Gun ownership thread #2323344

[Kyuu]

and now you get to explain to me, why the fuck me owning a gun would escalate ANY problem.

Is this a serious challenge? I dunno, let's see... how about an argument. Let's say the argument gets to the point where the person or people have the desire to injure and/or kill one another. Scenario one: no gun handy. Scenario two: one or more people involved have a gun handy. In which scenario are people more likely to die or get seriously injured?

and now you get to show me how often these evil "anti-materiel rifles" (which is a bullshit term btw) are used in crime.

That's not the point. The point is, what reasonable argument is there for a civilian to have access to such a weapon? It's not practical for self-defense, hunting, or really doing anything but shooting at armored vehicles. Why should anyone outside the military be in possession of one? Same goes for automatic weapons. There's no good reason for civilians to have access to one.

Also, the fact that "anti-material" rifles are illegal and next-to-impossible for a criminal to obtain normally just might have something to do with the fact that you never see them used in crimes, along with the fact that they're not really practical for anything other than assaulting armored vehicles.

 

[DammitBoy]

First I asked why we need it?

Hunting - population control for animals and enjoyment
Sport shooting - enjoyment and practice
Self-defense - To preserve your own life and the life of others
Revolt - to overthrow corrupt and/or oppressive governments
(I did however leave one out and I'll put that one out aswell)
Insurgency against invasion - to fight off foreign armies.

Then I myself, "Out of those, which ones do I need to do."

We don't need to do it to survive.

We don't need to enjoy it.

I believe you do need to be able to defend yourself.

I believe you need to hold the threat of viable revolt over your government, to insure that if you can no longer alter policy by words, or a large portion of the population believes that they are being ignored. You can dismantle the old system and create a new one of the design of the majority, such as America was founded on.

You also need to be able to defend yourself from an aggressive foreign power.

Your argument is based on flawed reasoning. It's not about 'need'.

Get back to me when you figure out what the topic actually is...

 

[Blakut]

What counts is that, in the USA, my right to own can't be infringed upon. I personally don't care what any third world country (or any resident moron of said country) has to say about it.

And in some countries it is a man's right to kill his wife if she is unfaithful or to kill his daughter if she brings dishonor to his family.

I really don't care what you do with your guns in the USA. You can have school shootouts every day for all i care. Seems to me that any idiot or lunatic can own a gun there.

That's all i have to say about gun ownership. I personally liked this thread better when it was about guns, not rights to own them.

 

[Tagaziel]

I believe you need to hold the threat of viable revolt over your government, to insure that if you can no longer alter policy by words, or a large portion of the population believes that they are being ignored. You can dismantle the old system and create a new one of the design of the majority, such as America was founded on.

(you could contend that that isn't usually the case, and I'd agree with you. It is however the viable case, otherwise it is bad. I point out the Russian revolution. The Czar needed to be overthrown and was. But a minority grabbed power and instituted a government not favored by the majority.

Or at least thats how I understand it happend.)

You also need to be able to defend yourself from an aggressive foreign power. (This one is kinda borderline because we can do that with a standing army)

You honestly believe that any kind of an armed revolt in the USA would work nowadays? It worked in 1917 because the preparations weren't detected, the state was weak, and there was a single ideology binding the disgruntled populace.

Any revolt in the USA would be swiftly crushed before they get to the point of marching out.

You've said earliar (three pages worth now I think) that we've matured as a species to a point where we don't need firearms anymore. But then you say to DB that he isn't mature enough to own a firearm.

Exceptions that confirm a rule. His attitude shows that he is irresponsible and doesn't quite understand the concept of responsibility.

So you must be mature enough to have it. But to have it would be immature?

Not what I was saying. I was saying, that we have matured to the point where we don't need to don weapons to defend ourselves at each and every step.

If you've been in the police/military, I have no problem about you having a weapon, because you've had proper training. I do, however, object to civilians owning guns because of imagined threats.

This is why I don't have anything against the Polish policy, where people who have actual need (lawyers, attorneys, judges, people receiving death threats) can be issued a permit.

Not to mention that it requires extensive psychological and medical tests and proper firearm usage training, which turns a significant number of people away, leaving only those who really need one.

Just because he's a moron who can't create a credible argument doesn't mean he can't be safe with a weapon. In fact I'd probably trust DB to safely handle a weapon more than I would you, because he has experience with it and cares about it. Because he does care about it and because he uses it, he probably has developed rituals in order to safely use his weapon.

The question is, would I want to?

I don't want to, precisely because I have no experience, and trust no one outside the police and military to handle it properly.

Little things like keeping your finger off the trigger. Treating it like it's dangerous even when unloaded and on safety. Being aware of what he is shooting at and more importantly what is behind it.

Given my nature, I'd be checking that five times per minute, so... hell, I've been checking any document I've written in the office during August FIVE TIMES and still was unsure whether I've written everything properly, even when it was exactly as the draft I've been given.

Thats primaraly is where I think most of your arguments are flawed. You know it kills people. But that isn't accurate. A person can choose kill some one with a gun. A person can also likewise choose not to kill some one with a gun.

The person is the critical factor. A car can be unsafe in the hands of an inexperienced driver or a driver with the intent to cause damage.

Don't compare a firearm to a car. Just, don't. A tool for killing and maiming is not comparable to a tool that is used everyday, and definitely not for running school children over.

EDIT: Split the pointless arguing between me and the others from the main thread. That said, I don't intend to drag the issue on any longer, it's pointless and insulting to everyone's intelligence.

Deal me out, boys.

 

[SuAside]

That's what you continue to imply.

i never implied guns were essential. but a lot of things aren't essential...

Also, tools useful in everyday life =/= tools designed to maim and kill.

you do realise that a gun designed for action shooting and a gun built for war is often pretty similar, right?

besides, are you going to ban a skateboard because some skater beat another dude's head in with it? a gun is a tool for self-defense, sport and even offense. but hell, if you start banning that, you'll need to ban a shitload more stuff.

No, the question was "How does it make you more aware?"

It doesn't. So if someone got raped by someone they didn't notice, whether or not they owned a firearm is irrelevant.

that's what you made the question to be, and it's actually besides the point. it's about empowerment, not spidersense.

Because a civilian is that - a civilian.

ah, so since you're not a cop, you have no duty to your fellow man then?
in most countries you can be sued for not lending aid to a person in need.

a civilian that CC's can lend aid in more ways than an unarmed person can. or even a gun owner in general.

say your mother and your dog happens to be getting raped downstairs, are you going to sit under your desk calling the cops, or are you going to 'fix bayonets' and rush the goddamn fucker? i wouldn't need to think twice.

your point being? if gun ownership saves one more life than it costs, it was worth it.

No.

so less people owning guns is more important than human life?

what a great "progressive policy" that is. i applaud thee.

How about you quote actual statistics for once, instead of twisting facts and words?

Also, isolated incident =/= general rule.

you didn't specify what, so i'll give you some random info on belgium:

there are 0.028 firearm deaths per 100.000 inhabitants due to legal firearms (including legal police action and suicides, so keep in mind that belgium has a high rate of suicide in general). and illegal firearm is 15 times more dangerous than a legally owned firearm.

now, lets put it in perspective:

smoking causes 22.500 deaths per year according to the belgian government. 2.500 of those from passive / second hand smoking. smoking causes 8000 times more deaths than legal firearms.

yet people seem to think that smoking in their private life is a right, but owning firearms isn't? who's the risk to society here? who's the burden on society here?

you do realise why when enrolling yourself in a football club, between 15 to 5 euros is used for insurrance. yet, if you become a member of the FROS or any other sportshooting club, you pay 1 euro insurrance per year? why you ask? because sportshooting is an extremely safe sport overall... mindboggling, isn't it?

I take it you haven't read the article I linked to earlier. Won't bother restating my point.

you just said you shouldn't use isolated incidents?

and i asked you why I shouldn't be allowed to own any.

Ah, I knew you'd miss the point.

The point was, the presence of firearms in a household in Switzerland escalates existing familial problems.

lol, what? it doesn't?

provide some proof yourself for once? you do realise that most family dramas happen WITHOUT guns, right?

as said, if you had the choice, would you rather be shot in the head or your throat sliced? sure, a firearms is the easiest way to do it, if it's available, but so what? that's the reason why so many firearms are used in suicides. but that in no way implies that those suicides wouldn't have happened if the person didn't have a firearm. that's just bullshit reasoning.

I am respectful. Why can't you be?

because i don't have to be.

Then why are you rabidly attacking me for supporting limiting firearms proliferation?

No, seriously - you don't own a weapon, yet you claim to know everything on the subject. You wouldn't carry a weapon, yet you rabidly type in that it's the apex of personal protection.

euhm, i own guns... if you'd have bothered to read the thread you originally posted in, it would've been rather obvious that i do. i just don't own any for the purpose of self-defense. i'd say that's an important distinction.

and i can support many issues, without actually doing it myself, now can i? i can wholeheartedly support NATO's ISAF, without being a member, now can't i? sjeezes...

If you don't grasp the concept of ".50 caliber military grade sniper rifle capable of damaging lightly armoured targets in civilian hands", I won't bother restating it to you.

and that's where ignorance comes in.

you do realise that a 9.3x64mm Brenekke with the correct bullet and correct load is just as capable of piercing anything a .50 cal can?
that cartridge just happens to be one of the most popular european hunting cartridges for safaris in africa.

do you also realise that any hunting cartridge worth the name is more powerful than what an M16 or a Kalashnikov shoots? do you realise that a 9x19mm out of a Glock pistol is more likely to travel through internal walls in a building than a bullet from an M16?

I really find it funny that you behave like an American extreme right-wing gun nut, yet don't own a firearm nor want to own one. Hypocritical much?

lack reading comprehension much?

i'm also pretty damn fucking far away from being an extreme rightwing gun nut...

and now you get to explain to me, why the fuck me owning a gun would escalate ANY problem.

Is this a serious challenge? I dunno, let's see... how about an argument. Let's say the argument gets to the point where the person or people have the desire to injure and/or kill one another. Scenario one: no gun handy. Scenario two: one or more people involved have a gun handy. In which scenario are people more likely to die or get seriously injured?

when you get to the point where you actually want to kill someone, it'll likely matter little if you have a gun handy or not...

i'd like to remind you that most murders and deaths related to firearms are done with illegal firearms, and that firearms are usually not the prime tool for murder or manslaughter. people with legally owned firearms are potentially the most controlled and law abiding people you'll ever meet. after all, they don't want to do something stupid and loose their guns...

That's not the point. The point is, what reasonable argument is there for a civilian to have access to such a weapon? It's not practical for self-defense, hunting, or really doing anything but shooting at armored vehicles. Why should anyone outside the military be in possession of one? Same goes for automatic weapons. There's no good reason for civilians to have access to one.

i'd like to take you to Switzerland and see how well you fare on a 1.5km range with a .22LR rifle.

sorry dude, but disciplines like long range shooting do require high calibre guns...

Also, the fact that "anti-material" rifles are illegal and next-to-impossible for a criminal to obtain normally just might have something to do with the fact that you never see them used in crimes, along with the fact that they're not really practical for anything other than assaulting armored vehicles.

illegal where? not in Belgium. they're simply not here because we have no ranges long enough to take advantage of the guns.

either way, this "anti-material" hype is all media bullshit and fearmongering...

 

[Sander]

I'm just going to nitpick the few things I disagree with, SuA.

ah, so since you're not a cop, you have no duty to your fellow man then?

This is an obvious nonsensical argument. If you're not a cop, you're not supposed to go around carrying guns for self-defense. It doesn't say anywhere that you're not supposed to help other people. It only restricts the objects you can use.

To take this to extremes, you could easily advocate private ownership of tanks because hey, if the military can use tanks to protect people, shouldn't private citizens?

so less people owning guns is more important than human life?

No, that's not what he said.
Your hypothesis is that if gun ownership saves 1 more person than it kills, then it was worth it. But practically speaking, most people and governments utilise a utlitiarian morality with an emphasis on the importance of human life.
What this means, is that the total cost to society is what is most important, and although deaths do figure in pretty heavily, this is not the sole determining factor.

i'd like to take you to Switzerland and see how well you fare on a 1.5km range with a .22LR rifle.

sorry dude, but disciplines like long range shooting do require high calibre guns...

This is a silly argument. I can think of a ton of things I could do recreationally that are forbidden because they're dangerous, require illegal substances or whatnot.
Like, for instance, blowing up cans of paint in my backyard with high explosives. Whoo-boy, that would be fun.

The fact that you need something for a specific recreational activity isn't a very good argument in favour of it contributing positively to society.

 

[DammitBoy]

His attitude shows that he is irresponsible and doesn't quite understand the concept of responsibility.

You keep saying things that make no sense at all, why is that?

Please indulge us with an explaination of how the act of posting a rant on a message forum excludes the ability to be responsible.

---

 

[Demetrious]

The best way to answer stupid people, and especially stupid American gun nuts, is to just ignore them.

The point was, the presence of firearms in a household in Switzerland escalates existing familial problems.

you behave like an American extreme right-wing gun nut,

Then again, what can I expect from an American who can't even write properly in his own language.

Of course it's outdated, but the gun nut propaganda is seemingly stronger than common sense. Not that it surprises me, given the country we are talking about.

The intent was not to allow nutty fanaticals with delusions of fending off an army from their front porch to stockpile weapons they have no real need or use for.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a brief, concise display of the typical open-minded respect that most Americans receive from Europeans. "American" is used in a derogatory fashion several times, a random feminist theory + picture suggesting that guns are just an extention of brutal male power is presented, and a succinct stereotype of gun owners as "nutty fanatical with delusions of fending off an army from their front porch" is made.

Bang up job, guys, really.

I am respectful. Why can't you be?

You made a funny!

So, I can't help but address a few little things that annoyed me:

More like, free from paranoia.

I admit utter amazement at this sentiment. Apparently, Europeans hold firearms in such awe and dread that the mere possession of one speaks of a great and terrible danger on the horizon. Americans suffer from no such delusions. Guns that are kept for self-defense are about as remarkable as a fire extinguisher. They're there, just in case, but their mere presence doesn't imply that every second of every day is spent fearfully awaiting disaster.

It doesn't. So if someone got raped by someone they didn't notice, whether or not they owned a firearm is irrelevant.

This is truly priceless. Guns won't save you from ninja rapists!

Seriously, this has to be the most laughable statement I have ever heard. It takes about 3 seconds to draw a concealed firearm and fire two rounds. Most CCW classes also reflect the fact that most of these situations happen very fast, and with a hostile target less then nine feet away (often closer.) Muggers approach you, present a weapon, and demand your money. Rapists chase you into a dark alley and then try to pull your clothes off. A bunch of gang-bangers generally prowl around in groups, looking for people to harass/rob.

None of them descend from the sky in a split second like the godamn Batman.

EDIT: Wait... .50 caliber sniper rifles are available for purchase in the United States?

YES! For the low low price of $10,000-15000, YOU TOO can own a forty pound, nine foot long rifle firing ammunition that costs $2 a round and can only be effectively used by a handful of military and civilian marksmen in the entire world!

Just... no. .50 rifles are like boats; expensive toys that burn even more expensive fuel. This is precisely why they have never, ever, been used in the commission of a crime- because you don't stick up grocery stores with a nine-foot-long, forty pound steel pipe.

I do, however, object to civilians owning guns because of imagined threats.

So, every rape, mugging, shooting, and armed assault that occurs every year is "imaginary?" Gary Kleck has done research that claims that guns are used defensively (that is, brandished in response to threat, or fired,) 2.5 million times a year. He was considered trustworthy enough that the US Supreme Court cited his research in the recent Keller ruling on the Second Amendment.

"Imaginary," indeed, sir.

Is this a serious challenge? I dunno, let's see... how about an argument. Let's say the argument gets to the point where the person or people have the desire to injure and/or kill one another. Scenario one: no gun handy. Scenario two: one or more people involved have a gun handy. In which scenario are people more likely to die or get seriously injured?

Scenario One. Because in Scenario one, the following things are available as weapons:

--Kitchen knives

--Table legs

--Golf clubs

--Big screwdrivers

--Any blunt object at all

That's just by looking at the room around me. My uncle was a detective with the Detroit police department for many years; and as he told me, most homicide he saw took place with an object immediately to hand, in the heat of the moment. I don't know what skewed ideas of America you have, but most people keep their guns in their bedroom, in the nightstand, or in a safe downstairs, or in the closet- you know, where you keep most of your infrequently used sporting goods. We don't keep a gun mounted in every room above the mantle with "In case of Zombies" printed underneath.

Or, you could look at England, which is suffering an epidemic of knife crime. this article covers the "growing problem," this article declares the UK to be the "knife crime capital," and this describes how knife-proof jackets are all the rage in London these days.

Hooray gun ban!

Well there's a lot more to destroy there, but I think I covered the highlights.

If you're not a cop, you're not supposed to go around carrying guns for self-defense.

Says who? Why don't I have a right to defend my life to the best of my ability?

According to the Constitution of the United States, and three hundred years of American cultural thought, the individual citizen is more then trustworthy enough to manage his own affairs without interference from the government, stay law-abiding without oppressive and intrusive government supervision- and own and operate a firearm. For most of American history, a good deal of the populace had to rely on firearms for protection in dangerous areas and for sustenance hunting, so a familiarity with firearms is still present today.

In short, American firearm ownership is the result of a particular mindset that has always held that Joe Citizen, does, in fact, have a brain, and is capable of safely and responsibly operating a personal firearm. We have a lot more trust in the capacity of the individual. In addition, guns are a well-known quantity, no more remarkable then any other mechanical contraption. This is why the kind of vetting process that Europeans are subject to- psychological examinations, medial exams, mind-reading sessions, seances- are around the level of rigor we apply to people put in charge of bazookas.

but that in no way implies that those suicides wouldn't have happened if the person didn't have a firearm.

But it does add a great many deaths to the "killed by firearms" charts, which are almost always applied in very misleading contexts (HAY LOOK HOW MANY PEEPL DIE CUZ OF GUNZ), etc.

 

[DammitBoy]

The best way to answer stupid people, and especially stupid American gun nuts, is to just ignore them.

The point was, the presence of firearms in a household in Switzerland escalates existing familial problems.

you behave like an American extreme right-wing gun nut,

Then again, what can I expect from an American who can't even write properly in his own language.

Of course it's outdated, but the gun nut propaganda is seemingly stronger than common sense. Not that it surprises me, given the country we are talking about.

The intent was not to allow nutty fanaticals with delusions of fending off an army from their front porch to stockpile weapons they have no real need or use for.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a brief, concise display of the typical open-minded respect that most Americans receive from Europeans. "American" is used in a derogatory fashion several times, a random feminist theory + picture suggesting that guns are just an extention of brutal male power is presented, and a succinct stereotype of gun owners as "nutty fanatical with delusions of fending off an army from their front porch" is made.

Bang up job, guys, really.

I am respectful. Why can't you be?

You made a funny!

So, I can't help but address a few little things that annoyed me:

More like, free from paranoia.

I admit utter amazement at this sentiment. Apparently, Europeans hold firearms in such awe and dread that the mere possession of one speaks of a great and terrible danger on the horizon. Americans suffer from no such delusions. Guns that are kept for self-defense are about as remarkable as a fire extinguisher. They're there, just in case, but their mere presence doesn't imply that every second of every day is spent fearfully awaiting disaster.

It doesn't. So if someone got raped by someone they didn't notice, whether or not they owned a firearm is irrelevant.

This is truly priceless. Guns won't save you from ninja rapists!

Seriously, this has to be the most laughable statement I have ever heard. It takes about 3 seconds to draw a concealed firearm and fire two rounds. Most CCW classes also reflect the fact that most of these situations happen very fast, and with a hostile target less then nine feet away (often closer.) Muggers approach you, present a weapon, and demand your money. Rapists chase you into a dark alley and then try to pull your clothes off. A bunch of gang-bangers generally prowl around in groups, looking for people to harass/rob.

None of them descend from the sky in a split second like the godamn Batman.

EDIT: Wait... .50 caliber sniper rifles are available for purchase in the United States?

YES! For the low low price of $10,000-15000, YOU TOO can own a forty pound, nine foot long rifle firing ammunition that costs $2 a round and can only be effectively used by a handful of military and civilian marksmen in the entire world!

Just... no. .50 rifles are like boats; expensive toys that burn even more expensive fuel. This is precisely why they have never, ever, been used in the commission of a crime- because you don't stick up grocery stores with a nine-foot-long, forty pound steel pipe.

I do, however, object to civilians owning guns because of imagined threats.

So, every rape, mugging, shooting, and armed assault that occurs every year is "imaginary?" Gary Kleck has done research that claims that guns are used defensively (that is, brandished in response to threat, or fired,) 2.5 million times a year. He was considered trustworthy enough that the US Supreme Court cited his research in the recent Keller ruling on the Second Amendment.

"Imaginary," indeed, sir.

Is this a serious challenge? I dunno, let's see... how about an argument. Let's say the argument gets to the point where the person or people have the desire to injure and/or kill one another. Scenario one: no gun handy. Scenario two: one or more people involved have a gun handy. In which scenario are people more likely to die or get seriously injured?

Scenario One. Because in Scenario one, the following things are available as weapons:

--Kitchen knives

--Table legs

--Golf clubs

--Big screwdrivers

--Any blunt object at all

That's just by looking at the room around me. My uncle was a detective with the Detroit police department for many years; and as he told me, most homicide he saw took place with an object immediately to hand, in the heat of the moment. I don't know what skewed ideas of America you have, but most people keep their guns in their bedroom, in the nightstand, or in a safe downstairs, or in the closet- you know, where you keep most of your infrequently used sporting goods. We don't keep a gun mounted in every room above the mantle with "In case of Zombies" printed underneath.

Or, you could look at England, which is suffering an epidemic of knife crime. this article covers the "growing problem," this article declares the UK to be the "knife crime capital," and this describes how knife-proof jackets are all the rage in London these days.

Hooray gun ban!

Well there's a lot more to destroy there, but I think I covered the highlights.

If you're not a cop, you're not supposed to go around carrying guns for self-defense.

Says who? Why don't I have a right to defend my life to the best of my ability?

According to the Constitution of the United States, and three hundred years of American cultural thought, the individual citizen is more then trustworthy enough to manage his own affairs without interference from the government, stay law-abiding without oppressive and intrusive government supervision- and own and operate a firearm. For most of American history, a good deal of the populace had to rely on firearms for protection in dangerous areas and for sustenance hunting, so a familiarity with firearms is still present today.

In short, American firearm ownership is the result of a particular mindset that has always held that Joe Citizen, does, in fact, have a brain, and is capable of safely and responsibly operating a personal firearm. We have a lot more trust in the capacity of the individual. In addition, guns are a well-known quantity, no more remarkable then any other mechanical contraption. This is why the kind of vetting process that Europeans are subject to- psychological examinations, medial exams, mind-reading sessions, seances- are around the level of rigor we apply to people put in charge of bazookas.

but that in no way implies that those suicides wouldn't have happened if the person didn't have a firearm.

But it does add a great many deaths to the "killed by firearms" charts, which are almost always applied in very misleading contexts (HAY LOOK HOW MANY PEEPL DIE {Beats me likes a baby seal "cuz" I am STOOPID!} OF GUNZ), etc.

I commend you on a well thought out articulate post. You don't really expect it to have any affect on these lil fellers, do ya?

 

[Sander]

Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a brief, concise display of the typical open-minded respect that most Americans receive from Europeans. "American" is used in a derogatory fashion several times, a random feminist theory + picture suggesting that guns are just an extention of brutal male power is presented, and a succinct stereotype of gun owners as "nutty fanatical with delusions of fending off an army from their front porch" is made.

Bang up job, guys, really.

Oh, don't be ridiculous. They aren't representing Americans in general as nutty, fanatical, deluded lunatics. They're presenting nutty, fanatical, deluded Amerian lunatics as nutty, fanatical deluded lunatics.
The reason being that the USA is the most prominent example of a country where gun ownership is allowed.

I admit utter amazement at this sentiment. Apparently, Europeans hold firearms in such awe and dread that the mere possession of one speaks of a great and terrible danger on the horizon. Americans suffer from no such delusions. Guns that are kept for self-defense are about as remarkable as a fire extinguisher. They're there, just in case, but their mere presence doesn't imply that every second of every day is spent fearfully awaiting disaster.

Yet it is the main reason why private ownership of firearms are defended *is* the idea that someone might come into your home and rape you or assault you.

This is simply not a problem in most Western European countries, at all. Hence, the idea that you need a firearm to defend yourself speaks of paranoia to most Western Europeans, because using that reason here *would* be very paranoid.
Apparently, the USA is simply so much unsafer that it is needed there.

So, every rape, mugging, shooting, and armed assault that occurs every year is "imaginary?" Gary Kleck has done research that claims that guns are used defensively (that is, brandished in response to threat, or fired,) 2.5 million times a year. He was considered trustworthy enough that the US Supreme Court cited his research in the recent Keller ruling on the Second Amendment.

"Imaginary," indeed, sir.

Oh for fuck's sake.
I can also cite several experts who claim the exact opposite, and ones who object to Kleck's methodology.
There have been many studies and most of them have come out with vastly differing results. There is nothing conclusive here.

Also, the fact that his research was cited in a Second Amendment trial means nothing, obviously. Not in the least because the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to change the Second Amendment.

Says who? Why don't I have a right to defend my life to the best of my ability?

That's a nice straw man right there.
You have the right to defend your life to the best of your ability, with the tools that you are allowed to use. In the USA, that includes handguns. It doesn't, however, include say heavy artillery or nuclear weapons. Why? Because those weapons are considered overkill, and they obviously are.
So where do you draw the line?

According to the Constitution of the United States, and three hundred years of American cultural thought, the individual citizen is more then trustworthy enough to manage his own affairs without interference from the government, stay law-abiding without oppressive and intrusive government supervision- and own and operate a firearm. For most of American history, a good deal of the populace had to rely on firearms for protection in dangerous areas and for sustenance hunting, so a familiarity with firearms is still present today.

In short, American firearm ownership is the result of a particular mindset that has always held that Joe Citizen, does, in fact, have a brain, and is capable of safely and responsibly operating a personal firearm. We have a lot more trust in the capacity of the individual. In addition, guns are a well-known quantity, no more remarkable then any other mechanical contraption. This is why the kind of vetting process that Europeans are subject to- psychological examinations, medial exams, mind-reading sessions, seances- are around the level of rigor we apply to people put in charge of bazookas.

Yes, I'm well of aware of the reason and mindset behind the USA's second amendment. Funny fact: we weren't talking about the USA.

And this whole 'the USA is superior cause we give more responsibility to our citizens' is both delusional (the USA is more restrictive on a lot of other issues) and inherently flawed. Believing in the power of the individual is neat and all, but why don't you go back to anarchy?
Right. Because people want governments and live in groups for a lot of different beneficial reasons.

 

[DammitBoy]

Yet it is the main reason why private ownership of firearms are defended *is* the idea that someone might come into your home and rape you or assault you.

Wrong.

Just like it's not an argument about whether you have a 'need' for a gun, or a 'need' to hunt.

It's about a right. You can think of it as a priviledge all you want, and argue about whether we should have a priviledge restricted.

It's just not the argument.

We don't have to justify a right. It'd be as silly as arguing that I need a permit to speak, or a license to worship my faith, or an explaination of why I 'need' to read books.

 

[Sander]

Wrong.

Just like it's not an argument about whether you have a 'need' for a gun, or a 'need' to hunt.

It's about a right. You can think of it as a priviledge all you want, and argue about whether we should have a priviledge restricted.

It's just not the argument.

We don't have to justify a right. It'd be as silly as arguing that I need a permit to speak, or a license to worship my faith, or an explaination of why I 'need' to read books.

Yes, the debate is whether or not this should be an inherent right or not.
You're just going 'Well it just is', which is good for you and it is the status quo in the USA, but doesn't actually make a meaningful contribution to the argument in any way.

 

[Demetrious]

Oh, don't be ridiculous. They aren't representing Americans in general as nutty, fanatical, deluded lunatics. They're presenting nutty, fanatical, deluded Amerian lunatics as nutty, fanatical deluded lunatics.
The reason being that the USA is the most prominent example of a country where gun ownership is allowed.

Ah, I see! So it's not Americans who are nutty, fanatical, deluded lunatics. Just anybody who owns a gun is automatically a nutty, fanatical, deluded lunatic. Thanks for clearing that up! It's good to know that only a particular kind of American is subject to your blatant stereotyping.

See, that's why these conversations always turn out so well- because you lovely Europeans have such a open-minded respect for the position and arguments of gun owners. We aren't marginalized and branded as knuckle-dragging mouth breathing barbarian cobwoys at all.

Yet it is the main reason why private ownership of firearms are defended *is* the idea that someone might come into your home and rape you or assault you.

This is simply not a problem in most Western European countries, at all. Hence, the idea that you need a firearm to defend yourself speaks of paranoia to most Western Europeans

Do you have a fire extingusher or fire alarm in your house? Congratulations, you're paranoid!

See, Americans tend to keep guns for home defense just in case the .5% chance of a home invasion should happen to them, just like most people keep a few fire extinguishers around the house, just in case. Europeans think this is paranoid, because they seem to view a handgun to be about as dire a defensive measure as a tank and a platoon of marines, while Americans consider a revolver to be a revolver. Same principle as a fire extinguisher, and about as remarkable.

Oh for fuck's sake.
I can also cite several experts who claim the exact opposite, and ones who object to Kleck's methodology.

Then do so, and stop whining.

There have been many studies and most of them have come out with vastly differing results. There is nothing conclusive here.

Aren't there always? It's an old problem, to be sure. However, Kleck's study has stood the test of time well enough to be cited by the Supreme Court of the US, which is a fairly big endorsement of it's veracity. That's the main reason I decided to cite Kleck, really. Few of those numerous studies receive such validation, which is why I hesitate to begin endless, fruitless cite wars with them.

Also, the fact that his research was cited in a Second Amendment trial means nothing, obviously. Not in the least because the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to change the Second Amendment.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what that case was about. The Supreme Court found the Second Amendment to grant an individual right to firearm ownership. It wasn't about changing it, it was about deciding what it meant, conclusively.

That's a nice straw man right there.
You have the right to defend your life to the best of your ability, with the tools that you are allowed to use. In the USA, that includes handguns. It doesn't, however, include say heavy artillery or nuclear weapons. Why? Because those weapons are considered overkill, and they obviously are.
So where do you draw the line?

Ah, you accuse me of using a strawman and seamlessly switch to attacking a strawman. Classic. It's clearly a strawman because anybody with two ounces of brains is aware of the fact that heavy artillery and nuclear weapons are crew-served weapons that are not employed against a target in the immediate vicinity presenting a threat. Thus it is an intensely laughable thing to suggest, isn't it?

But say, for the sake of argument, that any weapon, any weapon at all, was legal. No civilian would have them, simply because nobody has twenty million dollars to buy a Main Battle Tank. Perhaps rich people would buy them and drive them around their ten thousand acre private ranches or whatever.

Yes, I'm well of aware of the reason and mindset behind the USA's second amendment. Funny fact: we weren't talking about the USA.

Gee, you sure fooled me!

And this whole 'the USA is superior cause we give more responsibility to our citizens' is both delusional (the USA is more restrictive on a lot of other issues) and inherently flawed. Believing in the power of the individual is neat and all, but why don't you go back to anarchy?

Considering that I didn't breathe a word in judgment of the American Idea, and was in fact careful not to, your petulant outburst against "the USA is superior" idea seems like a case of the man doth protest too much. Did I rub any inferiority complexes the wrong way? So sorry.

Right. Because people want governments and live in groups for a lot of different beneficial reasons.

Right, breathing "anarchy" in the same breath as "USA" reveals a fundamental lack of understanding as regards Federalism.

 

[RonPerlman]

people who proudly own guns should find another way to try to get laid

 

[Elissar]

I proudly own guns. I am a US Citizen.
Between my father an me we have 12 pistols, 39 rifles, and 5 shotguns.

I also happen to be a soldier in the US Army, a 2 tour iraq vet. My father is a 2 tour vietnam vet.. We Enjoy Shooting and collecting vintage firearms....

Why shouldnt I be allowed to have my and my family guns?

I have never had a problem getting laid. as skinny as I am. as socially akward as i am... I have never not gotten laid. So FUCK you with your "People with guns need to find another way to get laid" fucking bullshit.

 

[RonPerlman]

I proudly own guns. I am a US Citizen.
Between my father an me we have 12 pistols, 39 rifles, and 5 shotguns.

I also happen to be a soldier in the US Army, a 2 tour iraq vet. My father is a 2 tour vietnam vet.. We Enjoy Shooting and collecting vintage firearms....

Why shouldnt I be allowed to have my and my family guns?

I have never had a problem getting laid. as skinny as I am. as socially akward as i am... I have never not gotten laid. So FUCK you with your "People with guns need to find another way to get laid" fucking bullshit.

I guess "so, I killed some sandniggers" is a great pick-up line

 

[Elissar]

I wouldn't know i never used it.

 

[RonPerlman]

I wouldn't know i never used it.

Then you're really not employing your Iraq War veteran status to its full benefit

 

[Elissar]

You ever been deployed?
Ever seen combat?

 

[RonPerlman]

You ever been deployed?
Ever seen combat?

I make it a rule not to take jobs involving murdering people, so, you know