It’s the entire argument in a nutshell yes. A common-sense response to those desires is what separates the countries that don’t have much gun crime from yours.
There are all kinds of discussions we can have about this, not the least of which is that “no guns” simply isn’t an option in a country with 500 million firearms and no central firearm registry.
But, really, all that stuff is beside the point. Guns are the ultimate equalizer. They equalize the weak and the strong. An 80 year old grandma can defend herself against a 25 year old man using a gun. A suppressed populace can defend themselves against a tyrannical government using guns.
Gun crime has negligible impact on most Americans; we have about half as many firearm homicides as traffic deaths annually.
Philosophically, the gun community feels having that equalizer and balance against tyranny is more important than the impacts of gun crime. Whether or not more gun control will decrease gun crime is irrelevant if a person feels that free firearm access is the more important of the two issues.
Btw, regardless of your views, if you come to the US you should shoot some guns. It’s fun and you’ll be glad you did.
Wow, so we have too many guns so no reason to regulate has to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. It is like common sense showed up to have you shart in their face
Guns are the ultimate equalizer sounds like something a weak assed little Nazi would say. Why does every other modern civilized country not need them then? It is like you look at the worst case and say it is now the best case
I could give a shit about the feels of gun nutters. To think we have to appease homicidal radicals is fucking bonkers.
I think most people will pass on the shooting thing. There is a lot more to the USA than a bunch of gun waving lunatics.
honestly it is the only way they can throw off the bourgeoisie. people who want to deprive the proletariat of guns are class traitors or posers from the bourgeoisie.
I have traveled most of the country and 95% of Americans are normal people who just want the best for the people around them. They just have different perspectives on what that means.
You should let your hate go, my friend. I promise you’ll be happier for it.
This made me laugh. You sound like Philomena Cunk!
Surely, all that needs to happen is that everyone needs to carry bottles of acid. It will be completely safe in the hands of well-trained acid handlers, and accidents will only happen to people who weren’t trained well enough! This means you wouldn’t even need to regulate it!
How about you just give them guns so they can shoot the acid attackers. Turns out, you don’t need much training with a gun. Point shoot. Very simple. Point shoot. School shooters figure it out just fine.
There are plenty of convenient and easy ways for harming each other outside of guns (France circa 2016). The same goes for suicide. So banning guns doesn’t actually make it “harder” for people to harm one another, esp. when you can just drive a truck through a crowd.
Gun control doesn’t work anyways (Winnenden School Shooting, Jokela School Shooting Finland, 2007, Alphen aan den Rijn Shopping Mall Shooting in Netherlands, 2011, etc. etc.).
Guns save more productive civilian lives than the the criminal lives they take, and people like you purposefully ignore this fact. In trying to save a few hundred or maybe thousand lives from gun violence (most of which are violent criminals themselves), you people are willing to deprive millions of innocent hard working people the ability to defend themselves. You know nothing.
Even if all of this was false, the ability to resist tyranny is more valuable than the lives lost to gun-crime.
How about instead of low-IQ hamfisted moves such as taking away guns, you people look at policies that would address the root causes of crime like broken families, poverty, mental illness, homelessness, and cultural malaise? You don’t. Because you’re lazy. And THAT is why you want to get rid of guns. Because you don’t care enough about the people to invest some effort in actually solving all the related problems that lead people to use guns in the first place.
What is the bigger problem? Acid attacks or gun crime?
I help fix patients who have been shot. Don’t lecture me about solving problems. I’m part of the Violence Intervention and Prevention team - we provide services and assistance to those injured by firearms. I work in a level 1 trauma center in the orthopedic trauma department.
Go ahead and guess how many of those patients have been shot by a good guy with a gun in the past nine years. Go ahead and guess how many good guys with guns end up being the patient.
Here’s a hint. The answer to the first question is fewer than 1.
Yawn. Your personal experience is not reflective of broader trends. If you work in healthcare, you really should be smart enough to know this. So I will lecture you, because you clearly need it. Besides, you haven’t refuted any of my points, you just resorted to logical fallacies like appeals to authority and anecdotal evidence. Proof that you don’t have anything useful to say anymore. Smh.
these people are such idiots. besides, the founding fathers didn’t exclusively intend the second amendment to be used against petty thieves or violent criminals… they wanted it to be used to resist tyranny in all its forms. One form of tyranny is prosecutors dropping violent felons cases, judges setting low bail on repeat violent offenders, and federal governments throwing the borders open and granting special protection to violent criminals that come across the border. The government at best can punish crime, but it can never defend us. I am more than willing to accept school shootings if it means I can shoot someone that I deem a threat if necessary.
I’m sure this sounded convincing in your head.
It’s the entire argument in a nutshell yes. A common-sense response to those desires is what separates the countries that don’t have much gun crime from yours.
There are all kinds of discussions we can have about this, not the least of which is that “no guns” simply isn’t an option in a country with 500 million firearms and no central firearm registry.
But, really, all that stuff is beside the point. Guns are the ultimate equalizer. They equalize the weak and the strong. An 80 year old grandma can defend herself against a 25 year old man using a gun. A suppressed populace can defend themselves against a tyrannical government using guns.
Gun crime has negligible impact on most Americans; we have about half as many firearm homicides as traffic deaths annually.
Philosophically, the gun community feels having that equalizer and balance against tyranny is more important than the impacts of gun crime. Whether or not more gun control will decrease gun crime is irrelevant if a person feels that free firearm access is the more important of the two issues.
Btw, regardless of your views, if you come to the US you should shoot some guns. It’s fun and you’ll be glad you did.
preach! This! couldn’t have said it better myself.
Wow, so we have too many guns so no reason to regulate has to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. It is like common sense showed up to have you shart in their face
Guns are the ultimate equalizer sounds like something a weak assed little Nazi would say. Why does every other modern civilized country not need them then? It is like you look at the worst case and say it is now the best case
I could give a shit about the feels of gun nutters. To think we have to appease homicidal radicals is fucking bonkers.
I think most people will pass on the shooting thing. There is a lot more to the USA than a bunch of gun waving lunatics.
The working class must remain armed.
honestly it is the only way they can throw off the bourgeoisie. people who want to deprive the proletariat of guns are class traitors or posers from the bourgeoisie.
I have traveled most of the country and 95% of Americans are normal people who just want the best for the people around them. They just have different perspectives on what that means.
You should let your hate go, my friend. I promise you’ll be happier for it.
Same and it is clear 95% are not gun nutters.
Reality is a harsh mistress and your gun rhetoric is absolute garbage.
Countries that “don’t have much gun crime” = countries with acid attacks
This made me laugh. You sound like Philomena Cunk!
Surely, all that needs to happen is that everyone needs to carry bottles of acid. It will be completely safe in the hands of well-trained acid handlers, and accidents will only happen to people who weren’t trained well enough! This means you wouldn’t even need to regulate it!
How about you just give them guns so they can shoot the acid attackers. Turns out, you don’t need much training with a gun. Point shoot. Very simple. Point shoot. School shooters figure it out just fine.
I don’t even know where to start.
There will be fewer acid attacks with guns because everyone will have access to a way more convenient and easy way of harming each other, yes.
So…problem solved?
Which side of the argument are you actually on?
How about instead of low-IQ hamfisted moves such as taking away guns, you people look at policies that would address the root causes of crime like broken families, poverty, mental illness, homelessness, and cultural malaise? You don’t. Because you’re lazy. And THAT is why you want to get rid of guns. Because you don’t care enough about the people to invest some effort in actually solving all the related problems that lead people to use guns in the first place.
What is the bigger problem? Acid attacks or gun crime?
I help fix patients who have been shot. Don’t lecture me about solving problems. I’m part of the Violence Intervention and Prevention team - we provide services and assistance to those injured by firearms. I work in a level 1 trauma center in the orthopedic trauma department.
Go ahead and guess how many of those patients have been shot by a good guy with a gun in the past nine years. Go ahead and guess how many good guys with guns end up being the patient.
Here’s a hint. The answer to the first question is fewer than 1.
Yawn. Your personal experience is not reflective of broader trends. If you work in healthcare, you really should be smart enough to know this. So I will lecture you, because you clearly need it. Besides, you haven’t refuted any of my points, you just resorted to logical fallacies like appeals to authority and anecdotal evidence. Proof that you don’t have anything useful to say anymore. Smh.
these people are such idiots. besides, the founding fathers didn’t exclusively intend the second amendment to be used against petty thieves or violent criminals… they wanted it to be used to resist tyranny in all its forms. One form of tyranny is prosecutors dropping violent felons cases, judges setting low bail on repeat violent offenders, and federal governments throwing the borders open and granting special protection to violent criminals that come across the border. The government at best can punish crime, but it can never defend us. I am more than willing to accept school shootings if it means I can shoot someone that I deem a threat if necessary.