I have now lived in USA for 4 years. I was born in Thailand and don’t understand guns.
Do you think that guns outside of police and military protect more than they hurt?
I have now lived in USA for 4 years. I was born in Thailand and don’t understand guns.
Do you think that guns outside of police and military protect more than they hurt?
Yashi wrote:
I have now lived in USA for 4 years. I was born in Thailand and don’t understand guns.
Do you think that guns outside of police and military protect more than they hurt?
It's up to you to decide. Don't shoot yourself or the good guys. You won't have any problems at all.
Consider driving. Drunk drivers kill 10,000 to 15,000 per year in the USA (and for the record, "mass murder" victim count is on average in the ballpark of 150 per year). Should we take away individual ownership of cars and only use mass transit / professional drivers?
You have to understand our founding principles. One of which is resistance against tyranny and infringements on our liberties.
Ezekiel bread wrote:
You have to understand our founding principles. One of which is resistance against tyranny and infringements on our liberties.
So do you believe the number of handgun deaths are irrelevant?
That's not actually a snarky question, btw. It's genuine.
What if it could be shown to your satisfaction that stricter gun laws would reduce crime? Would that be relevant to you, or is gun ownership more of a moral issue on which you won't budge?
DontFeedTheTroll wrote:
Ezekiel bread wrote:
You have to understand our founding principles. One of which is resistance against tyranny and infringements on our liberties.
So do you believe the number of handgun deaths are irrelevant?
That's not actually a snarky question, btw. It's genuine.
What if it could be shown to your satisfaction that stricter gun laws would reduce crime? Would that be relevant to you, or is gun ownership more of a moral issue on which you won't budge?
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."-Thomas Jefferson
The USA's gun laws are basically fine.
I'm not sure Jefferson is the best person to quote when it involves the word "slavery." He didn't grant the same dangerous freedom to the Hemmings, after all. I wonder why.
Harambe wrote:
The USA's gun laws are basically fine.
I agree. We never have any unnecessary shootings.
el hombre wrote:
I'm not sure Jefferson is the best person to quote when it involves the word "slavery." He didn't grant the same dangerous freedom to the Hemmings, after all. I wonder why.
Tu quoque fallacy, besides Thomas Jefferson freed all of his slaves. And, in his time period in lived it he was actually quite progressive as far as being anti-slavery.
56-year-old American who grew up with hunting/sport guns in a safe rural area...
Guns are mean to cause damage. When I was taught to use one, it was drilled into me I'd better be sure of my targets and be responsible for what my shots did. A gun was a tool, not a means of definition or defiance.
It's strange to see people I grew up with, trained similarly, who have turned possessive and paranoid about their guns.
Meant to cause damage..
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Anarchy, WW3, Disaster, Riots, Civil War. Not likely but possible.
John Utah
Consider driving. Drunk drivers kill 10,000 to 15,000 per year in the USA (and for the record, "mass murder" victim count is on average in the ballpark of 150 per year). Should we take away individual ownership of cars and only use mass transit / professional drivers?
That's a pretty apples vs oranges argument.
Might be more analogous to cite the number of deaths due to multi-car multi fatality accidents vs those due to mass murder.
Alternatively, all automotive deaths vs all gun deaths.
The mass murder # doesn't really address the OP question.
I have read that 2/3 of all US gun deaths are suicides. Certainly, those people may have tried another mechanism, but less chance of success.
I'm sure there are other data that are more to the OP point
Actually bro wrote:
el hombre wrote:
I'm not sure Jefferson is the best person to quote when it involves the word "slavery." He didn't grant the same dangerous freedom to the Hemmings, after all. I wonder why.
Tu quoque fallacy, besides Thomas Jefferson freed all of his slaves. And, in his time period in lived it he was actually quite progressive as far as being anti-slavery.
Arguing against slavery while owning hundreds is progressive the same way a politician fights to ban abortions then gets one for his mistress.
Also, he freed a few slaves but still owned over 100 when he died. They weren't freed after his death but sold to cover his debts.
Marksch wrote:
John Utah
Consider driving. Drunk drivers kill 10,000 to 15,000 per year in the USA (and for the record, "mass murder" victim count is on average in the ballpark of 150 per year). Should we take away individual ownership of cars and only use mass transit / professional drivers?
That's a pretty apples vs oranges argument.
Might be more analogous to cite the number of deaths due to multi-car multi fatality accidents vs those due to mass murder.
Alternatively, all automotive deaths vs all gun deaths.
The mass murder # doesn't really address the OP question.
I have read that 2/3 of all US gun deaths are suicides. Certainly, those people may have tried another mechanism, but less chance of success.
I'm sure there are other data that are more to the OP point
Bottom line - guns are legal and that is not going to change.
If you buy a gun, it is statistically more likely to be used by you or a member of your family for a suicide or accidental shooting than in preventing a crime.
Not so fast bro wrote:
If you buy a gun, it is statistically more likely to be used by you or a member of your family for a suicide or accidental shooting than in preventing a crime.
Don’t shoot yourself or your family members.
John Utah wrote:
Not so fast bro wrote:
If you buy a gun, it is statistically more likely to be used by you or a member of your family for a suicide or accidental shooting than in preventing a crime.
Don’t shoot yourself or your family members.
That's the hope.
Funny how it doesn't always work out that way, though.
John Utah wrote:
Marksch wrote:
That's a pretty apples vs oranges argument.
Might be more analogous to cite the number of deaths due to multi-car multi fatality accidents vs those due to mass murder.
Alternatively, all automotive deaths vs all gun deaths.
The mass murder # doesn't really address the OP question.
I have read that 2/3 of all US gun deaths are suicides. Certainly, those people may have tried another mechanism, but less chance of success.
I'm sure there are other data that are more to the OP point
Bottom line - guns are legal and that is not going to change.
The bottom line is that there are currently restrictions on gun ownership and use. Those restrictions have changed in the past and will almost certainly change in the future.
Gunslinger wrote:
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Anarchy, WW3, Disaster, Riots, Civil War. Not likely but possible.
Following this rationale it would be wise to give everyone his own tank, or lets even go a step further, give everyone its own nuclear bomb!