The Gun Is Civilization
56 2018-02-15 by ParasympatheticBlain
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of violence. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by force and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
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 too much TV, where people take beatings and 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. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
147 comments
1 baebaebokchoy 2018-02-15
Well done.
1 Rockran 2018-02-15
It is easier to shoot someone to death than it is to beat and kick them to deaths. Both in a physical and psychological way.
Thoughts?
1 TheWiredWorld 2018-02-15
Stupid thought. Anyone who's that disconnected would be with or without a gun.
1 Rockran 2018-02-15
Not stupid at all. You'll find all kind of people who are happy to catch a fish but squirm at the thought of gutting it.
1 evilast 2018-02-15
I agree with what you are implying but as a catch and release fisherman I have to disagree with your analogy.
1 sicknick 2018-02-15
Have you seen in real life what a bullet does to flesh? It's not as disconnected as you may think. Specifically close range. It's brutal.
1 Rockran 2018-02-15
All you're doing is pulling a trigger. The gun and bullet does the rest.
That's the disconnect.
1 Jerrimu 2018-02-15
The problem isn't that we have guns, it's that we allow people who should not posses them to do so.
1 murphy212 2018-02-15
i.e. thugs dressed-up in costumes who initiate violence while brandishing scribblings made by other men dressed-up in robes
1 ManIsBornFree 2018-02-15
A feat is an act of investment and worthy outcomes. A treat something given to others which is generally novel. This is both. You wrote well and reasoned better.
“I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.” - Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
No one in our society watches movies that favor the worm in a coalition of sheep, or the collectivist mobs in form of revolution, over the lone-revolutionary with personal reasons to fight. People like strong people because its strong people they hope to save them. Cut out the middle man, or support the better ones.
“If you truly want to be respected by people you love, you must prove to them that you can survive without them.” ― Michael Bassey Johnson, The Infinity Sign
The reason most women I know are not being called continually by their parents for living alone for the first three years in a new suburb, is the gifted handgun. The reason they also submit to reason over the possible fear of home invasion: "well, I do have a gun".
"God Created Man and Sam Colt Made Them Equal"
Only aspect perhaps needing scope, to make this masterpiece of reasoning a bit more digestible to the 'progressive' rawlsian thinker:
Individual responsibility to firearms use and continual betterment is a constant necessary, given their dangerous value, is the real issue in personal safety no matter what weapon system is employed. This is a matter of individuals forming society and not society forming them, if it as a phenomena is to improve in perceptual outcomes of peace (commonality of projected violence and restraint).
1 fight_for_anything 2018-02-15
^ This guy Freedoms.
1 IbnKhaldune 2018-02-15
Freedoms too hard
1 SJWPussyLibtard 2018-02-15
That's why it's a tough issue. People should definitely be able to defend themselves. Most people who don't like guns aren't out there saying we should take them all away. But the idea that civilians can roll up to a public place with an AR15 and start blasting away is terrifying. Sure you can kill people other ways. You could set a place on fire or make a bomb at home or run people over with your car. But most of the time, these mass killings are carried out with these high powered guns. I just don't think that's cool at all and I wish people weren't even allowed to get those particular guns. Or a bump stock. Seems absurd to me.
Other countries don't seem to have this problem. Lots of modern societies where the public doesn't have a bunch of guns and they aren't paranoid about the government or each other. It just seems infinitely sad that we have to live this way. That there are so many guns around that we all need one in order to protect ourselves from the other dudes who have them. Just sucks and I wish we weren't in a situation like this.
1 Jukecrim7 2018-02-15
I mean here's what I propose for school. It might seem costly to set up this infrastructure but basically schools should be fenced. students are required to swipe their ID card to enter through gates so that school security systems can keep track of each student entering and exiting the school as well as permitting entry based on reputation. The latest Florida shooter was expelled from campus and barred from bringing a backpack yet he was able to still freely enter campus anyways. If he tried to enter, he would be denied and if he tried shooting up the entrance, he'd be quickly detained, with fewer casualties. Just a thought, I know there's probably some flaws with this.
1 jwm11486 2018-02-15
That is a horrible Idea
1 robotred12 2018-02-15
The fences yeah, but even some colleges have your student id as a keycard. I don't see much harm in changing the locks. Just might cost a bit.
1 Spider_Goat7 2018-02-15
Other countries don't have this problem because other countries don't stage shootings. See Sandy hook and vegas
1 Funjam 2018-02-15
Of all the things I've read about the Florida shooting, this is the one that perfectly shows American obsession with guns.
"We don't have a problem with guns, that's fake news. It's all done by the government to take away our guns."
After every school shooting, it's the same thing. Either pretending there isn't a problem or saying more guns would fix the issue. These shootings will keep happening under Democrat and Rebuplican but that doesn't matter since it's actually the (((deep state))) that's doing it when in reality this shit is going to keep happening until the US stops pretending there isn't a problem and actually fucking starts fixing the issue.
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
O like the issue of the government actually doing what you are describing? The irony here
1 TheDuckHunt3r 2018-02-15
Technically .223/5.56 isn't a "high powered" rifle.
1 cullpeppe 2018-02-15
The third way is trade.
1 TheWiredWorld 2018-02-15
That's reason, Einstein.
1 cullpeppe 2018-02-15
By that logic, so is force.
1 Bulldogporridge 2018-02-15
We don't have guns here. Neither do the police. You cannot carry knives legally. I like my government. I don't disagree with you but I cannot agree that that is more civilised.
1 TheWiredWorld 2018-02-15
Where do you live?
1 Bulldogporridge 2018-02-15
New Zealand
1 evilast 2018-02-15
You get the death penalty in Singapore if you are caught with a firearm and its ranked as one of the safest cities in the world.
1 patrioticamerican1 2018-02-15
Yup and look at what their government does to people that are undesirables great fucking place.
1 DavoAmazo 2018-02-15
What do they do?
1 eexsmalls 2018-02-15
They have the death penalty for possessing a no-no item.
1 jacktherer 2018-02-15
americans are taught from birth to be scared of any and every possible catastrophe. especially since 9/11. fear keeps the populace distracted. most americans dont realize there is a combination of reason and force called non-lethal force. that (and systemic racism) is why there are so many police shootings that end in civilian deaths. just cuz youre being attacked doesnt mean you have to kill your attacker. of course if your attacker has a gun itd be a lot harder to subdue them without a firearm of your own but even a fire arm of your own doesnt completely negate any threat. only an immature goon gets a gun and thinks theyre invincible.
1 Freaky_Ghost_Bed 2018-02-15
Yea, but what if the Queen of England shows up and starts getting in your face?
1 twerking_boy 2018-02-15
Have you seen the Queen? She's delightful. Also, all the sheep are trained to attack on command.
1 Vaedur 2018-02-15
Exactly!!!
1 patrioticamerican1 2018-02-15
Sounds like your ripe for abuse at the hands of your government with no course to change it. It all sounds well and good but when your country's government want something you have guess what your giving it up and you have nothing to say about it. By the way I would rather have my freedoms then security because as Benjamin Franklin stated" those who give up their freedom for security deserve none of them. Your are simply licking the boots of you oppressor with that thinking but hey that's what you get when you live a nanny state like that.
1 Peyton_Farquhar 2018-02-15
If you think you're going to overthrow your oppressive government with an AR-15 then you are already a victim of their propaganda.
1 platinum_peter 2018-02-15
I'd sure as hell rather have an AR15 than nothing at all if the time ever comes.
1 clark116 2018-02-15
Hell yeah! That's the attitude that brought everyone's great-great-great-great grandfolks over here. U-S-A! U-S-A!!
1 TheCrimsonCorndog 2018-02-15
You're thinking too small. It's not about individuals owning guns, it's about everyone. It's not about overthrowing the government, either. It's about defending against them.
If every sane adult citizen in the United States owned an AR-15, an unjust martial law scenario would never happen. Even if the government had the firepower to "win", they would consider it far too dangerous and costly to go to war against 400 million people defending their home turf and families with guns.
1 LosingBrainC3lls 2018-02-15
Yes and who said we’re gonna fight the us head on with rifles. NO! That’s moronic of course we’d probably form a guerrilla force. Blend in by day with regular folk, strike at night.
1 patrioticamerican1 2018-02-15
Ah the most stupid response every well if your gonna use it I'm gonna say it Bundy Ranch.
1 Ariak 2018-02-15
I mean yeah its unrealistic to think that in a straight fight a citizen militia would defeat the US military so that's why you have to actually employ strategy when dealing with stronger/larger/bet equipped opponents. The Vietcong and Taliban obviously can't hold a candle to the US military in terms of destructive force but were able to achieve victory over the US military through their tactics.
1 YonicSouth123 2018-02-15
Then perhaps the people of New Zealand would go on the streets protesting. Sounds like a more reasonable option as to engage in wild shootouts with your military or police and getting killed.
1 TheCrimsonCorndog 2018-02-15
To be fair, the total population of your country is smaller than most large cities in the United States. It might be easier to manage something like this and trust your government to do the right thing on such a small scale, but it's a very different story for a huge compartmentalized monstrosity like the US.
1 toastedtobacco 2018-02-15
It is a bit easier on an island. Y'all are also super chill. I agree wholeheartedly with everything OP said but that doesn't mean I like guns. I would love to give them up and will do so, just as soon as the world's police and militaries feel that they can safely give them up as well. Do you mind clarifying the knife thing? Seems dangerous not to have a knife sometimes not for defense but just everyday emergencies not to mention everyday utility.
1 Jake_91_420 2018-02-15
I live in the UK and we haven’t had a school shooting since the 1980s when guns were given heavy restrictions
We still live a good democratic life, just have less death to contend with
1 evilast 2018-02-15
You get the death penalty for possessing a gun in Singapore yet it is one of the most civilized cities in the world.
1 wile_e_chicken 2018-02-15
Err that doesn't sound "civilized" to me..
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
That sounds as communist as can be not "civilized"
1 Spider_Goat7 2018-02-15
Except the UK government doesn't stage shootings like the U.S. does. You can't use staged shootings as a reason to ban guns in the U.S.
1 Jake_91_420 2018-02-15
All of these constant mass shootings are staged by the U.S government?
Even if some of them were, you would still have extremely regular legit mass shootings.
1 Spider_Goat7 2018-02-15
Many of the deadliest shootings like Sandy hook, aurora, vegas, the pulse nightclub, and others were definitely staged. Why do you think they stage these shootings? It's to brainwash the public to agree on a gun ban. Governments have killed more people than guns. If we give up our right to own guns then we have no protection against Government, the biggest threat to humanity
1 Jake_91_420 2018-02-15
You don’t think people could be responsible for this stuff? It’s not hard to go into a room with full auto and kill lots of people, and there are lots of sick criminals and psychopaths in the US (the violent crime rate is absolutely unreal for a developed country, completely off the charts). Lots of Americans are politically radicalized to their viewpoint as well.
I would be surprised if it didnt happen more often to be honest.
1 Spider_Goat7 2018-02-15
Of course people could be responsible for this, but we also have to naturally be skeptical of mass shootings since so many were staged. If they're doing this to get you to think a certain way about guns then shouldn't you naturally push back against what the government wants you to think? If you agree that shootings were staged but also agree that we need a gun ban, then you're basically agreeing with the mindset that the Cabal wants you to have.
1 Jake_91_420 2018-02-15
You need to prove that all these mass shootings were fake, Americans are always shooting each other so one trying to shoot many doesnt seem even marginally odd at all
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
Sandy Hook. You haven't even researched it if you believe the msm narrative
1 evilast 2018-02-15
Please provide evidence of one 100% verified staged shooting.
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
Sandy Hook. You are welcome
1 Jake_91_420 2018-02-15
stating the name of an incident is’t demonstrating anything
you are welcome
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
It is. The "incident" is the evidence of the 100% verified staged shooting.
1 Jake_91_420 2018-02-15
You need to actually provide details, not just vaguely talk about evidence.
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
The "incident" is the evidence. Feel free to look at the evidence yourself. Thanks
1 Jake_91_420 2018-02-15
I’m aware of the incident, you are not being very convincing here mate
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
Not trying to be "convincing" I'm just relaying a message
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btNM3a05R0k
1 YonicSouth123 2018-02-15
Since 1775 in all the conflicts and wars the US fought there were 1.396.733 americans killed. From 1968 to 2015 1.516.863 americans were killed through guns, accidents at home, shootings, robbery and so on. All on the territory of the USA. Yeah seems the US people are able to handle their guns properly and they did a good job protecting them from every imaginary threat. ;)
1 LupinePeregrinans 2018-02-15
Also from UK.
Murder rate went up following handgun ban and only dipped back to pre-ban levels in 2011 - 18 years later.
We also now have military personal disgused as homeless in major cities who are armed and ready as quick action response. This initiative is not time limited.
We are the case study for intense observation of an unarmed, unable to resist populace.
1 Jake_91_420 2018-02-15
Source on homeless army please?
It’s not just the UK where you can’t easily get guns, try buying a pistol in Denmark etc
1 LupinePeregrinans 2018-02-15
Speaking on UK as that's what I know
Independent Article
Daily Star Article
Metro
The Source Article: The Mirror
Seems to have been implemented around 2015 Mirror 2015
1 Jake_91_420 2018-02-15
Daily Star, Metro and Mirror
Hardly reputable tabloids.
1 LupinePeregrinans 2018-02-15
You asked, I provided.
I can't post links to other reasons why I believe this to be the case - anything else I could say would be just internet hearsay to you.
1 Jake_91_420 2018-02-15
I’m willing to believe the story it’s just that I’m sure you will agree that the Daily Star etc are not exactly renowned for verifying their stories are they
1 LupinePeregrinans 2018-02-15
I'd have a higher view of the Mirror, and I hear you
1 varikonniemi 2018-02-15
Soon you live your life in a prison and you can gloat how you solved all violent crime!
1 nom-de-reddit 2018-02-15
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/acid-attacks-uk-highest-world-figures-police-revealed-a8098236.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/timeline-vehicle-terror-attacks-europe/
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/world/uk-terror-events-2017/index.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/knife-crime-statistics-uk-stabbings-2017-rise/
1 JeffBurk 2018-02-15
Don't worry, nothing is happening to your guns because of the school shooting. Mass shootings have been happening for years and no meaningful gun control legislation has come from them.
1 TheWiredWorld 2018-02-15
Neither should they.
1 JeffBurk 2018-02-15
And I didn't say they should. But everyone getting worked up that the government is coming for their guns now is falling for hysteria.
Note - I'm a really pro gun person and love shooting.
1 DavoAmazo 2018-02-15
Can I ask why you are anti NRA?
Am Britbong so forgive my lack of knoweldge.
1 JeffBurk 2018-02-15
They seem more concerned about hyper partisan politics than they are about actual rights.
1 toilet_obsession 2018-02-15
Not needing to defend yourself is civilisation. If you live in a warzone where you have to carry a gun with you I suggest you look to leave. Many countries would welcome you as a refugee.
1 varikonniemi 2018-02-15
So the need for police proves no country is civilized.
1 evilast 2018-02-15
So countries with laws against owning a firearm are not civilized? You are an idiot if you believe this.
1 toxic_banana 2018-02-15
They’re authoritarian states. Civilized society grants the individual liberty to purchase and sell what he chooses
1 evilast 2018-02-15
So you can purchase and sell heroine?
1 toxic_banana 2018-02-15
No, my bad, I was too broad. My point is the Constitution explicitly grants the right to bare arms so the people of America could defend themselves against a corrupted government
1 evilast 2018-02-15
So having the constitution makes the US non authoritarian yet you cannot buy or purchase items freely as originally stated?
1 toxic_banana 2018-02-15
I’m all for reasonable drug laws. And I have my issues with the US, it’s becoming more and more authoritarian. But as far as firearms go, all I have to say to you is, come and take them.
1 evilast 2018-02-15
Fair enough mate I wasn't asking for your guns to be taken from you. I was just posing the question of why a country is uncivilized if they have strict gun laws due to the fact that I was unable to perform the mental gymnastics to be able to agree with the statement provided by the OP when considering the definition of a civilized country:
A civilized society or country has a well developed system of government, culture, and way of life and that treats the people who live there fairly
1 evilast 2018-02-15
Also not to be snarky but if you Google lost of authoritarian states does it surprise you the countries that are listed? Where is there gun control?
1 Jimmydehand 2018-02-15
You bare those arms
1 twerking_boy 2018-02-15
And yet, they don't.
1 toxic_banana 2018-02-15
We’re working on it
1 Al89nut 2018-02-15
and suntans on their bare arms?
1 wile_e_chicken 2018-02-15
No, only licensed vendors and government sponsored intelligence agencies can do that. (Because they have bigger guns.)
1 Naidem 2018-02-15
Brah, drugs kill but guns are innocent victims!!!
1 nom-de-reddit 2018-02-15
TBH, heroin is easier to get than a gun...
1 reddit_on_reddit1st 2018-02-15
Lol please
1 toxic_banana 2018-02-15
At least it should...obviously not the case for everything in the US, namely narcotics but I’m all for prohibition of all drugs with the exception of marijuana
1 evilast 2018-02-15
How are you living in a civilized country when you are fighting to keep guns. You would think there would be no need for guns if you lived in a civilized country. Why is it America has so many mass shootings yet countries with firearm restrictions don't? You live in fantasy land.
1 varikonniemi 2018-02-15
No, you do. Show me a country where there are no cops and i accept your logic.
1 Stanthebell 2018-02-15
I hate to say it but there is something to be said for the type of firearms or more specifically the magazines you can get hold of in the US. Here in the UK I could go through the lengthy process of getting a shotgun but how much damage can you do with a double barrel before the police show? I mean a confident person could tackle you down whilst you try to load two shells into shotgun. Not as easy if you hav swift mag changes.
1 TheMadRocker 2018-02-15
4 buck shot bro... 22 6mm lead balls to the chest will drop anyone unless they have a ballistics vest. If they do, you use that second shot to the face.
1 DavoAmazo 2018-02-15
Dude you know what a section 1 lisence is?
Semi-auto shotguns with unlimited capacity are also legal aswell but I have not seen any attacks with them.
1 kingz_n_da_norf 2018-02-15
Where's the conspiracy?
1 IbnKhaldune 2018-02-15
Gun nut defending a 18 yo buying an AR-15 and using it to kill 17 people. Seriously he a teenager who bought a rifle but couldn't enter a bar wtf
1 DavoAmazo 2018-02-15
I've been hunting with guns since I was 12 with my dad. Would you want that banned aswell?
1 IbnKhaldune 2018-02-15
Do you hunt with an AR-15 or guns with large magazines ? If you need a large magazine hunting you're a bad shooter
1 DavoAmazo 2018-02-15
Why do you think having a large magazine is dangerous.
For once it is honestly safer to train youngsters with larger magazines, it means the gun has to lifted up and can be fixed in place for longer.
For hunting with shotguns in Canada you will be limited to only 2 shots in a mag, this is not enough especially when dealling with large groups of pigeons.
For AR-15 I do not see a benefit of limiting magazine capacity, trained people, the ones doing the school shootings, can reloud in a matter of seconds, mag limits to not matter to them.
Also watch this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANKgTjUD69U
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
Like you are offended he could buy a gun? You American???
1 IbnKhaldune 2018-02-15
No need for an AR-15 other than to shoot up schools. Let people but pistols but no need for 12+ round mags, 2nd amendment is fine but no need for assault style weapons and large mags
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
says right there in the bill of rights, the right to bear arms. Doesn't say you can only carry small weapons.
Our founding FATHERS put that in there for a reason. The totalitarian tip toe which is happening DAILY
1 IbnKhaldune 2018-02-15
Founding fathers couldn't predict automatic weapons. I don't care what they would do today but they could not have seen this coming so relying on their 18th century wisdom is short sighted and misplaced
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
They had cannons. The right to bear arms is the right to bear arms.
1 IbnKhaldune 2018-02-15
We're there cases when citizens would use cannons on schools and had massacres often? Hear about 17 teenagers being killed in daylight ? No so they don't know shit about it so it's pointless so refer to their "regulated militia" that 19yo is not regulated milita
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
It says in the Bill of Rights "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Thanks for playing
1 IbnKhaldune 2018-02-15
Written 300+ years ago, the bill of rights was amended after the founding fathers, only asking for no large magazines or assault style weapons you know actual trying something instead of nothing. Try again, thanks for trying tho
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
Uhhhh December 15, 1791
Thats not 300+ years ago..... HAHAHAH
you comment doesnt even make sense. Here just to be consistent:
It says in the Bill of Rights "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
1 varikonniemi 2018-02-15
The push to try and disarm the only nation where self-defence is still effective.
1 catapult91 2018-02-15
lol single gay guy. so gay people are weak, is that what your saying????? gay people know more about guns than any cis gendered male could ever know. gays will take over the world and out breed all the CISsy males.
1 Ninjafire621 2018-02-15
Don't take the bait. Clear attempt to derail conversation here.
1 toxic_banana 2018-02-15
Saved.
1 armorkingII 2018-02-15
You aren't wrong. The US has throughout its history been dangerous. Our population and government simply can't be compared to that of New Zealand or Singapore. European nations are less violent.....for now. This will change with more multiculturalism and a breakdown of values. That is his point. Fists, bats, and knives (along with illegal guns) are enough to terrorize an unarmed population.
In America, we are more afraid of these mass shootings than street crime unless you live in a big city. The goal is stopping young, angry people from obtaining something like the AR-15 or semi-automatic pistols. There has to be a way of maintaining the Second Amendment but also not letting anybody obtain mass casualty weapons. The powerful guns that hardliners view as a bulwark against tyranny must be held by the most trustworthy members of the community NOT children. And I'm sorry but most young people in this country should be considered children until 30. Social media and narcissism has made us less mature than previous generations. Previous generations were bad too but I don't feel that they were as narcissistic as we are.
1 BoardroomBimmy 2018-02-15
tl:dr muh guns n' freedom
1 poopcircle 2018-02-15
Insightful.
1 boxingnun 2018-02-15
That will never happen because it would mean disarming the military as well. I don't see that being very successful.
Not true. I can deal with you by applying equal or greater force. You got a pistol, I'll get a rifle. Simply having a firearm doesn't stop violence ( though it can be a deterrent).
The key term here is "force monopoly". Disarming law-abiding citizens is a tacit endorsement of a government monopoly on violence. This is the real intent behind the second amendment.
I feel I must point this out: having a weapon doesn't make one safe or unassailable, skills are what determines the effectiveness of a weapon (regardless of what that weapon is). Pay more attention to developing your skills and don't get caught up in a thing.
Wrong. The field is only level if both people are armed the same and have the same skill level. Don't make the mistake of thinking simply having a firearm makes a person dangerous. One more time for the cheap seats: Skills are the determining factor. A mugger who has never shot anyone vs. a Marine both armed the same, which is more likely to survive? I would put money on the Marine every time. And what is the difference? Training and skill.
Don't just have a weapon, learn how to use it and be proficient!
1 Naidem 2018-02-15
How many times you gonna copy pasta this NRA propaganda?
1 jay_doo 2018-02-15
God may have made men but Smith and Wesson made them equal
1 7x4I-eGr6fC8V 2018-02-15
uh, doesn't help your argument when your first sentence is false.
1 varikonniemi 2018-02-15
Something is seriously wrong with your society if the proposal to deal with criminals using guns is to ban guns from the law-abiding citizen. This is a criminal's vet dream.
1 firestarter111 2018-02-15
Nothing will change in US because of this recent shooting. I guarantee it, so you are good.
Do you disagree that gun control is working in other countries at the moment?
1 ParasympatheticBlain 2018-02-15
Doesn't work in Mexico. People still get beheaded at gunpoint.
I'm in Canada and it doesn't work here either. I could go downtown and buy a gun outside the casino or the mall. Someone was shot there last year with a handgun which are not legal in Canada. I live in a small town and gun violence is common, and I was even robbed at gunpoint in Edmonton.
https://globalnews.ca/news/2654936/man-shot-outside-fort-mcmurray-casino-dies-in-edmonton-hospital/amp/
http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/2017/03/23/rcmp-investigating-shooting-at-gregoire-lake-reserve
https://globalnews.ca/news/2002694/mans-death-in-fort-mcmurray-considered-suspicious-rcmp/
http://www.cbc.ca/1.4497709
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/attempted-robbery-shooting-northeast-edmonton-one-person-wounded-1.449978
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/crime/reports-of-shots-fired-in-southwest-edmonton
1 firestarter111 2018-02-15
I see your point on Mexico. Are the numbers in Canada high? Do you think its a big problem in the majority of countries in the world?
1 ParasympatheticBlain 2018-02-15
The numbers in Canada are pretty high proportional to the population
1 YonicSouth123 2018-02-15
Well because the drug cartels point guns at them or shooting them first with guns, or do you really believe the cartels are terrorizing the people only equipped with machetes or knifes? I mean the ISIS also beheaded many people, do they carried guns? Or might guns helped a lot to get those people captured and tied up? Ever thought that the beheading is a way of killing offering a special message? Simply just because most people tend to find beheading more cruel and terrifying as a simple deadly shot, no matter that you would end up dead in both cases?
One last question, were do you think the majority of those guns in Mexico come from? USA perhaps?
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
Good post.
All these FASCIST, COMMUNIST POLITICIANS AND FAKE AMERICANS calling for communist gun control. You should look how that worked out in the past.
1 snapper1971 2018-02-15
There's a third way; bribery.
1 ParasympatheticBlain 2018-02-15
From of persuasion. As is coersion.
1 -Nkoe- 2018-02-15
I’ve been laughing my ass off to this post, it’s very well written, don’t get me wrong. Instead of force or reason, let’s say with “being a total dick” or “resolving stuff with a positive or neutral outcome for both parties”. That is the only idea akin to “reason”, all other methods of forcefully imposing your will, being blackmail, persuasion, deceit or anything on those lines is just plainly being a dick. The problem I have with your argument is that it focuses on you. You being a great guy, will not use it to force people to do stuff they don’t want to, that’s fair. No one messes with you and you don’t mess with anyone, cool. But you have an uncle, Sam, and man that guy is a dick. He cuts in line, leaves without paying, touches the ass of every wife in town, and every time you want to say anything, he pulls up his shirt and shows you that shiny god given right. So I know you and the way you think and say, “gosh, i want my rights to be respected too, fuck the judicial system, or law enforcement- those guys are crooked and suck” so next time your god damn Uncle Sam cuts in line, i’ll Let him have a problem piece of my mind. So you see, I want to be left alone as well, didn’t need any guns until your Uncle Sam forced a conflict by being a dick. Had there been another non lethal way of resolving this matter, maybe he would not impose his scumbag attitude with a gun and I would not need one to stop him, but by god I will not back out of this now, even if we are in a public place, they’ll all see that this is the only way to make right. This will certainly end well, right? The fact that you need a gun to be left alone means you are certainly not living in a civilised envieronment. The gun itself is nothing, just like any other weapon, its made to enforce dickish ideas on other people and get greater benefit for the owner, like banks, church, pyramid schemes, whatever. Your Uncle Sam would still be a dick without a gun, but a proper civilised environment would have non lethal ways to manage him that don’t involve me having to a pull trigger.
1 ephon4life 2018-02-15
"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force."
What about incentive? i.e. economics, working for money, bribes. Or are you saying that falls under reason?
1 alvarezg 2018-02-15
I've always viewed weapons as the destroyers of civilization. Nothing ever got built with guns.
1 Yodamaster 2018-02-15
You're fighting against human nature, conflict is in all of us, and weapons of any sort have always been our method of making resolution more swift.
1 alvarezg 2018-02-15
Agreed with all the above. It remains to be seen if MAD really will be a deterrent.
1 Lord_Augastus 2018-02-15
The pont of society is to be civil. There is a reason why many places of business throughout history had no gun policies, human emotions get the best of even the most rational of men. So your argument for carrying a weapon being a civilised act is contradictory of what it is meant to be civil in a society as you cant the human out of the equation.
1 johnysmote 2018-02-15
http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/
1 murphy212 2018-02-15
i.e. thugs dressed-up in costumes who initiate violence while brandishing scribblings made by other men dressed-up in robes
1 Funjam 2018-02-15
Of all the things I've read about the Florida shooting, this is the one that perfectly shows American obsession with guns.
"We don't have a problem with guns, that's fake news. It's all done by the government to take away our guns."
After every school shooting, it's the same thing. Either pretending there isn't a problem or saying more guns would fix the issue. These shootings will keep happening under Democrat and Rebuplican but that doesn't matter since it's actually the (((deep state))) that's doing it when in reality this shit is going to keep happening until the US stops pretending there isn't a problem and actually fucking starts fixing the issue.
1 patrioticamerican1 2018-02-15
Yup and look at what their government does to people that are undesirables great fucking place.
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
It is. The "incident" is the evidence of the 100% verified staged shooting.
1 tazcatlipoca 2018-02-15
The "incident" is the evidence. Feel free to look at the evidence yourself. Thanks