Because in a functional, civilized society the government has a monopoly on violence,
Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia
I let you draw your own conclusion as to the state of the country in which you are bringing up new citizens.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Gun ownership overflow
- Thread starter jeffro01
- Start date
Because in a functional, civilized society the government has a monopoly on violence,
Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia
I let you draw your own conclusion as to the state of the country in which you are bringing up new citizens.
Disarmament of the German Jews - Wikipedia
And please don't argue that the Jews would of died anyway.
If you are going to die - better on your feet than on your knees.
Functional, civilized societies are great... until they are not.
1992 Los Angeles riots - Wikipedia
Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans - Wikipedia
Lastly,
The government HAS NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
not sure what happened here either but where was your government? Monopolies are bad bro.
2015–16 New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany - Wikipedia
Last edited:
I think Mel Gibson just thought of a sequel to Passion of the Christ, Jesus gets medieval on Pontius and his crew with his AR-15. “Forsake on this suckas!!!!!”
It's hard to argue with facts so people tend to dismiss the ones they don't like.
Look, I believe that a person should have a right to own a firearm to defend themselves. In fact, I've exercised that right to own in my own home and voluntarily gave up that gun some time after my kids were born. It didn't make sense to have the gun in one place, ammunition in another and clip in a third for safety's sake since that made it impossible to defends against a sudden home intrusion. Now that we're empty nesters, my wife has a gun but it's in a safe and unloaded.
It's just hard to argue with the numbers that show you're at a vastly higher risk of injury with a gun than your risk of being a victim of a criminal.
It's also hard to see people arguing that they need to defend themselves against the military. I work for the USAF. Anyone who thinks they need an AR-15 to defend against a future totalitarian US government needs to hear AND UNDERSTAND two words: "Drone strike". You'll never even hear it coming and you'll be dead from the explosion before the sound waves reach whatever's left of your brain.
Hearing people defend the "rights" of spousal abusers and violent felons drives me further and further away.
Personally, I believe we DO have that right unless, like so many other things, we do something that warrants the government removing that right (like robbing a bank or beating up a girlfriend).
Look, I believe that a person should have a right to own a firearm to defend themselves. In fact, I've exercised that right to own in my own home and voluntarily gave up that gun some time after my kids were born. It didn't make sense to have the gun in one place, ammunition in another and clip in a third for safety's sake since that made it impossible to defends against a sudden home intrusion. Now that we're empty nesters, my wife has a gun but it's in a safe and unloaded.
It's just hard to argue with the numbers that show you're at a vastly higher risk of injury with a gun than your risk of being a victim of a criminal.
It's also hard to see people arguing that they need to defend themselves against the military. I work for the USAF. Anyone who thinks they need an AR-15 to defend against a future totalitarian US government needs to hear AND UNDERSTAND two words: "Drone strike". You'll never even hear it coming and you'll be dead from the explosion before the sound waves reach whatever's left of your brain.
Hearing people defend the "rights" of spousal abusers and violent felons drives me further and further away.
Personally, I believe we DO have that right unless, like so many other things, we do something that warrants the government removing that right (like robbing a bank or beating up a girlfriend).
Honestly besides gross carelessness a huge contributing factor to gun is the mystery. It is a potentially dangerous tool, same as my table saw, staple gun, car etc.
The anti-gun hide them away never let anyone see them feeds the danger.
Betting most of you who think guns are evil and need to be completely inaccessible to anyone even when in the house leave your car keys in places the kids could get them BUT have TAUGHT the kids not to do such.
The mystique created around guns is a huge contributing factor to accidental shootings by children. When you make it mysterious you create a curiosity draw rather than TEACH them to stay away and how to handle safely.
Think about all the potentially dangerous things in a house, tools, chemicals, cars, tipped over furniture the list goes on and on but we secure these things when kids are very small and not ready to learn then by the time your kids are 5yo you no longer lock the under sink chemical cabinet because the kids are TAUGHT not to drink them.
I am not arguing to not lock up guns but I am saying that the push to go to wild lengths to separate and lock everything up INSTEAD of educate helps exaggerate the danger by creating curiosity. Yes lock things up but education is every bit as critical. Every one of you leaves keys to your car where a kid could in theory get them occasionally only think stopping your kids from getting in the car and hurting themselves or others then is the fact you taught them not to take the car and being in the car daily means no mystique surrounding it.
Even kitchen knives, why aren't thousands of kids killed every year due to knives "carelessly" left in knife blocks on the counter that are accessible to almost every single child in the country? They see parents safely use knives and are taught not to play with them every single day.
The anti-gun hide them away never let anyone see them feeds the danger.
Betting most of you who think guns are evil and need to be completely inaccessible to anyone even when in the house leave your car keys in places the kids could get them BUT have TAUGHT the kids not to do such.
The mystique created around guns is a huge contributing factor to accidental shootings by children. When you make it mysterious you create a curiosity draw rather than TEACH them to stay away and how to handle safely.
Think about all the potentially dangerous things in a house, tools, chemicals, cars, tipped over furniture the list goes on and on but we secure these things when kids are very small and not ready to learn then by the time your kids are 5yo you no longer lock the under sink chemical cabinet because the kids are TAUGHT not to drink them.
I am not arguing to not lock up guns but I am saying that the push to go to wild lengths to separate and lock everything up INSTEAD of educate helps exaggerate the danger by creating curiosity. Yes lock things up but education is every bit as critical. Every one of you leaves keys to your car where a kid could in theory get them occasionally only think stopping your kids from getting in the car and hurting themselves or others then is the fact you taught them not to take the car and being in the car daily means no mystique surrounding it.
Even kitchen knives, why aren't thousands of kids killed every year due to knives "carelessly" left in knife blocks on the counter that are accessible to almost every single child in the country? They see parents safely use knives and are taught not to play with them every single day.
cpa
Active Member
Yes, there is likely a mystery behind guns. We see them portrayed fictionally in movies and television. We see them portrayed in dramatic reenactments of actual crimes or other incidents. We read about tragic events that seem to occur with increasing frequency.
However, we do not see a whole lot of stories about children drinking Dran-O, chlorine bleach, bluing, or ammonia. Yes, responsible parenting keeps these hazards out of harm's way. But these products have a built-in deterrent: they smell horrible, and they will burn as soon as they touch our skin. Regarding other customary household goods like tools, knives, and the like, I feel that the effort used and the timing involved in inflicting serious damage is a lot more than the use of a gun. We can run away from knives. A table saw might take a finger but not a life. Guns are instantaneous if not spontaneous. But you are right: Education is paramount. But I feel that the education only serves to reduce the curiosity and mystique behind guns. But it does not eliminate it. People still smoke cigarettes for example.
There is a wide chasm between an enthusiast and a zealot. There are too many zealots on both sides of the debate. I hear time and again that if more restrictive laws are passed then soon enough we will be on the road to zero gun ownership. This argument is trite if not disingenuous. Just as ridiculous would be if the gun control folks asserted that the NRA and their supporters would push for zero restrictions on arms. Arms are not defined in the Constitution, only by the courts, so why not litigate all the way to the Supremes our right to own anything--hand grenades, bazookas, fully automatic weapons, 50mm guns, you name it?
We now have sheriffs who will not enforce certain state laws regarding gun possession because those sheriffs have decided that these laws are unconstitutional. Really? A sheriff is judge and jury, and willing to go to jail for contempt? Now, many Illinois counties are enacting local ordinances declaring their counties to be "Sanctuary Counties" for Second Amendment rights. No concealed permits or fingerprinting are necessary.
This has become a shoving match. I shove you, and you shove me back harder. And so on.
We as a society have taken our freedoms for granted. We no longer place value in these freedoms. We don't feel as though we have to earn them to keep them. We are entitled, and woe to anyone who wants to stand in our way. If we can ever see beyond our noses, we might be able to find sensible solutions to this chronic dilemma.
However, we do not see a whole lot of stories about children drinking Dran-O, chlorine bleach, bluing, or ammonia. Yes, responsible parenting keeps these hazards out of harm's way. But these products have a built-in deterrent: they smell horrible, and they will burn as soon as they touch our skin. Regarding other customary household goods like tools, knives, and the like, I feel that the effort used and the timing involved in inflicting serious damage is a lot more than the use of a gun. We can run away from knives. A table saw might take a finger but not a life. Guns are instantaneous if not spontaneous. But you are right: Education is paramount. But I feel that the education only serves to reduce the curiosity and mystique behind guns. But it does not eliminate it. People still smoke cigarettes for example.
There is a wide chasm between an enthusiast and a zealot. There are too many zealots on both sides of the debate. I hear time and again that if more restrictive laws are passed then soon enough we will be on the road to zero gun ownership. This argument is trite if not disingenuous. Just as ridiculous would be if the gun control folks asserted that the NRA and their supporters would push for zero restrictions on arms. Arms are not defined in the Constitution, only by the courts, so why not litigate all the way to the Supremes our right to own anything--hand grenades, bazookas, fully automatic weapons, 50mm guns, you name it?
We now have sheriffs who will not enforce certain state laws regarding gun possession because those sheriffs have decided that these laws are unconstitutional. Really? A sheriff is judge and jury, and willing to go to jail for contempt? Now, many Illinois counties are enacting local ordinances declaring their counties to be "Sanctuary Counties" for Second Amendment rights. No concealed permits or fingerprinting are necessary.
This has become a shoving match. I shove you, and you shove me back harder. And so on.
We as a society have taken our freedoms for granted. We no longer place value in these freedoms. We don't feel as though we have to earn them to keep them. We are entitled, and woe to anyone who wants to stand in our way. If we can ever see beyond our noses, we might be able to find sensible solutions to this chronic dilemma.
It's even more complicated today. Go ahead. Ask someone two words: "Define 'freedom'".
I have an acquaintance who thinks freedom is a man and his gun. Me? Just an example of a 'freedom' I would like is NOT having a combined $19,000/year going to a health insurance corporation (combined 'my' share and my employer's 'share') and that's before any co-pays or my several-thousand dollar deductible. How about freedom from THAT extortion?
So it's hard to have the discussion when you can't even frame the boundaries!
You are asking for an opinion. Opinions vary from person to person.
A reasonable answer in my opinion is any firearm that is already common and in circulation.
There are hundreds of millions of semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines in the United States in private citizen hands.
There are hundreds of millions of semi automatic handguns in the United States in private citizen hands.
There are hundreds of millions of shotguns in the United States in private citizen hands.
There is not a lot of justification in my OPINION to escalate in destructive power beyond what I cited.
Last edited:
Ok, I just thought a case could be made using logically connected reasoning
So here’s my position. The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those required for their job (eg: farmers to kill vermin & quickly put down livestock). Those guns at most should be semi automatic with, say, 4 rounds max (estimate) cartridges. Guns can also be for pest control by government authorities, not by private individuals - so effectively hunting is banned. All farmers must undergo rigorous psychological testing & background checks to obtain a gun licence.
As a compromise, to non-farmers, sporting shooters can have guns but they must be locked on the site/facility that allows the sport. The facility must be heavily regulated with ‘Fort Knox’ level security & regular inspections & licence reviews. That said, I don’t believe sporting shooting should be allowed. Find another interest.
All existing guns should be bought back by government & destroyed. Even if it costs billions.
Antiques must be stored off residential sites & be stored in a non-firing way.
So the only people that can have guns on their private property are farmers (I can’t think of justification for any others off the top of my head).
But dismemberment of inconvenient children is ok so long as a time of birth isn't registered first.
The left wants to pretend the right is unhinged with a belief in the right to own firearms, but the right isn't arguing the right to kill someone.
The left has managed to convince themselves killing a baby at any time before birth is just fine.
One side believes in owning an inanimate object the other side believes in ending human life for convenience, unless of course it is a serial killer who might vote for them then let's keep them around and give them a ballot.
The left wants to pretend the right is unhinged with a belief in the right to own firearms, but the right isn't arguing the right to kill someone.
The left has managed to convince themselves killing a baby at any time before birth is just fine.
One side believes in owning an inanimate object the other side believes in ending human life for convenience, unless of course it is a serial killer who might vote for them then let's keep them around and give them a ballot.
To quote Jim Jefferies (again) "if your father rapes ya, you don't have to keep that"...
Cheburashka
Active Member
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
How about criminals? Will they also magically give up their guns? Or will this empower those committing crime as they know nobody can defend themselves?
Statistics are more likely she will get hurt by the gun than it will ever help her.
But daddy knows best.
Last edited:
Cheburashka
Active Member
Stats don't tell the whole story.
There is a difference between growing up in the ghetto and having guns and growing up with a responsible gun owner.
busaman
Member
i live in england firearms are banned period (unless you have a very good reason for having one) i have "0" fears of being shot by anyone anywhere in the country. yet in november i was in florida and every single day on the news there were shootings and murders by guns armed robberies etc that alone tells me you your country has it completely wrong your gun laws are insane i have no doubt if our laws were the same this country would decend into gun violence the same as the USA
Tell that to the family of the murder suicide in wealthy suburb town I live in that happen just the other night.
Stats do tell the story.
The same people that think they their whole family will never waiver. Or have mental illness or drugs or stress. Like to believe, not them, until it does.
Statistically it probably won’t happen to your family. But statistically you are safer without a gun in the house. Believe or kid yourself all you want.
Similar threads
