopefully you are sarcastic, because "evolved" societies such as those that claim to be in the UK have gang, stabbing, and other violent crime issues still. They just rarely involve a gun because they are difficult to acquire.

have gang, stabbing, and other violent crime issues still.

so how many homicides per capita does the UK have relative to the US? how many deaths per attack? greater or fewer?

if you want to claim that removing guns is futile, please support that claim with evidence.

did you think that people who see the problems caused by guns somehow think that removing guns will stop all crime? because that's kind of a silly strawman on your part.

Not that removing guns is fatal, only that it provides an advantage to the criminal. I'd personally rather be able to defend myself then hope the nanny police get there before I'm raped or potentially murdered (which is less of course, but still fucking happens.)

provides an advantage to the criminal

how so? playing field is still level, just not fatal. get some bear mace and a rape siren.

I'd personally rather be able to defend myself then hope the nanny police get there

i'd rather not get shot through my wall because my neighbor preferred to spray bullets rather than taking other security measures.

it's not either/or (either you have guns, or no defenses). there are security systems, non-lethal weapons, thorny bushes, big dogs, and tight-knit communities. you can be both safe and gunless.

Not fatal? Hammers and knives have been killing for a very long time.

Level? How is a 90 year old grandmother going to be on the same level as a 18 year old that lifts weights?

And against someone on drugs, bear mace does little, against an apathetic populace, rape sirens will go unheeded.

It's a dream world, especially for the US, what you are proposing.

Not fatal? Hammers and knives have been killing for a very long time.

sounds like guns are redundant then. so let's get rid of them!

How is a 90 year old grandmother going to be on the same level as a 18 year old that lifts weights?

bear mace.

against someone on drugs, bear mace does little

same problem with guns. better legalize flamethrowers!

against an apathetic populace, rape sirens will go unheeded.

hopeless! i can't think of a single way to ever solve this problem! better just stockpile ammo! meeting our neighbors will never work. just like fire drill sirens go unheeded right? fire drills aren't even a thing probably.

It's a dream world

i'll take a dream world over a nightmare world where people are constantly in fear of gun violence. how do you expect neighbors to unite under those conditions? you're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by acting hostile and then complaining that everyone around you is also hostile.

Since you insist on "being right" by rebutting your argument with wrong information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese

As for our beliefs, I wont hurt anyone, as long as nobody tries to take my guns and ability to protect my family away from me, or otherwise threatens them.

lol, so you're saying that in a society built by selfish capitalists, people behave selfishly? incredible!

we have fire drills right? what's stopping us from having community defense drills? anything?

I wont hurt anyone

...unless you miss. or your bullet goes through your first victim. or bounces off something.

as long as nobody tries to take my guns and ability to protect my family away from me, or otherwise threatens them.

here i come. better get ready! shoot all your neighbors for wanting to be free of your violence. then you'll be safe! because you are the only person in the world who matters. as long as you can save yourself, fuck the rest of us. fuck that kid hit by your stray bullet. fuck that kid who is scared to leave the house because of you. fuck all of us, because you have Rights (TM) and you'll kill us if we disagree!

sounds like you are pretty afraid, to be driven to kill someone...

pretty afraid

If you want to call the US founding fathers cowards that they would start a war, then yes, I'm "afraid".

we have fire drills right? what's stopping us from having community defense drills? anything?

care to address this?

I wont hurt anyone... unless you miss. or your bullet goes through your first victim. or bounces off something.

care to address this?

If you want to call the US founding fathers cowards

i'll call them genocidal racists in wigs, how does that suit you?

then yes, I'm "afraid"

what are some things that trigger this fear of yours?

care to address this?

Shooting in random directions, you being 7 meters away from me, gives you a 99% probability of not getting hit, so assuming I miss, my chances of hitting someone are pretty low, though still a scary prospect. Fortunately, I'm fairly accurate.

One of the four rules of firearm safety include "Be aware of your target, and what is behind it."

Community fire drills really don't exist here, so I don't see how that would carry over.

i'll call them genocidal racists in wigs, how does that suit you?

That started the best damn country this world has ever seen, nor will ever see again given the way this world is going, what's your point? (Also, the founding fathers of the US really weren't racist or genocidal, but I doubt you care enough to find out more.)

what are some things that trigger this fear of yours?

Over reaching tyrannical governments, for one. Before you argue that it will never happen, it has before, and history repeats itself, so no, it's not a matter of if, but of when.

Other than that, because I am armed, I have very little to be afraid of.

my chances of hitting someone are pretty low

what's your lifetime probability of being murdered as someone who is unarmed?

Community fire drills really don't exist here

would you say that community fire drills are a thing that exists in the world? would you agree that fire drills are something that is reasonably feasible to perform with a modicum of organization?

started the best damn country this world has ever seen

derka derr! they took our jerbs!

nor will ever see again

not with that attitude.

what's your point?

my point is that you used an appeal to authority fallacy by saying some people a few hundred years ago that you personally like used guns, therefore guns should never be abolished no matter how advanced our society becomes.

the founding fathers of the US really weren't racist

no slaves?

the founding fathers of the US really weren't genocidal

no dead indians?

this fear of yours? Over reaching tyrannical governments, for one.

gandhi beat the british colonial tyrants. MLK beat the confederate tyrants. the czechs beat the stalinist tyrants. all these people used nonviolence, and won. there's nothing to be afraid of. renounce violence, it is only holding our species back. :)

btw, do you not find drone wars, drug wars, bank bailouts, and nsa spying to be tyrannical enough for a civil war? what specifically is your red line? what are you waiting for, more tyranny?

because I am armed, I have very little to be afraid of.

fear is all in your mind. the vast majority of humans are able to live long happy lives without weapons. we're not afraid. so let go of the fear. just let go. let go.

http://news.yahoo.com/magic-mushrooms-erase-fear-mice-122805896.html

all these people used nonviolence, and won

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

"Non-violence"

Get out of here with your neo-hippy bull, you are not going to change my mind about this. The ONLY thing that stops violence is more violence, whether that means more massacres of innocents, or of those perpetuation the "violence" of tyrannical servitude. Violence isn't just cultural, it's a constant of nature. Get over yourself.

The ONLY thing that stops violence is more violence

read that a second time.

you do know that people get killed during wars too right? it sounds like your problem with the proven strategy of nonviolent resistance is that you don't get to choose who gets killed.

it's a constant of nature.

human society =/= nature.

So somehow guns make it better?

You seem like maybe you've had some learning disabilities, so lets just go with "yes" and if you can't put one and two together with the answer right in front of you like it has been in this post, then I'm sorry.

Ad hominem attacks; a sure sign of an educated man. Well done reducing yourself and your argument to playground-level intellect. Would you say that's typical of those holding your position? It would explain a lot.

You brought nothing to the argument, you didn't think out any response or provide any counterpoint that reveals a position that shows some though was placed in it. So the argument wasn't there to begin with.

[deleted]

How is it a bad thing that bad guys have a harder time getting guns, and we have social safety nets? Not perfect, but one hell of an improvement over "guns for all", and fuck you if you're poor.

Guns or no guns, a violent society is going to act violent.

Gun or no gun, a violent person will commit acts of violence.

but with no gun, their chance of killing someone from a distance is much, much, much less.

It takes skill to kill someone from a distance. Not everyone can hit a target in a vital area at range.

it takes someone with a very poor understanding of the golden rule to take someone's life. those people deserve whatever they get. why do you think the veteran suicide rate is so high? they rightly hate themselves for invading other countries and killing people there.

Which is why gun violence was so low in the 40's and 50's, something changed in society, not with gun ownership. Back then citizens owned military grade machine guns, tommy guns, and by anti-gun logic, we should've have seen mass murders out the ass, but this wasn't so.

I absolutely agree, so many sites are turning into "liberal" circlejerks, where liberal has nothing to do with liberty anymore but subservience to a over reaching state. Mediaite used to have a decent balance of perspectives in the comments but recently it's been taken over by the anti-gun, politically correct arseholes and the same seems to be happening all over the place.

I don't know if this is a reflection of general public attitudes but if it is we are truly fucked, the public will willing give up all their rights for whatever boogieman is presented to them.

[deleted]

Trust me I've tried but I'm from the UK which is basically entirely anti-gun/pro-big government, there is zero desire for free speech in this country.

It would be better if everyone who considered personal liberty as something in any way important all moved to the same country so there existed at least one bastion of freedom. Then we would have something to build on at least.

It would be better if everyone who considered personal liberty as something in any way important all moved to the same country so there existed at least one bastion of freedom. Then we would have something to build on at least.

Wasn't that supposed to be the US?

the public will willing give up all their rights

what makes you think we don't value our rights just because we don't want kids in our neighborhoods to be shot in their sleep by stray bullets?

come to the next anti-NSA or OWS event, and we'll restore your faith in our appreciation for our rights.

many of us believe that the 2nd amendment is obsolete. it was important before the internet, but now with twitter and flash mobs, we don't need guns to prevent tyranny. just huge numbers of peaceful yet defiant people being watched and supported by others around the planet.

clinging to the second amendment while never doing anything else to demand your rights is playing right into the hands of the elites. their drones will kill you anyway, so if letting you have your guns keeps you from marching in the streets, what do they care?

many of us believe that the 2nd amendment is obsolete. it was important before the internet, but now with twitter and flash mobs, we don't need guns to prevent tyranny.

No offence but I think this is totally naive, look how many revolutions start off peacefully but because of the states willingness to indiscriminately slaughter to maintain it's power they are forced to take up arms.

The only way a peaceful solution would be effective is if you had almost everyone in society cooperating with each other. The chances of that are zero, just look at OWS. From the very beginning the media/politicians worked to turn what could have been a unifying movement into something divisive and it ultimately died because of that. There is no chance of the people uniting peacefully because they're in generally too easily manipulated, too ignorant and too apathetic.

The gun is the only realistic last resort that exists to have any chance at holding back a despotic government and that's why the second amendment is as much a fundamental right as free speech etc.

If you think the threat of your kid being shot by a stray bullet is worth taking away the second amendment I don't think you value your rights at all.

Also, if you live in a place where your kid is gonna get zinged by a stray bullet in the night, maybe you should move. Because you're either in a warzone or the shittiest hood in the world.

so will you be paying moving expenses for all the people on minimum wage who can't afford to move?

Yup. Out of my own incredibly deep pockets. Hey, maybe you can help me pay for it ;)

Sarcasm aside, you're right. That wasn't a very good point on my side. A lot of people are locked in because of poverty.

Still, where the fuck are you living where people are carrying the kind of weaponry that can punch through house walls like that, and using it often and indiscriminately enough where zibging your family in the middle of the night is a legitimate concern?

the kind of weaponry that can punch through house walls like that

not many houses have bulletproof windows. most bullets will pass through siding and sheetrock fairly easily anyway. plus, there are open doors, porches and yards.

where the fuck are you living

most major cities in the US have relatively frequent stray bullet deaths.

You got something to back that up with? Because every major city that I've happened to live in had been strangely devoid of this occurrence you claim is so common

every major city that I've happened to live in

that's some good anecdotal evidence. sample size of 1? that's probably statistically significant.

You got something to back that up with?

About 4,130 results

agreed friend. just look at Syria. 1. Peaceful protests 2. Government is threatened by united populace 3. Violent reaction to retain power 4. Peaceful protests turn into violent rebellion and now the rebels (despite the government being better trained, equipped, and possessing tanks) control more than half the country.

The gun is the only realistic last resort that exists

cool, let me know when the attack will start.

Tell me what other option you have as a last resort? Tell me what the people who rise up against their oppressive governments use?

don't worry about what my last resort is. what's your NEXT resort? cuz it sounds like you're sitting around doing nothing until you get your chance to shoot up the place.

Tell me what the people who rise up against their oppressive governments use?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha

i assume you find british colonialists and communists oppressive enough.

it sounds like you're sitting around doing nothing until you get your chance to shoot up the place.

No that's why i specifically said last resort, I didn't think I could make it more blatant. Guns are the last fail safe you have against rogue state, up until that point you do everything peaceuflly that you can, get involved in politics, protests, boycotts, strikes etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

How often is a peaceful transition successful, do you think that works every time in every situation? Most uprisings start peacefully but devolve into violence because it comes to a dead end, in rare circumstances is it successful.

up until that point you do everything peaceuflly that you can, get involved in politics, protests, boycotts,

perfect. so why are you talking about a last resort instead of the next strike you're organizing? when is that, btw?

do you think that works every time in every situation?

i wasn't aware that armed rebellions were successful 100% of the time. i do know that armed rebellions, successful or not, usually end in bloodbaths against civilians. so that's cool.

in rare circumstances is it successful.

[citation needed]

what is the trend in the success rate since the invention of the internet? are peaceful revolutions more or less likely to succeed now that we have the internet? if more likely, does that make violence more or less necessary?

so why are you talking about a last resort instead of the next strike you're organizing?

Because this is a thread specifically about guns not activism...

i wasn't aware that armed rebellions were successful 100% of the time.

The point is if you have guns you can still use the peaceful method and if that fails you always have a back up. If you're only counting on a peaceful revolution and have no guns if it fails you're screwed, you'll probably end up tortured to death in some god awful prison. To repeat guns are a last resort, if your peaceful revolution is your last resort and that fails you have zero chance of success, with guns you have at least some chance. You can't be so easily rounded up and killed.

Because this is a thread specifically about guns not activism

oh sorry, i must have missed the activism thread where you are discussing all your resorts that come before the last one. can you send me the link? you also forgot to let me know when your next direct action will be.

if you have guns you can still use the peaceful method

not when the government places snipers to frame you. guns won't save you from snipers' pot shots either btw. only strict pacifism can avoid us being framed for violence. gun users are ruining it for the rest of us, as usual.

if it fails you're screwed

and you don't consider a bloody civil war to be a failure?

you'll probably end up tortured to death in some god awful prison.

armed militants never end up with that fate. never ever.

To repeat guns are a last resort, if your peaceful revolution is your last resort and that fails you have zero chance of success

your last resort ensures the failure of a better first resort. show me that you are actively taking political risks in your organizing that will prevent the need for guns, and i'll believe that guns aren't the last (and only) "resort" of lazy cowards who magically never seem to draw the line anywhere. ndaa passed, dude. the nsa is already wiretapping your shit. so when does the war start, big talker?

We need guns for personal protection, which is a personal liberty. Obama had the CDC conduct a study on guns and they found that guns are used 1,000 times to 8,000 daily in self-defense. Easily 3 times that number are deterred by gun ownership. Chicago is having a horrible gun violence epidemic, but Illinois just lost a battle to keep concealed carry out of the hands of citizens. Immediately there was a list 400,000 people long to get a concealed carry license, and now millions on a waiting list. As this has been going on, crime has been falling, even in Chicago, because criminals don't know who may or may not have a gun on the street.

i responded in another thread. i'll meet you there.

So let me ask you something. if the government which controls everything in your nation. decided to heavily censor or even shutdown internet access what would you do? or even just shutdown the power grid? How would you organize let alone stay warm? Go out in the streets and get your head bashed in by a club and go back home and submit to the governments monopoly on violence.

decided to heavily censor or even shutdown internet access what would you do

occupy my local city hall. never leave.

or even just shutdown the power grid?

see above.

How would you organize let alone stay warm?

everyone else will leave their houses too if the internet and power is out with no reasonable explanation. we'll probably have to burn shit to stay warm.

Go out in the streets and get your head bashed in by a club

wear a helmet, silly.

go back home and submit to the governments monopoly on violence

false dichotomy much?

One of the best written and well said posts I've ever seen here. Thank you.

Thanks, but those aren't my words. Marko Kloos' is the man behind these thoughts that we both agree with.

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

I see. Is he an author or something or just a blogger?

I haven't noticed anti-gun in this subreddit. I'm only pro-gun & it seems alot here are.

I would say 50/50. and the fact that this subreddit brings to light all the evil's and subversion's in the world it doesn't make sense for them to want to voluntarily give up their rights.

My 2nd Amendment is important. What about all the mass massacres in history? did we forget our history already? People were tricked into giving their weapons up and then they were unable to defend themselves or their families.

IF you are truly worried than go join your state militia.

The complete banning of guns appears to me out of the question in near reality. At the point this would be a good idea, I think no one would bother carrying a gun around.

The idea of background checks gains ground because many people have clear evidence of mental instability or violent tendencies and it is likely to deter some shootings by this, without arming school teachers.

The problem with that is that just about anyone could be justified somehow for being denied a firearm, and it would not be worth the risk, in my opinion, that the agency in charge of denying 2nd Amendment rights would abuse the power in favor of their interests, like voting registration.

Beyond that, I am completely opposed to Congressional action to limit the right to own a firearm because it is completely straight foreword in the 2nd Amendment that we have an un-infringable right to own firearms. If the judiciary uphold a requirement for licensing in order to obtain a firearm, than it would be completely legal, by analogy, for Congress to require licenses for journalists, so long as it is for the same cause, public safety.

For that reason a constitutional amendment giving the power very clearly to the government should be required before any action is taken.

But a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, keep your guns and be responsible with them.

Bravo, that was a beautiful explanation.

This is a bit off topic from the debate you folks are having but I would really like to get into rifle hunting deer, any suggestions on what firearm I should purchase? I've used firearms all my life up to semi auto single fire M-16's but never owned one personally.

A Remington 700 would be an excellent mid range priced rifle.

That's good to hear since I was considering a Remington model 770, thanks for the reply.

no problem. nothing wrong with the 770 at all. just recommending the 700 for its outstanding reputation. be safe.

Thanks!

You definitely want something larger than a .223/5.56.

Just remember however much you spend on the rifle youll end up spending that much (or more) on the glass.

Glass?

The scope

I presumed that is what you were referring to I just wanted to confirm. I wasn't planning on shooting out windows with it.

40k Americans die from gun related violence annually.

100k Americans die from pharmaceuticals annually.

Where's the anti-pharmaceutical campaign?

and you do understand suicide is included in the 40k number right?

The US Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide

1.) I thought my language reflected that suicide was to be included.

2.) [wikipedia] / [Ctrl+v]

3.) I also looked at wikipedia.

You'll need a credible source on those numbers buddy.

And before you try that "search it on google" bullshit, just know that the onus is on you to back up your claims.

And then, even if these numbers were right. 2 wrongs wouldn't make a right. Does an asshole become a gentleman because there exists bigger assholes?

If only you could spread your infinite intellect in places other than reddit.

I bet you could really save the world.

So you can't back your numbers and are gonna be condescending? Are you as dumb as you look?

You may Google the statistics on your own.

It took me less than a minute to find the numbers.

If you don't like doing basic research I don't know what to say.

So you did it and still can't provide it?

When you read peer-reviewed articles and reach the bibliography, is it written "Do your reasearch sheeples!"?

oh wait you probably don't read peer-reviewed articles

I don't have a gun.

Never will.

Low vision makes that the right choice.

BUT I'm so thankful that most everyone else I know does have one or more guns.

The government has become rabid and that is the very reason that the second amendment is in place.

I hope they have the technology available soon to correct your vision, sorry to hear that we need more guys like you standing with us.

Good ol marco kloos

why did you copy pasta this article instead of linking to their site?

Amen! Thanks for the post.

Guns don't kill people.

Spam.

Gosh, only 208,000 hits.

bravo

extremely well written

Bravo , i fully agree

[deleted]

Which ones are you referring to?

I'll be strait. I think the NRA is just a front group for gun manufacturers trying to increase sales by arming even the craziest person out there. I'm all for a responsible individual wanting to own guns and having a path to get as many as your heart desires. I used to hunt and took a number of safety courses in order to do so. I am not for handing out guns to just anyone that wants one. If you can't manage a few hours for a safety course and a background check, too bad.

I don't see guns as a problem. I do see a group of manufacturers pushing guns for anyone as a problem.

You say the NRA is just a front, yet advocate education which is put together by the NRA and its certified instructors.

Most people that say that listen to very misinformed anti-gun news unfortunately. They hear it repeated again and again how the NRA is racist and kills babies, none of them will mention (or even believe) that the NRA helped fight to arm African Americans to protect themselves from the KKK. I mean unless this guy up there thinks that African Americans fall into the group of people he doesn't think should be armed. Crazy people don't need guns to hurt massive amounts of others.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch far to much TV, where people take beatings and only come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

This is a bad argument. Guns make stronger attackers more lethal, too. Several studies have shown that attacks with guns are much more lethal than other attacks. Here is a study from 1968 which found that guns were five times more likely than knives to be fatal. A study published in 2004 found similar numbers. And attacks with other weapons, including motor vehicles, are less lethal than knives.

Attacks are often brief and usually do not continue until the victim is helpless. They are often impulsive and the attacker often is not determined to kill the victim.

Yet according to a study Obama had the CDC conduct, guns are used anywhere from 1,000 times to 8,000 times daily in self-defense. Easily 3 times that number are deterred from crime just due to gun ownership. Here is that study for you: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&amp;page=R1

oh so if a defender with a pistol and an attacker with a pistol are fighting the attacker somehow can become "stronger"???? what?

If you have two situations (1) defender and attacker both have guns or (2) neither have guns, the defender is far, far, far more likely to end up dead in situation 1.

If you have the situation where (3) the defender is armed and the attacker is not, the sure, sometimes the attacker will be dissuaded or killed and not the defender. But, even there, it's not clear that situation (3) is safer from situation (2) from the standpoint of the defender actually getting killed. Sometimes the attacker will disarm the defender or otherwise escalate the attack in a way that he wouldn't if the defender were not armed. It may be very unlikely, but since it's also very unlikely that you would get killed if the attacker doesn't have a gun, it's not clear whether you are more or less likely to die.

But, more likely than (3) is (4) the attacker has a weapon and the defender does not. In this case, you are five times more likely to die if the attacker has a gun than when he has a knife.

For me it's less about my surroundings (as I'm in a perfectly safe area), but more about the government taking over. If there is no way to defeat the King Tyrant, how will things ever change?

Gun Control =/= Gun Confiscation

But it normally leads down that road. Places like the UK and Australia used to have much more liberal gun laws but they've been gradually eroded by politicians capitalising on freak events. When you have these kind of ardent anti-gun people looking to push their agenda at all cost you can't give them anything because they will only demand more.

That's what's happening in New York right now. Oh yeah, California too. Oh yeah, Washington D.C. as well.

I'm from California, it's not quite as black and white as you make it sound. It's not gun confiscation, its cracking down on people who are not allowed to own firearms. The mentally ill, and felons, violent criminals (assault, attempted murder, yada).

As explained by NPR:

Yo's team will visit the homes of 11 people who are considered Armed and Prohibited Persons, people on the so-called APPs list. They are all people who at one time purchased firearms legally, but have since run afoul of the law, Yo says. "Such as maybe a felony conviction, mental health commitment, they received a restraining order, domestic violence restraining order — some type of a misdemeanor conviction that prohibits them from possessing firearms."

Beginning In 2007, California officials began collecting names from court records, medical facilities and lists of known or wanted criminals, then cross-referenced them against the federal instant criminal background check system for gun-buyers. The list is updated every day. Detective Enrique Chavez logs weapons from a gun buyback in Miami. Arizona's new law requires municipalities to re-sell weapons recovered in such programs.

California is the only state in the country that identifies people who are prohibited from having a gun and then sends agents out to knock on their door.

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/20/213546439/one-by-one-california-agents-track-down-illegally-owned-guns

If you find that equivalent to "gun confiscation" I think you might want to check your factoids.

http://downtrend.com/travis/california-begins-confiscating-legally-purchased-guns/ "Earlier this year, the state legislature expanded the list of what they call “prohibited persons” – people who have legally registered a firearm but, for various reasons, are no longer allowed their Second Amendment rights. These reasons were expanded to include people who are behind on state taxes, did not pay toll fees in a “timely” manner and a wide range of other minor misdemeanors or reported mental health concerns." Behind on taxes? Really?

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/11/legalized-theft-of-guns/#axzz2ltmD94ST "This is a problem in many urban areas, and it is spreading. The policy is to impound guns, in extreme cases, all guns that officers come across, whether involved in any crime or not, then to refuse to return the guns until a judge issues an order to return them. As the attorney fees needed to obtain a court order can easily be 10 times what the gun is worth, most people do not bother.

It is a form of legalized theft.

I first learned of this policy from students who were or who had lived in California. I had numerous students who had dealings with the LAPD. I started hearing stories about how guns were seized, even if there were no crime involved. If an officer came across a gun, it was seized, and it would not be returned until the LAPD received a court order demanding that it be returned. As hiring a lawyer to obtain a court order could easily cost thousands of dollars, very few people even tried. I also heard that some judges, who had a personal animus toward firearms ownership, simply refused to grant an order." Here is a case related by a student: The student was stopped for a routine traffic stop. While stopped, the officer asked him if he had any guns in the vehicle. The student replied that he had rifles locked in the tool box that was attached to the bed of the pick up truck. The officer demanded that the student open the tool box, which he did. The officer then confiscated the rifles. The student was never charged with a crime, but the police refused to return the rifles unless they received a court order ordering them to do so.

This reverses the presumption of innocence and the presumption of ownership that goes with possession of an item.

In 2005, a California law was passed requiring people who had firearms impounded by police to fill out forms sent to the State government, and be certified as being eligible to legally own a firearm by letter, before the firearm can be returned.

Even with this state imposed certification, many departments are still requiring a court order before they will return lawfully owned property. SAF and Calguns settled a lawsuit against Oakland and San Francisco for refusing to return firearms."

Sounds like gun confiscation to me.

people who have legally registered a firearm but, for various reasons, are no longer allowed their Second Amendment rights

That is a very important sentence. Like I pointed out previously.

Your link to Ammoland is not really a credible source of information, it's all conjecture and hearsay.

For instance:

I first learned of this policy from students who were or who had lived in California.

Why doesn't he name the students?

I started hearing stories about how guns were seized

Hearing stories is not very factual

I also heard that some judges, who had a personal animus toward firearms ownership, simply refused to grant an order

Heard once again.

Here is a case related by a student: The student was stopped for a routine traffic stop. While stopped, the officer asked him if he had any guns in the vehicle

Why doesn't he name a student? That's like rule #1 in journalism

Sorry I don't really trust your Ammoland source.

I do know first hand living in California what is really going on and it is not gun confiscation.

Gun Confiscation is where everyone has their guns taken from them. That is not what is happening.

I live in east Oakland ride out of Fruitvale EVERYDAY to civic center, i work on market St in sf... so for the past 5 years this has never happened. Even during the occupy protest or even the Bart cop shooting of Oscar grant. The main funder and organizer was white. So please inform everyone when this happened?

Your argument is fatally flawed. Please see the number of firearm related deaths (intentional or unintentional) in the US compared to Australia.

Gun deaths in itself isn't what you should look at it's the overall deaths. Just because you remove one method of killing doesn't mean people will stop killing. Look at the stats on guns per capita vs homocide rate by country. Places with more guns often have lower homicide rates, there is no direct correlation between guns in society and violence.

America has gang/inequality/poverty problems which if addressed would vastly reduce the number of gun deaths.

If you study this article;

• http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

You will come to the conclusion that homicide rates are not determined by availability of certain weapons, but population & wealth/poverty ratio.

If you magically make all firearms disappear, sure you'd wind up with less firearm related homicides, but that's because there are no guns, it says nothing about affecting actual homicide rates, & if you ask me, it is a matter of population & poverty because Americas population is higher than Canadas, & they have a higher rate, but the areas in Canada with less people, when looking at per 100 000 people, you will have higher rates, Nunavut & Northwest territories being the logic behind that.

Americas population is also higher than Australias, & in reference to OP's argument, after Great Britain tightened gun laws, crime rates skyrocketted, why do you think that was?

Australia is currently in a gun crisis, if you've read the news, gangs are rampantly killing people and there are tons of people having home invasions and the lot. I have family and friends there, and they think it's nuts. Realize the only reason why gun violence decreased after their gun ban was because they included suicides in the gun violence numbers, which represented over 60% of all gun violence in Australia. You friend, are seriously misinformed.

This is one of my favorite shirt quotes on the topic of gun control

I'm pretty happy with the fact that the gun violence in Germany is nearly non existent.

What about violence in general? Crime rate in general in germany is more than half of what it is in the US, where as the US has 4 times the population.

There is some correlation to number of guns, and number of crimes overall.

Do you have any sources? I actually doubt that very much but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

This book goes over it (it's a pdf.) Again, correlation, not causation. The evidence presented shows that guns either reduce, or at worst, don't affect the crime rate of a region.

http://ia700304.us.archive.org/7/items/MoreGunsLessCrime/More_Guns_Less_Crime.pdf

I was actually talking about:

Crime rate in general in germany is more than half of what it is in the US, where as the US has 4 times the population.

because as far as I know the crime rate per capita in Germany is very much lower than in the US. I do not have any sources on this though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Germany#General_crime_levels

Just shy of 6 million in 2010, another site showed a little over 6 million for 2013.

Wikipedia only gives per capita, but another site showed a little less than 12 million with the US. Germany has roughly 80million people, the use around 360 million people.

Some googling will probably get you an overall source that you might be able to trust, since I can't get that info from wikipedia for the US apparently.

Germany has an estimated 25 million guns owned, licit and illicit, with a population of about 82 million people. That's easily 1 gun for every 3 people.

[deleted]

[deleted]

For the record: I'm all for the 2nd amendment in its original sense, i.e. including military grade weapons, not merely low capacity sports rifles. That being said:

Reason or force, that’s it.

is woefully incomplete! The PTB make extensive use of more subliminal, psychological means, namely fear and (artificial) peer pressure in order to control people, which qualify neither as reason nor force (in the conventional sense). Dominance over the psychological realm is their most effective weapon, and the failure to recognize it is what makes it so effective -- please don't make that mistake and incorporate it into your perspective. Ty.

Ok then. Explain Europe, and the relatively tiny level of violent gun crime where controls are much tighter?

[deleted]

Crime as a whole hasn't gone down.

how far can you throw a knife? betcha crimes occurring over long distances or through walls has gone way down.

A fag, am i? hahahah you just lost all arguments.

[deleted]

You showed me.

[deleted]

How so? Why is it that most of the gun homicide happens in the country that worships guns, if they're a good idea for "defence'?

Because the most amount of self-defense with a weapon of any type, happens here with guns. The CDC conducted a study that Obama asked for on guns, and one of the first things they found was that guns are used daily in the United States for self-defense anywhere from 1,000 times to 8,000 daily. Easily 3 times that number are deterred from crime simply due to gun ownership. Here is that study for you: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&amp;page=R1

None of that explains why gun homicide is lower where there are less guns

Gun homicide rate of course will be lower where there are less guns. The point is that taking guns away from responsible citizens instead of criminals does not lower gun homicide, and gun laws we have implemented do exactly that and do not affect criminal ownership. When the number of citizens with gun ownership is closer to the number of guns owned by criminals or high above it, as in Iceland, Switzerland, and Israel, gun homicide is nearly non-existent.

Pull statistics there for Ireland. Virtually zero legal gun ownership and virtually zero gun homicide. Plenty of illegal guns. Please explain.

An estimated 233,120 to 383,120 guns in Ireland yes, only 150,000 suspected to be illegal, to a compared 233,120 legally owned. In other words the legal ownership outweighs the illegal, and as I've pointed out before, that there is enough to deter crime. Because not all of those illegally owned firearms are owned for the intent to commit crime. They're owned by Freedom Forces such as the IRA that don't want English intervention in their homeland. Just like I pointed out in other posts. Illinois lost a concealed carry court case banning concealed carry. Immediately 400,000 people signed up for a concealed carry license. Now the list is millions long. Guess what? All that gun violence in Chicago immediately started dropping, as well as in the rest of Illinois. Because we are having an equal criminal to responsible citizen ratio of owned guns. Basically, they're scared. In Ireland you don't have the extreme poverty rates that cause crime here. Which I'd like to also point out, every city, county, or otherwise in the entire United States that are claiming bankruptcy are Democratically controlled and most of them are Democratic strongholds. A big weakness I've seen over and over again is that Democrats do not know how to balance budgets, they just spend, spend, spend, and think the magic money tree is going to make more. It has been mentioned by Democrats on more than one occasion to bring the National Guard into Chicago to take control which is ridiculous. Realize the majority of these gangsters have guns you can't buy in the United States that are illegal here, which is proof that our gun control laws aren't working to prevent the criminals from being armed, and that stricter gun control laws will have the same effect.

only 150,000 suspected to be illegal, to a compared 233,120 legally owned.

So 40%.

Because not all of those illegally owned firearms are owned for the intent to commit crime. They're owned by Freedom Forces such as the IRA that don't want English intervention in their homeland.

You've now immediately coloured yourself in as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. This sentence puts you in north east america at VERY CLOSEST to EVER having been in ireland. Source : I'm irish, I live here, and you're talknig shit.

It's actually quite simple. America fucking masturbates over gun ownership in the name of freedom, and america is the country where people shoot each other in schools the most, and on the street the most, and shoot at things FOR FREEDOM the most. It's fucking nonsense and you know it.

Yeah, 40% of guns are owned illegally. Places like Chicago where the majority of guns are owned illegally is where people become victims. Now that more guns are being carried and owned legally, crime is going down, because criminals are afraid of committing crimes. Where I have lived in New York, we had Irish over every summer to work at the bars and restaurants, and I made a ton of Irish friends. They have the complete opposite attitude you have. They love gun ownership, they think it's amazing. They support Obama but criticize him when he makes mistakes. They were more involved in their politics and the politics here in the United States than any American. They loved freedom and they would tell me that we are free because of all our gun ownership. I still talk to them this very day, and I also have family and friends that are English/Welsh/Irish. Because I'm English/Welsh/Irish. So I think you're minority where you are my friend.

You think I'm the minority in Ireland as an Irishman talking about Irish politics, and you presume to tell me this from America.

You conceited moron.

I'll tell you what, I'll give you the names of my friends and family over there who claim that public opinion is with them and you guys can meet up and fight it out.

Actually, instead of just being a snarky prick I might do a better job of explaining once I get to a proper keyboard, eh?

I'm obviously not paying attention. Is there a gun control epidemic here I haven't noticed yet????

They are confiscating guns in New York, California, and Washington D.C. Bloomberg is spending millions in Colorado to push stricter gun laws (which is why we recalled 2 and the third resigned so she couldn't be recalled, over 63% of the recall votes were registered Democrats) and his mayors against guns lost some mayors because they straight out said his program wasn't about gun control, but in fact a gun ban. Do you live under a rock?

Durrr op suggests there's a bunch of gun grabbers on this sub. I haven't seen anything remotely like that here.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/27/the-gun-confiscation-notice-nyc-resident-reportedly-received-will-likely-send-chills-down-your-spine/ I have friends and family in New York who are all Marines, FDNY, NYPD, and they have all gotten these confiscation letters. In fact my brother asked me to get him some 30 round magazines when this started. There are better legitimate sources than the blaze, that's the first thing that popped up when I googled.

I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.

try magic mushrooms. they can help you not be afraid, even without a gun.

http://news.yahoo.com/magic-mushrooms-erase-fear-mice-122805896.html

we're all one. you can't hurt another without hurting yourself.

This is the dumbest post I've seen in a while. The only thing that makes people use reason is a force deterrent? No, inbred its living in a civilised society full of adults! Ie not america, apparently, where they're all suspicious of each other. Christ almighty... Such backwater thinkers

No, the only thing that makes people willing to take from you what is yours, is force deterrent. Don't make an overgeneralized statement like that, you know that's not what OP was saying.

The only thing willing to make people take from me what is mine is force deterrent? What

So having a gun makes people want my stuff? Don't think so

And if you meant NOT having a gun makes people want my stuff, again you're a victim of a society of paranoia, fear, distrust and hostility. Literally decades behind where modern civilisation is at in most western nations

The only thing willing to stop people who want to take from you what is yours is force deterrent. That's why we have police officers and the 2nd Amendment. Because when someone is threatening your life, you don't always want a 10 minute response time. And the truth is, I am not victim of paranoia, fear, or distrust, I live in reality. I grew up in New York and now I live in the Midwest. And in New York is where most people fit the description you just gave. But in the Midwest where I live where gun ownership is high and open carry legal, they are actually more civil. See what you fail to understand is that when people say in a civil society no one will need guns is a true statement. But so is the statement that in a civil society everyone can have guns, and it will still be a civil society. In other words, you are the one full of paranoia, fear, distrust, and hostility by saying you don't trust others with guns. Do you see how that works?

Lol. I trust my fellow citizens because I live in a place where I don't want to hurt them and they don't want to hurt me. Not because we might shoot each other if we try, but just because we don't want to. So you are the paranoid one. It's a sad, sad state of human pyschology when humans cannot feel safe around each other without the reassurance they could end each other if they needed to. Incredibly sad. I pity your people and hope they find inner peace.

You live in a fantasy world. Sadly there are plenty of people who would use force in every country in the world to take what they want from you and I. I pity your ignorance once you become the victim. There very likely will never be a time where there isn't someone around you or I who wouldn't do us harm for whatever selfish reasons. This Utopia you imagine doesn't exist.

It's not utopia, its called community. I can see how living in a place that doesnt have it would cause such a bleak worldview.

It is a utopia, because it's a completely fictional figment of your imagination.

No, its not. Of course you can never legislate for every single outcome ever ever, but when most the population aren't in paranoid distrustful fear of each other, then suddenly the idea of owning a lethal weapon just seems embarrassing. It's offensive to the community, its insulting to your society. I know you can't grasp these ideas, because you come from a society of fear and distrust, and the idea of leaving yourself vulnerable is terrifying to you, and its not your fault. But if you think your solution is better than ours, you are so very very wrong. I would never own a gun to protect myself. Ever. I believe in my fellow man, and my fellow man believes in me. We are all brothers. I pray your part of the world can achieve this level of community some day. I am not kind through fear of retribution, but through kindness. It is 100% a better model for a society, and it WORKS

Fear and distrust? More like a world more in touch with reality. So you're telling me that there aren't illegal immigrants in your country that are sex slaves? No rub and tug shops? No organized crime? You just live completely ignorant of these things as long as they don't prey on you.

http://i.imgur.com/ssL9aBa.jpg

in my country the police don't have guns either. so no, i just live in a place where we don't need a deterrent not to hurt each other. i know it's hard to grasp from a society where you're taught everone wants to hurt you and the only thing stopping them is that you might hurt them back, in fact i can't imagine the mental torture and anxiety this must inflict on people. but in real honest truth, we just don't want to take from each other, and we just don't want to fear or distrust each other. it's much, much better this way.

and i wouldn't trust our government as far as i can throw them, but my fellow citizens are brilliant and i love them for the most part

Wait, so you're telling me there isn't one gun in the entire country? You know there are literally 4 countries in the ENTIRE world that can afford not to arm their police right? So that pretty much makes your argument null and void. We aren't taught ever that everyone wants to hurt you, but we were taught that there are people out there that will want to hurt you, and you have the right and responsibility to protect yourself. I grew up in New York, and I was lucky enough to grow up in a neighborhood full of police and firefighters around me my entire life. No one growing up worried about anyone hurting any of us, because we were surrounded by people armed with guns. We didn't think anyone out there purposely wanted to come and hurt us ever, but we were able to live carefree thinking about it because of who we were surrounded by. People would purposely avoid our neighborhood because everyone knew this. They wouldn't rob from us, they wouldn't threaten us, and that still works the same way today in neighborhoods that have the same layout. When you have a neighborhood less than a mile away that is the Eastern hub for MS-13, and you can sit there and still feel safe with an international criminal organization like that, you know that guns are more than just security and safety, they are the realization that if everyone was on equal ground, that little old lady that weighs 85 lbs, and that group of 6'5" thugs that just want to beat her senseless for some, "game", that we could all live peacefully, that people who would rob or steal, whether it's a purse snatcher or a guy on wall street, they would be held accountable for their actions. Unfortunately we don't have that fear anymore. The most corruption and crime is in the areas where people are robbed most of their indivisible rights, and where they want to take even more. And the people pushing for a robbery of our 2nd Amendment rights don't stop there, Senator Feinstein has been calling for a "Freedom of the Press" pass to be issued out to approved reporters by the government. She doesn't realize that the 1st Amendment isn't about Freedom of the Press, it's about Freedom of Speech, for everyone, in general. So with retards like that walking around, and a push to take away everyone's right to speak freely, I will never give up my 2nd Amendment rights, there are many of us that never will. Because even that retarded Nazi and that Black Panther deserve the right to spew their hatred and speak their minds freely without fear of being silenced. And I have the right to ignore both of them. Because if we didn't have that freedom, I'm sure Barrack Obama would have had all Republicans silenced for his re-election, and every President after him would do the same to their opposing parties for their re-elections as well. Which if you haven't heard, the IRS and other agencies were in fact used to silence and attack such groups that they disagreed with. If you have to lie and use under-handed methods to get your point across, then you have no point at all.

Blah blah. If you want to try to poke holes in my argument, don't do it from a hypocritical point of view. Of course there are guns in my country, but they're rare. The police aren't armed and you're trying to skewer and misrepresent my position with such logic, which makes you a waste of time to deal with. In closing, I would rather be vulnerable and trusting, than dangerous and untrusting. It is the superior way, it is the civilised way. Enjoy your fear, anxiety and 'power', Neanderthal.

I didn't have to skewer one thing, as I pointed out, there are literally 4 countries of hundreds in the entire world that don't arm their police. You my friend are the extreme minority and you're all over there like, why can't people be perfect like us in our small secluded communities?!?!?? Please.

The UK police are unarmed

That is in fact untrue and the police there having been arming themselves more and more since the handgun ban years back. Which is why they are issuing permits to residents for handguns in areas with high crime.

Ok Mr internet research champion of facts. I live here. There are special armed units but most police are unarmed. If you think the British public want to go backwards into a time where they need guns then keep fantasising. We have a gun free society and we like it. We're not animals and can treat each other with respect without fear being a factor. You're not gonna uncivilise us with fearmongering rhetoric.

That's nice, I have plenty of friends and family that live there as well, and they all say it was a mistake how they took the guns away, and they pointed out how a few police chiefs publicly announced that they couldn't protect the public because crime was so bad and recommended the people getting pistol permits (which they are issuing again due to crime) to protect themselves. I'll see if I can find that article again for you somewhere, it's out there. :)

I feel like England's porn filter is blocking me out from finding pertinent news...but I'm trudging on for you!

The fact I love, is that areas like yours with the least gun ownership in the world, have little gun crime, yet places like Switzerland and Iceland, that have the highest gun ownership in the world, have maybe 3 gun crimes in their whole recorded history. I mean that is good logic for you :)

The point being, there will always be people like this: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ttbzk/im_evan_booth_and_i_can_build_guns_bombs_and/ and making guns illegal will do absolutely nothing to stop them. Remove guns, and evil people will still find evil ways.

Your entire argument can be boiled into don't bother me or I'll shoot you. You know that right?

That's beautifully misconstrued. Dude, you practically created art.

It's not "get out of my way or I'll kill you," it's "you're baring your teeth, so I'll bear mine back. Try to bite me, I'll bite you back."

That kind of thing will hopefully never happen in my life, but if it ever does I'd much rather be able to defend myself or my family than have myself or them get seriously injured or killed.

For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

The fact of the matter is, if you use the gun for self-defense, you're more than likely going to fuck up. Sorry, but statistics don't lie.

Hmm, the CDC estimated that guns are used in self-defense 1,000 to 8,000 times daily. Easily 3 times that number are deterred due to gun ownership. Obama had this study done and if you check out all the news articles regarding it, they all say that this lengthy study delivered a major blow to all gun control advocates. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&amp;page=R1 That's 365,000 to 2.92 million times a year guns are used in self-defense for anyone counting. You're going to compare a few hundred injuries or deaths to that? You're out of your mind.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/28/controversial-pro-gun-researcher-helped-write-f/194660

Even if the numbers were as low as 100,000 times a year used in self-defense that still isn't an argument for gun control. Because once again, easily 3 times that number are deterred from crime due to gun ownership. Probably well over 10 times. Here, I'll give you an example of how that works. Kennesaw Georgia was a town in the suburbs of Atlanta Georgia. In 1982 they passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to an Illinois county passing a gun ban at the same time (which was reversed years later). In the next few years, Atlanta was hit by the crack epidemic and became the murder capital of the entire nation. Crime increased in every single surrounding area except one. Can you guess where that was? In fact every year since to this very day, that town has only seen a complete decrease in crime. That county in Illinois has only seen an increase in crime every single year since. You site an article that sites Bloomberg, who if you haven't been paying attention, has been spending millions upon millions of dollars to enforce more gun regulation throughout the country. His mayors against illegal guns program lost about 5 mayors immediately after they all quit and claimed that the program wasn't for better gun control and regulation, but in fact for an all out gun ban. The article you posted has nothing to do with the recent study done by the CDC. The studies your article talks about were published back in 1992 and 1994. The study I posted was done by the government and published in 2013. There was no bias, and it turned out in this recent government study, everything your article claims were lies and manipulated by the NRA are in fact true and there was no manipulation at all. The article you site was published a year before the CDC released its recent study that Obama commissioned. Those were some of the first findings they found, and the study is still in progress for more statistics and information.

let the individual states decide. if rhode island votes yes, fine. if virgina votes no, then who cares, thats fine too.

This isn't Obamacare. The 2nd protects the 1st.

Your premise is flawed. People act and interact in ways outside of reason and force. It's called charity. Charity depends only on the goodness of one person judging their self by their self. There is no gun, no promise of return. Simply doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

The problem with this world is that people like you, who can't comprehend doing the right thing for any reason other than the self-serving, still exist.

Your point of view is narrow and narcissistic.

Or he understands that in the real world, charity isn't a one-stop cure-all?

I mean, shit, man. I try to be a good person and have compassion for others and be understanding of their situations. I do stuff for other people without any thought of reward, but that doesn't mean that I'm not gonna protect myself and my family if someone tries to hurt me or them. Obviously not every situation would require lethal force, and I'd much rather not ever have to resort to it, but I feel infinitely more comfortable with my life knowing that i have the training and means to do so if shit completely hits the fan and i have no other choice.

Just because some people understand that real life doesn't always follow idealism doesn't mean they're devoid of compassion and altruism. One of the biggest misconceptions about gun owners is that we're all a bunch of trigger happy George Zimmermans, just chomping at the bit to pop someone at the slightest provocation. The fact that so many people buy into that false assumption is proof that selective media reporting is incredibly effective at molding your brain they way they want. It's incredibly disturbing, to say the least.

Truth is, the overwhelming majority of gun owners are safe and responsible with their firearms. Those that train for home/self defense take their training incredibly seriously and understand that actually squeezing the trigger and taking a life is the absolute last resort situation that should only be resorted to after every other attempt to defuse the situation has failed. It's and incredibly serious thing that carries lifelong emotional, mental, and legal consequences. You don't take that shit lightly. They'd much rather never have to make that decision, but still train for that moment so that if it ever happens, they'll be able to handle it and they'll understand how serious of a thing it is.

to those who do keep guns to protect us from tyranny, you're not doing a very good job.

This all sounds reasonable and convincing. However, the fact remains that many, many countries have stricter gun laws and far less gun crime. Could there be a correlation? Is it possible the staggering US gun crime statistics are due to the ready availability of weapons? Or is there another reason entirely?

Well yeah, there's going to be less gun crime, but it doesn't severely reduce violent crime in general.

The main reason for the second amendment is to stop a tyrannical government. but for gun crime of course theres more gun crime in a country with more guns. A murderer will shoot you if he has a gun, stab you if he has a knife, run you over if he has a car, or beat to death if he has a club. Tools aren't the cause.

That actually isn't true, and the countries with the most gun ownership like Switzerland and Iceland have the least overall crime and gun crime. In fact Iceland's police just shot and killed a man for the first time every about a month ago.

Fair enough. So what's going on in the US?

Well Chicago is a bloodbath but Illinois lost a court battle banning concealed carry which immediately led to 400,000 people to sign up, that line is now millions long and immediately as this hit the news, crime in Chicago, specifically Illinois curbed quite considerably and is still dropping. Realize Democratic anti-gun leaders like the mayor and governor wanted to bring the National Guard in to curb the violence, which is ridiculous. The only place where there are strict gun laws and gun violence has dropped is NYC where they blatantly violated everyone's 4th Amendment rights with stop and frisk. As soon as those policies were court ordered to be stopped, crime boomed again.

Interesting stuff. As ever, it's a complex subject with a dozen factors, but for me, gun control can only help.

Canadian here. I've shot handguns, shotguns, rifles, and machine guns. I kind of like guns.

You have written about what you think a gun free society would be like, but you haven't really looked at the lives of people who live in gun free societies. Saying stuff like, "People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the mob" is just hyperbole.

We have no need for non hunting guns in our Canadian society and most Canadians agree with me. You can go on as much as you want to try and promote guns, but I live in a society where it is very difficult to get guns and common people don't have guns or think much about guns.

Having regular citizens carrying guns in my city would scare the crap out of me. You would never know who could pull out a gun and start shooting for whatever reason they thought was just. Of course if everyone else had guns I would have to get a gun to protect myself. No thanks, I'd rather live in a society where guns are heavily regulated.

I think carrying a gun is a desperate measure in an uncivilized society. If you live in a truly civil society, you don't really need guns.

Well I think you ignore places like Israel, Iceland, and Switzerland that have the highest gun ownership in the world and lowest amount of overall crime. Realize that since Israel starting arming pretty much everyone (teachers walk around with fully automatic rifles), that not only did all crime start to decrease but terrorism as well. If that isn't an argument for gun use, well, I think you're fairly ignorant to the truth.

Well, if everyone was walking around with fully automatic rifles, I sure as shit would not be doing anything to give anyone an itchy trigger finger... but then, I'd only be behaving myself because I was afraid, not because I felt I had a stake in the society.

I'd rather live in my personal la la fantasy land where only cops and hunters have guns and teachers go to school thinking about, you know, teaching, instead of protecting the kids from terrorismmmmmmm... oh wait!

I DO live in this fantasy land that you can't seem to dream of. It's called Canada, it's real, and we're all quite fine not having guns here.

P.S. - socialized medicine, free early term abortions, marriage equality - Canada - heck yes, eh.

Really? In Israel they carry fully automatic rifles around with them everywhere they go, and everyone there feels like they have a stake in their society, in fact I would have to say that Israelis are probably closer knit than nearly any other society in the world. Canada doesn't and never has had to worry about terrorism, unfortunately the U.S. does because of our overreaching foreign policy, which gladly Canada benefits from being our neighbor. People like to think if the U.S. wasn't here and instead it was just Mexico that you would be better off without us. Good thing we're a buffer between you and that bad place where criminals are going around massacring people by the hundreds, hijacking buses, flooding illegal arms into the United States to the Mexican Cartels, MS-13, you name it. I'd like to see you switch places with us and keep your imaginary safety that we actually provide.

In Israel they carry fully automatic rifles around with them everywhere they go

I know, right? Good thing I live in Canada where I have to worry about carrying my... ummm... mobile phone everywhere I go.

A completely gun free society does sound incredible doesn't it? As a strong second amendment supporter and gun owner i would love if guns simply didn't exist, but just like communism the idea is too perfect and will never happen. but again this isn't about crime rates its about the elite and the governments of the world taking power from the people.

I live in a mostly gun free society. Deaths by gun are mostly non-existent here. Oh yeah, and Canada is fairly Socialist. You should come here and visit us in our mostly gun-free, almost Communist country with free medicare and free early term abortions. It's like a kind of hell that many Americans fear - except it works great for us Canadians...

[deleted]

Mostly for hunting.

I agree that guns are a necessary part of society, but I don't think everyone needs to carry all the effing time. It's in some cases a problem waiting to happen, especially for a person who isn't as trained as you might be. Shooting in an airplane, at least to my knowledge causes decompression of the aircraft. In a train/subway you might have problems with ricochet and the like. Shooting in the dark, unless you really really know what you're aiming at is probably worse than doing nothing. Chances are you'll hit someone you aren't aiming at. Leaving a loaded and unlocked gun anywhere near a kid under 8 is probably asking for trouble.

I don't want to ban guns, or even make it hard to get one if you need one, but at the same time, I think there are common sense things to think about with guns that need to be thought through. It's not always simple.

Then why do we have a program to train pilots to carry weapons if they so choose. They get a license called a Federal Flight Deck Officer. Don't you realize the government itself said they wish they could have an armed Air Marshal on every flight, they would.

All of you who think little bits of lead flying at high velocity protects freedom are sellouts to the MIC. In an age of superweapons, hypersonic gauss rifles, orbital kinetic bombardment, and nuke weaponry, its not rifles that protect freedom, but a free mind and a voice that speaks without fear. You who cling to your guns have shown you have nothing meaningful to say about freedom. In fact, you're a waste of freedom. You speak out of fear, not freedom. You rant to validate your own paranoia, while lady liberty gets fucked in the ass by men in body armor with US produced tools of killing.

That's why we're winning in Afghanistan. Oh wait, we aren't!!! In fact violence is at it's height. You are oblivious to reality.

Reality is starring us in the face and all the guns in the world won't turn the tide.

I'm sure a guerrilla resistance in any country armed with small arms could do exactly what they're doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria right now. The only way they are able to deal with the rebels in Colombia was through straight out assassination of the rebel leaders with bombs of various types, which was highly frowned upon in the past due to retaliation with assassination, which I'm sure Colombia may be facing very shortly.

As someone who lives in Australia and is not familiar with the ideals behind gun legislation, could this please be explained?

Why do people think firearms are directly related to everyones right to exist as a human? In most civilised nations, guns don't hold a place in law or culture, and yet there is no social decay. People aren't worried about needing a weapon to 'protect' them.

Couldn't an argument be that a lot of the fears Americans have with loosing guns, could very well be brought on by the use of guns in the first place?

Our second amendment is in place to stop a tyrannical government (because at the time we just got done fighting one that tried to confiscate our weapons) Throughout history and just in the 20th century more than 100 million disarmed people have died defenseless against their governments.

Shooting is a cultural thing in America hunting, marksmanship, & just look how cool guns are www.reddit.com/r/gunporn Even your typical liberal, pro obamacare, softy redditor is pro gun. IMHO anti gun Americans are very rare the few I have ran into come off as weirdos. The kind of people that get really upset at kids for using imaginary bow arrows.

Our right to own is our 2nd most important right. Having a gun makes anyone instantly very powerful, it is a huge responsibility. Our Constitution shows our founders trust in the individual to be able to wield that power. Overall we have been good with it of the 20,000 firearm deaths each year 2/3 are suicide. Most of whats left is murder, but hell you can kill someone with 2x4. Acciedental death do happen, but its an infantesimal number of accidents when compared to the number of people who are within 15 feet of a loaded gun everyday.

They would have to use guns to take our guns. As long as the 2nd Amendment isnt repealed, they wont be able to take our guns. If they tried while the 2nd Amendment was still in the constituatio, lots of government enforcers would be killed trying to get them. I wouldn't be surprised if enforcers were openly hunted during and after the attempt to take them. Not to mention there would be hell to pay in the following election. There is a gun in almost every home in America. Even if they tried to issue a seize gun order across the nation as long as the 2nd Amendment is in place the military would be obligated by their oath to step in and defend the constitution.

I have plenty of friends and family in Australia that I speak to regularly that have the complete opposite stance that you do, and they live in Melbourne, Brisbane, and some weird place on the West Coast. They are very familiar with gun legislation, and maybe you're not paying attention to the rise in gun violence and gang violence, because my family has showed me articles about how there is a huge crime spree involving guns right now, and how they're fighting to have certain gun rights returned to them. I mean I'm over in Denver so I don't really know, maybe my family is lying to me or you just live under a rock?

I've lived in a major city (Sydney) most of my life, you hear about certain instances of gang related gun violence but it really is minimal and very region specific. As in a 5 kilometre radius. Whatever the issues are, not many people believe the solution is to arm everyone to protect against a very small minority.

Of course there is no point in comparing our own nations policy's without opening up all the variables in between. Others have explained how intertwined your right to bare arms are in your personal freedoms, whereas we seem content with our nations policy's and their effects.

When there is a confrontation between two people carrying lethal weapons then one is quite likely to die, the point that people fail to realize is that whether this is the victim or the aggressor this is a bad thing You may say they deserve it, perhaps so, but the system of a state can only work if you are prepared to allow the state to protect you, if you cannot do that then there are much deeper problems than gun law. The USA is in a stage of development where it should be able to guarantee this. It cannot. This makes us look at why it cannot: The widespread nature of firearms allowing crime and violence to be commonplace. Now criminalizing guns would be insane but the belief that guns make anyone safer is ludicrous, aside from organized crime most crimes are either theft out of need, which shows underlying social problems, and crimes of passion. The last two are made infinitely easier and more dangerous when guns are widely available. in countries such as the UK and Canada there is tight gun control, and there are not many shootings, nor is there more per capita crime. This shows us that the system works and that lack of firearms has no detrimental effect. If there are many guns available to all there is a far greater opportunity for someone to use the power a gun grants to kill or maim, Trigger happy vigilantes in these situations would only make things worse.

That's an extremely biased argument. I love how people mention canada and its "tight" gun control. They have over 7 million gun owners and still have a low amount of shootings.

You aren't listening.

I haven't seen anything in this sub about gun grabbing being OK like the OP suggested.

[deleted]

So are you saying that link is disinformation? Because it isn't.

[deleted]

So wait, Obama had the CDC conduct a study about guns and they found that guns are used 1,000 to 8,000 times a day in self-defense, and rifles, are used in killings just as the picture says, about 300 times a year, and this is all misleading? I think you are ignorant of the truth my friend. Anti-gun advocates usually are, they don't think logically but in fact quite emotionally. I bet you think one bullet blows up 3 cars and a building like in the movies as well.

[deleted]

Just did, hope he likes my response to his blatant ignorance :D I call out things like he has seen as well, but what he is specifically speaking of I believe he is completely wrong. We in the pro-gun community don't allow for such ignorance because it undermines our position. In fact it pisses us off.

I normally wouldn't throw in my hat to this conversation, but I feel I must. I understand mans right to defend his life. But honestly, ask yourself a question. Do you truly wish everyone had guns, or do you just wish you had guns? It seems to me a vast majority of the pro gun lobby have the attitude that they are certainly capable of safely carrying a weapon and operating it correctly, but they feel uneasy about others having them which in turn makes them want a gun that much more. I do not wish to live in a society where I know that every little argument that happens in a grocery store, every sporting event that starts getting nasty, etc... Has the added tension and danger of knowing everyone is armed. Suddenly something that may have been settled in a less violent way has the opportunity to end much darker. Criminals will always have guns. This is a given. But before every criminal was a criminal, he was the same as you.

I truly wish everyone had guns. The only people that will have added tension and danger knowing everyone is armed is people that are guilty themselves, or from my experience, Liberals that are scared and uneducated about gun use and believe that just like in Hollywood movies, one bullet will blow up 3 cars and a building. I don't think I have ever truly met any person who was anti-gun that was thinking logically about the situation and/or was actually trained to some degree in gun use.

Well, it's nice to meet you then. I am 23, raised by an avid hunter and police officer. I have used and been around guns all my life. I am uncomfortable when others have guns, especially in unpredictable environments. I would fuckin never go to a bar if I knew they allowed patrons to carry weapons, let alone concealed carry. You aren't a cowboy. Your job isn't to defend the weak, if you want a gun for defense have one in your home. There is no reason for a modern society to require it's citizens to be gunslingers.

There is no where in the entire country where you are allowed to bring a gun into a bar. If your friends are doing that, then they are breaking the law and being that you were raised by a police officer, I would expect you to know this because you are breaking the law just by knowing they are carrying a gun in that environment.

I know there isn't, but as you gun nuts love to say: people don't follow the law. I was simply saying if more people carried weapons those types of environments would certainly be more likely to have folks with guns.

In New York City they have to have bouncers pat everyone down for weapons at any major club. New York City has the strictest gun laws in the country. I've dealt with the same thing in places in California as well. I live in Denver now, no pat downs, fist fights all the time downtown by all the bars, no shootings. Pat downs are unnecessary, open carry is common. What you're saying may sound right but it has no basis. More guns does not equal more gun crime or illegal use of guns. What does is more criminals carrying guns in an area where people who are not criminals can not carry guns.

Know what's funny though? Every NYPD police officer I have ever met, where we have the strictest laws (even New York Police Officers in general) encourages gun ownership. They want more people to own guns because they feel safer, because they feel like targets. I think people that think we should have the guns in the hands of a few select people and no one else is ridiculous. Police officers top the charts of alcohol abuse, substance abuse in general including prescription drugs, spousal abuse, and the list goes on and on and on, and these are the select few we only want carrying guns??? We trust these people that easily have double the rates of such statistics than the regular populace??? My brother is in the NYPD, congratulations to him he just got accepted to ESU, my best friend I grew up with is in the NYPD. A quarter of the Marines from my platoon are NYPD. Easily 20 Marines my brother knew are Marines. I can go on and on. I grew up in a neighborhood full of police, firefighters, in the city and on the island. The point is I've been around this all my life and I'm not trying to hate on them, but that's the reality of the situation, and they know it. On Long Island we paid our police the highest in the nation and people bitch about it. But you know what? That's a professional police force, that's how much ALL police officers should be paid. And it's not just about pay, it's about the amount of hours they have to work and the stress involved. Long Island takes care of their police, the NYPD starts them off at $28,000 just a few years ago. You can't live alone in NYC or the surrounding area on that amount, it's unreal. The point is, I might be lenient towards more gun control if our police across the nation were treated right and a huge amount of them weren't a bunch of alcoholics who beat their wives. I'm not going to even get into the recent news about police officers killing people (like that guy that kidnapped, raped, and killed a waitress), but I don't understand for their protection and ours why they aren't all forced to wear cameras. The answer is they aren't trained well enough, and there are too many things they have to deal with that are questionable to someone looking from the outside, but not if they were in that position themselves. So police officers would be unfairly treated. I'm going to stop now, but that's my 2 cents. Sorry about the rant.

Why not put that you want to talk about firearms in the title? "Guys we need to talk" is a bullshit title and I'm sick of seeing linkbait-style tactics being used in this sub. Just fucking say what your selfie is about, don't make me fucking guess, wtf is the point of having a title at all if everyone is just going to put shit like this or "SOMETHING THAT REALLY BOTHERS ME" or "IM SO SICK OF THIS" or "DOCTORS HATE THIS ONE SECRET THING TO MAKE YOUR PENIS BIGGER." Vagueposting is fucking retarded on Facebook, don't do it here.

Even worse is, I support your opinion and agree with it, but when you make a title like that some of us are going to have a negative reaction to it.

Holding a gun makes you a target, and it makes you reliant on arms producers for ammunition. Go play COD more, guntards, and enjoy what you make of this country with your unexamined purchasing habits. You make this country hell with your fanboydom of instruments of killing. Go back to the 17th century where you'll be much happier. I want my fucking country back.

want your country back? oh yeah go and take it back with???

Lol, how am I a target if I carry a gun? I'm sure this is why areas with open carry laws and high gun ownership have the lowest amounts of overall crime, especially gun crime, in the entire nation.

Guntards really don't care about facts. They cherry-pic data until they find something that suits them. http://blogs.lawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Lawyers.com-guns-infographic.jpg

Yeah you're right, but you must be the guntard. You realize that New York is listed as a state with the lowest gun homicide and the strictest gun laws, but what you fail to realize, is that most gun homicide happens in New York City where it's nearly impossible to own a gun (even for former military and firefighters) and that Long Island and upstate New York have some of the highest gun ownership of the entire nation only behind places like Texas. Same goes for Chicago and Illinois. Same with California, Northern California is lush with guns and gun communities, where do all the gun homicides happen? In cities with even stricter gun laws than the state gun laws already in place. So do ratios actually properly represent the affect of gun ownership and the drop in crime as well as the lack of gun ownership and increase in crime? Not at all. This is another liberal skewed statistic to misrepresent the facts. You want to impress me and woo me to your side. I for one time, would like to see a liberal statistic that doesn't leave out certain information, a map that shows areas of high legal gun ownership and areas of high gun homicide. The reason you will never see this is because as I said, and as is logically understandable is that that infographic misleads people to believe a false fallacy, that gun control leads to a decrease in gun crime and a lack of legal gun laws lead to an increase in gun crime. You will never see what I ask for because the anti-gun nuts don't want to undermine their own stance with the truth and straight out facts. If what they believe were true a map with ALL the statistics I mentioned and more would have come out YEARS ago to support their stance, but the truth is the facts aren't on their sides. They have to use half-truths and straight out lies to get their points across.

They also regularly and purposely confuse statistics regarding gun homicide, gun suicide, gun violence, gun injuries, gun suicide, and anything else, I always notice that anything a liberal posts about gun control is very deceptive and misleading, just like what you just posted. It gives the perception of something that is completely untrue. Why the hell do they show statistics about pawn shops and unlicensed gun dealers which have absolutely no information on how they actually affect what's going on or where these pawn shops and dealers are and how they affect statistics. It's a smoke and mirrors trick to deceive you. Just throw in random gun facts to give the perception that guns are killing everything and are out of control. That infographic is split into three parts and neither part compliments or supports the other. Someone just threw in random facts in there to suggest that they all support the main premise of the infographic, that guns are out of control and are scary. It's actually absolutely ridiculous you posted that lol. "THIS YEAR FLORIDA HIT A RECORD 1 MILLION GUN PERMITS" what the hell does that have to do with anything? Oh wait, I know, Trayvon Martin was shot in Florida and that info relates to his murder!!! This is nothing more than a bunch of emotional bullshit thrown together to scare people, nothing to help anyone draw a logically conclusion off of anything. It is very pretty as well, the colors appeal to the eyes.

Tl;dr If buying guns makes you feel safer, who am I to argue with you? Every penny spend to buy guns is turned into more lobbying for more guns to feed the cycle of death. You think your defending yourself but your just feeding the beast that threatens all our lives regardless of what nation we're from. You think your right to bear arms is in danger but guns have proliferated in our culture in the last decade more than in the last five combined. The pro gun lobby spends more than 10x the gun control lobby to shape your perception of reality.

That's complete bullshit. The majority of money made off of guns actually goes towards conservation, over $2 Billion dollars a year. You're absolutely ridiculous because guns like a fully automatic AK-47 are already completely illegal here yet they are available on the black market for $500, gun lobby has no affect on that, but organize crime. You live in a magical dreamworld, go back to playing with unicorns. The pro gun lobby does not spend 10x the gun control lobby, maybe you're completely ignorant of the tens of millions of dollars Bloomberg spent in Colorado to enforce gun laws that actually got Democratically elected representatives recalled by...registered Democrats.

cool story bro. your hostility shows a lack of interest in discussing anything in this reality. We both believe that groups spend money to manage folks perception. But thinking organizations that think of themselves as all powerful even waste a second thought on gun enthusiasts clutching their rifles is ridiculous. Its a game of fear and ignorance that sculpts a populations purchasing habits.

You can still be forced.

With a greatly diminishing success rate, sure.

Should people in America keep their guns ? Absolutely !

But what's the harm in actually putting a requirement in the form of a psychological test and weapon handling/safety test ?

How many more stories need to come out about "crazy person killing X innocents" or kid accidentally shoots other kid/parents/self dead.

That's the real issue, pro-gun's people seem to not want any regulations and anti-gun's people want to simply take them away.

Some consider a car being a weapon, yet it's "harder" to legally own a car than a gun.

Also i completely disagree that gun's don't make confrontations lethal, and please if fists where as deadly as you seem to think, the murder rate would be much higher then as it stands now.

Now quite honestly i'm too tired to look it up, but there has been plenty of news reports on people who instead of just walking away from a fight and being the bigger man actually "stood their ground" knowing they had a gun and killed the "aggressor".

Let alone the uncountable comments on videos and threads where people claim "if i was there and i had my gun..."

The problem is that those that push gun registration claim that it will never be used to confiscate guns but that's exactly what is happening in New York right now. I know tons of Marines, Firefighters and the lot getting letters in NYC to confiscate their firearms. I know police officers that are asking me for 30 round mags because they're worried about the gun confiscation. It's just ridiculous because the majority of the population in New York don't want it. People think New York is all anti-gun, it definitely is not. If anything the complete opposite. What you have here is a few rich powerful people trying to force their wills on the majority. Just like in Colorado, sheriffs in New York are all saying they won't enforce the ban, and Bloomberg is spending millions upon millions to try to enforce stricter gun laws across the country, especially in New York and Colorado. Probably because all these rich people are corrupt and are very likely trying to protect themselves as the public becomes more aware of the truth.

I can understand why, for a US citizen this is so important. But consider many countries /culture do not allow guns and those society are often seens as much less violent than the usa at large. The brit cops dont even carry guns! I am aware this is generalization. One thing I learned about the USA is thats its so big you can't have a general idea about it.

But anyways, my point is maybe it has more to do with a cultural thing, a historical background, the way people interact with each others rather than a real threat or a real need.

[deleted]

As for the UK, the reason the police do not carry guns is because if they did, they would be routinely killed by criminals attempting to steal those firearms

Sorry have to disagree with you on this point. The police in Northern Ireland carry guns and are not routinely killed for them. Criminals in all parts of the UK know where to get guns if they want them without killing the police for them. More armed offices will be put on the street when there is a rise in gang related shootings or the like, so I think they don't routinely carry guns because they don't have the need to.

Edit: I'm not saying the UK is less violent, we just replace guns with knives.

Northern Ireland

Yeah, that comparison is invalid (1) because they are carrying guns in Northern Ireland and (2) because there is a much greater availability of guns to criminals in Northern Ireland, which reduces the demand to steal them from dead policemen.

If you look at mainland Britain, every time there is a notion to arm police in the face of increasing crime rates, the police refuse (for this reason).

They are more police in England and Wales carrying guns than in Northern Ireland alone, and after the gunban there gun crime INCREASED and a few years of this later they started arming police in many areas in England to combat gun crime. If you see my post above I have references directly to this. They regularly arm police, and I'm going to find the article where police commissioners are saying to arm the public in really bad areas because they just can't protect them anymore. Because that's happening too.

Did not know that the police are starting to recommend arming the public. That is amazing.

Did you catch the Interpol chief saying that arming the public is the way to prevent the Kenyan mall massacre?

No not at all. I did see a documentary in England about how they're hiring local security agencies to patrol neighborhoods it has gotten so bad in some areas. What blows my mind is that they did that poll saying that something like 68% of Brits think there is going to be a race war there in the next 20 years or so. And all these people using England as the jewel of a perfect civilized nation with gun control...

Actually the Brit cops do carry guns. In fact they started having to carry guns after the handgun ban caused an increase in gun crime. Look above at my post with numbers, references, and statistics.

Generally those same societies are further evolved. They offer healthcare, social services, etc. and often favour the individual over the corporation, don't enslave their prisoners as a low cost workforce, etc.

There's no need for a gun in an evolved society, because there's no need for a violent crime.

Why there all these firearm posts in r/conspiracy? Oh ... I see ... it is a group of gun-fetishists who found fertile ground to try and dominate.

Take it back to /r/guns or /r/firearms.

oh my god. its about your fucking constitutional rights and voluntarily giving up those rights and liberties to those who control you so you can falsely believe your "safe".

We need to be pursuing a civilized society not a gun toting one.

So a civilized society cannot also tote guns? If we were so civil it wouldn't matter whether we had guns or not, wouldn't it?

The only reason now guns should be in the hands of people is because government has them too. But you forget they have weapons you couldnt fathom, and guns will not save you.

People are gonna hold onto their guns as a lifesaver and guess what? They will fail you. You simplify everything way too much with this post but have clearly won the hearts and minds of fellow gun owners

And there is definitely a possibility that you lose in a standoff even if you have a gun versus someone who doesnt . So yes, even if you have a gun and I dont, I can still deal with you by force. The odds are worse but certainly not impossible.

Thats my main problem with this post as everything is stated too black and white on a black white and grey world.

there's a difference between owning one for protection and being obsessed with them like you seem to be based on your history.

The only reason now guns should be in the hands of people is because government has them too. But you forget they have weapons you couldnt fathom, and guns will not save you.

Those weapons are still limited. Lets assume the elite kill everyone that fights them, they will be left with a mostly empty country, with likely mostly unskilled labor.

ROBOTS!!!

Some basically, you've just called practically every first world country apart from yours, uncivilised. Fuck you.

No i didn't. grow up.

Your straw man argument is a fallacy. What you said is not what I said. You're twisting the point. Besides, I was only quoting an old saying. So yeah, make sure your own arguments aren't terrible before commenting on others'.

live in fear because we might get shot?

If you are a douchenozzle that is of no benefit to society and can't even scrape together the decency to treat fellow humans nicely, then yes, you should live in fear.

For the rest, it's just a reminder that no argument, point, or otherwise, is worth taking a life, so just be polite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Germany#General_crime_levels

Just shy of 6 million in 2010, another site showed a little over 6 million for 2013.

Wikipedia only gives per capita, but another site showed a little less than 12 million with the US. Germany has roughly 80million people, the use around 360 million people.

Some googling will probably get you an overall source that you might be able to trust, since I can't get that info from wikipedia for the US apparently.

Don't we all. :(

I like your hyperbole! It really makes your argument seem logical.

It isn't so much a permanent mexican standoff as it is putting everyone on equal ground, because as much as we like to think otherwise, we're really just a bunch of high functioning monkeys who still have territorial and competitive instincts. Guns happen to be a nice tool that levels the natural playing field for the less genetically advantaged.

Or...be afraid to attempt robbing/raping/murdering/hurting someone else because they might be able to make you seriously regret trying to assert your physical dominance over them?

That's bad...how?

The problem is that those that push gun registration claim that it will never be used to confiscate guns but that's exactly what is happening in New York right now. I know tons of Marines, Firefighters and the lot getting letters in NYC to confiscate their firearms. I know police officers that are asking me for 30 round mags because they're worried about the gun confiscation. It's just ridiculous because the majority of the population in New York don't want it. People think New York is all anti-gun, it definitely is not. If anything the complete opposite. What you have here is a few rich powerful people trying to force their wills on the majority. Just like in Colorado, sheriffs in New York are all saying they won't enforce the ban, and Bloomberg is spending millions upon millions to try to enforce stricter gun laws across the country, especially in New York and Colorado. Probably because all these rich people are corrupt and are very likely trying to protect themselves as the public becomes more aware of the truth.

This isn't Obamacare. The 2nd protects the 1st.

Yes but when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

I know people who have illegal knives, brass knuckles, and all other sorts of shit. It's not difficult to get illegal items if you want them. Gangs and organized crime have incentives for guns, you damn sure know they'll have them whether it's legal or not. Criminals will make sure that they are armed, so why should we have a law which would disarm those honest enough to comply?

Yet according to a study Obama had the CDC conduct, guns are used anywhere from 1,000 times to 8,000 times daily in self-defense. Easily 3 times that number are deterred from crime just due to gun ownership. Here is that study for you: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&amp;page=R1

Not true. A fully automatic AK-47 is available in the United States on the black market for $500. Tell me how a gun that is completely illegal in every state in the United States is readily available for bad guys because good guys aren't allowed to own one or even import it into the country? The gun laws we are implementing do nothing to disarm criminals and everything to disarm responsible citizens.

Well for instance, they claim that Nostradamus' prophecies about the twin towers collapsing weren't on the internet before it happened. Not that I believe that crap, but I know for a fact they say a Nostradamus quatrain predicting 9/11 was false and created in an essay in 1997, they also used to claim that prophecies by Nostradamus did not exist on the internet before 9/11 (which was obviously false and they changed it after the fact). But in reality there is a book printed in 1979 that translates Nostradamus' quatrain to in fact mean that two planes will crash into the World Trade Center and both buildings will fall. I think it's more likely that someone may have read this and maybe made it happen, or by chance these things happen, but snopes was definitely wrong. I have seen other examples, and I think all that snopes does is that once they are found out they edit their content to match what has been disproven or proven. I don't care to remember which very relevant issues these are, after the fifth time I just stopped using them as a source altogether, and not because of some chain mail letter, but because I saw it for myself, because I myself used to consider them a legitimate resource. This is the book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0552112062/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1 I just ordered it because it was under $3, give me a few weeks, I'll find the passage and show it to you. Because when my buddy showed the book to me, it was kind of spooky at first, and interesting. This does not mean a man from the 14th century predicted 9/11. It doesn't mean 9/11 was an inside job. I don't comment on that stuff. I only question the third building that "fell".

Durrr op suggests there's a bunch of gun grabbers on this sub. I haven't seen anything remotely like that here.

They exist for the bad guys regardless.

They can be manufactured at home, which a recent bust showed a crude firearms manufacturing ring in canada.

They can remain in circulation in the black market, which the fact that australia and england still have a way of purchasing them for seedy individuals proves.

And then you have the problem of the fact that the bad guy can be bigger and stronger than you, so why would you disarm the innocent other than to believe that the innocent are criminals and cannot be trusted by the state?

oh so if a defender with a pistol and an attacker with a pistol are fighting the attacker somehow can become "stronger"???? what?

I'll tell you what, I'll give you the names of my friends and family over there who claim that public opinion is with them and you guys can meet up and fight it out.

You showed me.

not quantitatively different (i.e. they are more effective weapons), but qualitatively different. anything?

indiscriminate weapon with massive collateral and decades of lasting effects

this is a quantitative argument.

Holy shit. I don't know why I'm still doing this. I'm wasting precious vacation time and I only have my phone. My stubbornness and obstinance win again.>>anomalies in history, not precedents

you have a very interesting definition of the word precedent. did MLK and gandhi lose their struggles? kinda tough to argue with results. tell me what anomalous circumstances existed that make their tactics otherwise ineffective. what were they able to do that you aren't?

They didn't lose, no. But you will be pretty hard-pressed to find many more historical examples of purely peaceful revolutions totally working out. Look at how the Arab spring turned out for your most recent historical example.

And the movements each inspired spurred on plenty of violence and death.

[citation needed]

Well, given that I don't wanna spend a whole lot of time on finding everything...ever heard of the Black Panthers?

something you've obviously never used before...

spooky psychic powers!

I stand by my point. You've never held or operated a firearm. Prove me wrong.

You don't understand self-defense and why some people might consider it necessary to have an advantage

i do understand. your ego fears death and makes you willing to kill others. it's also what keeps you up at night worried about having to kill the people you really should be working to help. drug addicts and the mentally ill need help, not to be murdered.

Now, whether you've intentionally misunderstood me or not, I don't know. I've never said anything about fantasizing about killing people. Killing in self defense is a last resort when all other options have failed. If you're at that point, whoever your up against has made it up I their mind to kill you. Hell, I agree with you that addicts and the mentally ill need help. The mental health system is the biggest joke in our complete joke of a health system in the US. I also feel very strongly that we need to be working to eradicate poverty and giving more people opportunities to learn job skills and have viable alternatives to crime. I don't think a street hood breaking in to your my deserves death, and that kind of person is likely to run away anyways if they see you as a threat.

Maybe your spiritual/religious views entail an afterlife. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any of that. So yeah, I'd rather keep on living.

Maybe you're still in high school, maybe you're still in college, maybe you're in your 40s. I don't know.

then why mention it?

I dunno, because your seem kind of devoid of real life experience but could be one of those people who clings to ideals their whole life

you've never experienced true danger

then where did i find this?

http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/spd/provtools/ois/owners-manual.pdf

Thanks for omitting the part where I mentioned other people. And I can't load the pdf on my phone, sorry.

You don't understand human nature, evil, psychopathy

lol k buying a gun makes one a philosopher. got it. what did you write your neurocriminology doctoral thesis on, may i ask?

Probably on the same topic you wrote yours on.

some of us aren't good

[citation needed]

Well, let's see. We're on r/conspiracy. Would you call any of the people attempting to enslave us with debt, blind us from the truth, and brainwash us into pacification "good?"

your moral absolutism is the result of sheer ignorance of human development. what is the mechanism behind "evil"? there fucking isn't one. it's a meaningless word. you just don't know any more scientifically valid definition. if you did, you wouldn't promote shooting your patients for having a disease affecting the brain. psychopathy, sadism, poor impulse control, these all have biological underpinnings. but instead of studying them to prevent crime, you propose that we spend a couple decades feeding and educating sick people before they fuck up and you blow them away. nice plan.

Fuck up on my part for using an absolute term like evil.

Your problem is your idealism. You sincerely believe that every person with these diseases can be cured, or even want to be cured. That the rare kind of person that gets gratification from repeatedly and remorseless ly killing and torturing and abusing other people actually will somehow give all that up.

The caveat I have been including in almost every one of my posts in this thread is that taking life is a serious last resort not to be taken lightly. It only should happen after every other alternative has failed. The implication is that these circumstances are very rare, and, likewise, the offenders on these circumstances are very rare as well.

If a murderous psychopath breaks into your house and corners you and tries to stab you to death, all your empathy and desire to rehabilitate them aren't gonna stop you from getting killed. I don't know, maybe you believe in an afterlife and dying isn't that big a deal to you. But for me, death is final and I'd much prefer to survive and live on.

I don't know why you like putting all these words in my mouth...I never proposed killing off mental ill people when they fuck up. Like I said before, I agree with you. We need better systems to treat the mentally ill, and we need to change our culture to be better at legitimizing mental illness without stigmatizing it. We need to work on reducing poverty and providing a comprehensive enough system of education where a maximum of people can gain job skills in a huge variety of fields. We need to change our penal system to make it more about rehabilitation and eliminate needles punishment.

All these things are likely to be impossible to bring about because of firmly entrenched financial interests, but that's an entirely different debate.

The point is, all of these things are not going to fix and rehab all the people who will indiscriminately take lives, and/or derive pleasure from it. It's not going to stop abuse, murder, and unfairness. Until we can find a way to completely detach our primal natures and breed away psychopathic tendencies and perfectly empathize one with another, peace and non-violence are impossible. Violence will always be a constant.

srsly, get past the antiquated idea of "evil". it makes people use bronze age solutions to information age problems.

You're right. Evil was a bad term to use. But these problems are of a far deeper and longer-term scope than just the information age.

who said it wasn't hard?...maybe if the US didn't arm al qaeda...

Yeah, go ahead and tell that to someone firmly entrenched in an authoritarian power system. I'm sure they'll listen to your idea.

Strangely, though, I agree with your second point. We need to get the fuck out of that kind of business.

**what anomalous circumstances existed that make MLK/gandhi's tactics effective in their cases but ineffective for the rest of us?...

They only succeeded because they reached a critical enough mass of people that they could avoid brutal suppression at the hands of the state. They had further assistance by being populist movements. Again, they are part of a small minority of historical examples that actually achieved a populist revolution without needing to escalate to violence. They're an anomaly because nowadays the state run media has enough clout to fizzle out a peaceful movement before it can reach a critical mass. Look at what happened with OWS. It accomplished nothing and was doomed by the media. That's our reality now.

now this one you'll definitely have to explain to me:

what do the black panthers have to do with pacifism? Absolutely nothing, which is my point.

Yes, but they were spurred on by a pacifist movement. My point was that even pacifist movements can inspire violence

you're reaching here. i won't tell you what my history with weapons is, because it's not relevant. you've never raped a child, does that mean you're not qualified to have an opinion on the subject? think about these things before you say them.

More like non-existent. If you want to interfere with my legal right to own and use firearms, it would at least do you some good to educate and experience what it is you're trying so hard to be smarter than me about. Unless you're afraid it still somehow change your mind...

That's the point I'm getting at. There's no constitutionally guaranteed right to rape a child. There's no legal way to be able to do so, no legal protection. There's also no legal right to premeditate the murder of another person, or to break into their homes. You don't have to experience such a thing or participate in it to want to make sure it stays illegal.

But rather than disagree with me and yet allow people like me to continue in doing something that was important enough to the framers of the constitution to put in the bill of rights, you'd like to take it away. And you're doing it without basing your opinion on any kind of experience and actual knowledge, only fear. I wouldn't exactly call that an intellectually responsible way of forming a policy. It's about on the same level as legislators in Utah placing asinine restrictions on alcohol because none of them drink and none of them understand how intoxication actually works.

my point is that people have a gun fetish where they imagine that guns are much more important and useful than they actually are. you'll alienate those around you, injure and kill people accidentally, and continue the cycle of violence just to make sure you can keep your toy that doesn't even prevent anything in the top ten causes of death. my weapon of choice is pandemic flu virus, but you have no problem infringing on my right to bear weaponized flu. what's up with that, huh?

Yeah, because your weapon is a weapon of mass destruction meant to take as many lives as possible as indiscriminately as possible. There's no self-defense in mass murder. It's really not that hard, but apparently Nuance is a foreign concept to you and black and white are the only colors you are currently capable of seeing.

I picture you as an indignant 20-something college kid, because your thinking is incredibly dichotomized and condescending and it reminds me of how I was at that age.

If you're older than that, though...God help you, man. You need to get some life experience or something. Eventually you learn to see shades of grey and potentially even become able of continually challenging and modifying your opinions based on new evidence and experience.

And if your wondering why I haven't changed my mind and accepted your obviously superior way of thinking, it's because your side's arguments are horrible, hyperbolic, and contain no real knowledge on the subject, nor any kind of view grounded in reality.

I have a few guns and literally none of those things you talked about have ever happened. We fear what we don't understand, and you clearly don't understand firearms or the ouwnership of them. That's why I keep accusing you of what I do, and that's why your refusal to give me a real answer keeps telling me I'm right in my assumptions.

We should have a defibrillator in every home.

tell that to the NRA. i resent that so much of our political energy is spent debating something that are at best toys and at worst a bane on humanity. we need bullet trains, not extended mags.

Yeah, I rode the bullet train in Japan a while back and it was fucking awesome. Something like that here would be revolutionary. And I'll give you props for using correct nomenclature. Most people say "ammo clips." I almost have a percentage of a shred of respect for your opinion now.

Hell, I like finding common ground when I can and I'll throw you a bone here. I agree that one of the more disgusting things about our currently military-industrial complex dominated political system is the complete misallocation of finance and resources to things that aren't as important as things like improving education and infrastructure and human rights and health care.

But I'm sorry, I'm not going to budge on giving up ANY ground on any of my conditional rights. Whatever gets given away is gone forever and won't be coming back.

know what the best part is? YOU can be tough too! :) get to know your neighbors and form a night watch. help those in need. make your community better and that fear that currently cripples you will fade like a nightmare at daybreak.

I can do all of those things and still keep my guns and my self-defense training. They aren't somehow mutually exclusive, and I don't actually live in a crippling fear, despite you somehow knowing what's best for me.

I really don't get why that's so hard for you to understand. Again, I think Nuance is somehow lost on you and you live in a world defined by dualism. I find it ironic that you reject "antiquated notions of good and evil" yet somehow continue on with a very dichotomized view of morality. I'm also impressed that you haven't used "bad" or "evil" in regards to firearms and their owners, despite some clearly obvious indications of your true feelings.

yep, you are willing to take zero political risk, but more than happy to put the rest of us in danger. a real team player, you are. every day you let this country be awash in weapons without the benefit of revolution is one more day that kids are shot in the ghetto for nothing. and you won't even get arrested for fear of losing your government job! that's so fucking rich.

Oh man, that was so dramatic that I almost shed a tear. You still treat every firearm and owner like some sort of baby killing fear machine that sweeps through the country, reaping souls like a combine harvester.

It's okay, though. You're either young and dumb or just dumb, but you'll grow out of it eventually ;)

Didn't you yourself say that gun violence isn't even in the top ten leading causes of death in America? If that's the case, why are you still thinking the way you do? Why do you care so much that they're around, and why aren't you focusing more on heart disease and cancer?

Tell me, what do YOU actually do? Do you get arrested for protesting? Do you put your livelihood on the line all the time?

It must be nice playing armchair activist without any dependents.

i thought your plan was to save us all by starting a civil war? did you chicken out? fyi, that will probably make you lose your security clearance too.

How was that ever my plan?

See, the more exaggerate my views and create my arguments for me, the more you convince me that you don't have the maturity or intellectual capacity to function in a pluralistic society that grants a modest amount of freedom to people to choose opinions and courses of life that differ widely from one another.

My problem with you and people of your ilk isn't really that you disagree with me and what I like to do. Go for it, it's within your rights. Debating is a fun way of refining one's opinions if it's done correctly.

My real problem is that because you disagree with me, you want to restrict my rights and my freedom to make my own choices. You're no better than the people who want to stop the LGBT community from getting married. In both cases, you're trying to stop other people from living their lives as they choose, and you decide to see us as a danger instead. You deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent us and somehow think that you're better. It boggles my mind

i already cited sources to support the idea that "self-defense" is just the mental health strategy of murdering the mentally ill. we know they're sick. we have the resources to help them. you can't claim that you have no choice than to murder people for their brain pathologies.

How do you know that they're all sick? How is it committing murder if you're in a situation where someone is trying to murder you first? What do you propose as an alternative? Let the person go ahead and overpower and kill you because they have a problem and you should just be understanding of it? Fleeing isn't always an option, especially if it's in the confines of your own home.

The thing that I really don't get about this logic of yours is that you could apply it to someone like the BTK killer and it would imply that he deserved more sympathy than they little girls he manipulated and murdered. And that by allowing him to kill them, they did the right thing.

I don't disagree with you that we shouldn't help our mentally ill. I just know that you have no fucking clue what a manipulative, conscienceless psychopath can be capable of. Study up on some serial killers some time. You'll be in for a shocker.

How come George Washington, Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, and Cyrus the Great couldn't?

because they didn't practice non-violence.

Why do you think they didn't? Would they have been successful had they practiced it?

One man achieving that

you realize both MLK and gandhi had millions of followers right?

And those followers would have done nothing without them. And those millions were still a tiny drop in our 7 billion person population.

grounded in realism.

were the successes of gandhi and MLK fictional?

No, but was the human race's inability to replicate a purely peaceful nonviolent populist revolution afterwords a fictional either?

Don't get me wrong. They're both men who had great ideals. But in pretty much every other case, there comes a time when peaceful protest fails and greater action becomes necessary.

that would be a great start....

Honestly, I'll be shocked if we collectively can pull through the next hundred years. People in general ate decent and good, but also controllable. The real people in charge have a sociopathic disdain for anything that's not money or power, and their influence on us as a whole will be what ultimately dooms us.

It's cool that you have such high hopes for us, and I'd truly love for you to be right. Like, I legitimately agree with how retarded it is that we won't stop killing over tvs and patches of dirt. But from everything I see and know, it's never gonna turn out much better barring a total miracle or something like in the book Forever Peace.

I never proposed that as my solution

yes you did. you've repeatedly claimed that mentally ill people are trying to break into your house and murder you. your solution to their mental illness is to kill them and traumatize their families.

I've never claimed they're trying to break into my house, or that they were all mentally ill. I was using hypothetical examples to illustrate my point. Apparently Nuance isn't the only thing lost on you.

And returning to the situation you proposed...what about me? If someone hypothetically (I even italicized it for you so that you can't miss it this time ;) ) got into my house and murdered me and my wife and our unborn child, what about our families and their trauma? Is that just inconsequential? I bet you didn't even think it through that far.

Unfortunately, a situation like that turns out ugly and traumatic no matter what happens. Whoever wants to live more is the only one that actually gets to see and live with the consequences. That's why I kept emphasizing how serious a thing it is.

we're not talking about self-defense vs. no self-defense. we're talking about murdering people to solve problems vs. finding better solutions.

Okay, again, killing in self defense is different from murder both legally and etymologically. And yes, there are generally better solutions. But sometimes there aren't. That's the entire crux of this debate we're having. It's about those times when every solution or option has failed and it comes down to your life or theirs.

I'm also impressed that you haven't used "bad" or "evil" in regards to firearms and their owners, despite some clearly obvious indications of your true feelings.

i don't think you're bad. just afraid, and you picked a counterproductive strategy to alleviate that fear. like an alcoholic drinking to forget the regrets they collected by drinking.

did you read the OIS owners manual i posted?

See, you keep using that fear word as if I'm somehow living in a shadow of terror always. I'm not. I simply feel more confident knowing that I have the means to protect myself and my family should shit ever hit the fan. Doesn't mean I go around flashing it around or hoping to fuck someone up. Hell, I sincerely hope I will never have to use it. I also have a fire extinguisher so my house can not burn down in the event of a fire, but that doesn't mean I'm always in terror of my house burning down. I also hope that I will never have to use it.

And no, I didn't read the manual. I likely won't till I'm off my vacation.

care to address this?

Shooting in random directions, you being 7 meters away from me, gives you a 99% probability of not getting hit, so assuming I miss, my chances of hitting someone are pretty low, though still a scary prospect. Fortunately, I'm fairly accurate.

One of the four rules of firearm safety include "Be aware of your target, and what is behind it."

Community fire drills really don't exist here, so I don't see how that would carry over.

i'll call them genocidal racists in wigs, how does that suit you?

That started the best damn country this world has ever seen, nor will ever see again given the way this world is going, what's your point? (Also, the founding fathers of the US really weren't racist or genocidal, but I doubt you care enough to find out more.)

what are some things that trigger this fear of yours?

Over reaching tyrannical governments, for one. Before you argue that it will never happen, it has before, and history repeats itself, so no, it's not a matter of if, but of when.

Other than that, because I am armed, I have very little to be afraid of.

about the same support as your opinion that all these movements could be non-violent

gandhi proved it. MLK confirmed it. how many more times will it take before you believe it's possible?