More Guns = More Safer

[Fogdog]

If laws don't work, then shouldn't we repeal our immigration laws, murder laws, rape laws, etc.? Laws deter crime by making them more difficult to commit and providing an explicit punishment. Laws are stronger, more credible when they stand on the side of logic and morality.

You might want to reconsider the math on your last claim. The super majority don't own guns. If gun owners don't start listening to gun concerns and other risk factors like mental healthcare, the majority could return the disregard and pass unnecessarily restrictive gun laws. As a gun owner and hobbyist, I would like to avoid that.

The best answer would come from gun owners in this country if they would take ownership for bringing gun related crimes and accidents in line with other first world countries. I think the best solutions will be found from that group. Unfortunately, not enough gun owners care. As witnessed by @LEDandCoffee 's posts, nor are they particularly well informed. I do hope that non-gun owners and concerned gun owners will come together to arrive at something that meets everybody's needs. I also think the day this will happen is coming sooner rather than later.

 

[Rob Roy]

So you agree the weapons are part of the problem and should be reduced. I would extend that to world conflicts, sure. At the same time, there is a reality to confront that makes that issue a bit more complex, same with gun laws.

Here is my advice: stop with the oversimplification of everything to fit your empty platitudes.

No, I think what should be reduced is the initiation of offensive force in general and specifically by arbitrary authority. Weapons are inert and can be used to offend or defend. So can rocks, knives, fists, hammers and baseball bats.

Ironically the reason you contribute to purchasing weapons to be used to murder people by USA soldiers is you believe in authority and think, even though you disagree with it, you must do as you are told. How's that authority thing working out for you now? Your belief in authority is so great you obey it even when you know it is wrong.

 

[Rob Roy]

If laws don't work, then shouldn't we repeal our immigration laws, murder laws, rape laws, etc.? Laws deter crime by making them more difficult to commit and providing an explicit punishment. Laws are stronger, more credible when they stand on the side of logic and morality.

You might want to reconsider the math on your last claim. The super majority don't own guns. If gun owners don't start listening to gun concerns and other risk factors like mental healthcare, the majority could return the disregard and pass unnecessarily restrictive gun laws. As a gun owner and hobbyist, I would like to avoid that.

How will the super majority prevail though, if they pass gun laws which are politely ignored by the minority who decide to keep their guns for defensive purposes?

Will the super majority then use guns offensively in order to create a world where guns aren't able to be used offensively ? (I think you won't answer that one)

 

[PCXV]

No, I think what should be reduced is the initiation of offensive force in general and specifically by arbitrary authority. Weapons are inert and can be used to offend or defend. So can rocks, knives, fists, hammers and baseball bats.

Ironically the reason you contribute to purchasing weapons to be used to murder people by USA soldiers is you believe in authority and think, even though you disagree with it, you must do as you are told. How's that authority thing working out for you now? Your belief in authority is so great you obey it even when you know it is wrong.

Ah, the rocks and knives argument. If those are just as capable of harm/defense, why do people choose guns over them?

If the government applies arbitrary or unjustified offensive force, then the people have the power to change the law and hold it accountable. If they don't have that option, they have a natural right to disobey and fight tyranny. But thst's not what is happening in reality. In reality, the government is protecting/defending the rights of its citizens. It is acting defensively on their behalf in a fair manner that balances rights and seeks justice.

Your second paragraph is a straw man/mischaracterization. Authority is good when it prevents and punishes harmful acts, it is bad when it arbitrarily and unjustly causes or enacts harm. Try wrapping your head around my actual positions. But you won't.

 

[PCXV]

How will the super majority prevail though, if they pass gun laws which are politely ignored by the minority who decide to keep their guns for defensive purposes?

Will the super majority then use guns offensively in order to create a world where guns aren't able to be used offensively ?

The gun culture and number of guns is partially to blame for causing harm. There are times when offensive force is used to prevent offensive force, like a pre-emptive strike. These situations should be highly scrutinized, but not mischaracterized as causing harm when they do legitimately reduce harm.

In this case the gun owning population is putting the general population in danger. Innocent people are dying from offensive force from those with easy access to guns. The government would be defending the right to life of the supermajority. You ignore the first offense to mischaracterize the reaction, or defensive force, as offensive force. Your opinion is what decides who is justified and who is the aggressor. Disingenous.

(I think you won't answer that one)

I always answer, Bob, and I answer honestly with sincerity and thought. I directly address your questions with logic and facts. Can you honestly say the same? The list of my points you've ignored to maintain your delusion is a mile long. You never learn. That's why three times today you bet I wouldn't respond, but just like the dozens of other times you've made that bet, I reply directly every single time.

 

[Rob Roy]

Ag, the rocks and knives argument. If those are just as capable of harm/defense, why do people choose guns over them?

If the government applies arbitrary or unjustified offensive force, then the people have the power to change the law and hold it accountable. If they don't have that option, they have a natural right to disobey and fight tyranny. But thst's not what is happening in reality. In reality, the government is protecting/defending the rights of its citizens. It is acting defensively on their behalf in a fair manner that balances rights and seeks justice.

Your second paragraph is a straw man/mischaracterization. Authority is good when it prevents and punishes harmful acts, it is bad when it arbitrarily and unjustly causes or enacts harm. Try wrapping your head around my actual positions. But you won't.

Some people chose guns because if you are weaker than your attacker who is attempting to assault you with a baseball bat and you have a gun, their offensive force is repelled by your superior defensive force.

Which do you recommend grandma tries to wrestle with a couple of young thugs who have broken in or she goes into Dirty Harriet mode, pulls out her revolver and tells them, "run along punks or stay and make my day" ?

How successful have you been changing the law which takes your money and uses it to buy guns to kill people overseas that have never harmed you?

So, which person has the authority to force another person who is willing to leave them alone that they must do something? I don't have that authority, do you have it? Where did you get it from if you think you have it?

My position is people own themselves and they don't other people. I don't think that is your position though.

 

[Rob Roy]

The gun culture and number of guns is partially to blame for causing harm. There are times when offensive force is used to prevent offensive force, like a pre-emptive strike. These situations should be highly scrutinized, but not mischaracterized as causing harm when they do legitimately reduce harm.

In this case the gun owning population is putting the general population in danger. Innocent people are dying from offensive force from those with easy access to guns. The government would be defending the right to life of the supermajority. You ignore the first offense to mischaracterize the reaction, or defensive force, as offensive force. Your opinion is what decides who is justified and who is the aggressor. Disingenous.



I always answer, Bob, and I answer honestly with sincerity and thought. I directly address your questions with logic and facts. Can you honestly say the same? The list of my points you've ignored to maintain your delusion is a mile long. You never learn. That's why three times today you bet I wouldn't respond, but just like the dozens of other times you've made that bet, I reply directly every single time.

Your first paragraph is lame and does not address the inherent contradiction of an idea which says starting a fight in order to defend yourself is a defensive action. It isn't, it is an offensive action if you assert authority over neutral people when you do not have it. Majorities alone do not confer authority, if they did gang rape would be acceptable and so would Democracy, but I repeat myself.

You think by imposing your will or the will of a super majority that it can magically take offensive force and shift it to defensive force, it can't, it is impossible.

What's even more amazing, you flippantly flip your position when you cease advocating for the cessation of offensive use of guns by real thugs and propose using guns offensively to get your way over neutral people . You become what you say you are against.

So, do you ever even WISH you weren't forced to pay for weapons which will be used to murder people ? Have you ever considered stopping doing that?

I will say on your behalf you do a better job of engaging in conversation / debate than some, but that is rather faint praise. I do appreciate your efforts to engage, but I have to be frank, and repeat myself, your belief in arbitrary authority is so great you are willing to pay for that which you disavow and you are willing to try to make an argument that rationalizes using offensive force in order to stop offensive force. Circular, contradictory and much cognitive dissonance.

 

[rkymtnman]

The best answer would come from gun owners in this country if they would take ownership for bringing gun related crimes and accidents in line with other first world countries.

I'm not interested in the argument but here's a thought:

most people in the US were born after 1950. we've been in a war or wars for every year since then. America is a violent nation. Is it any wonder that our population is violent too?

i'm saddened by all these school shootings but i'm also saddened at how many innocent people we as a country have killed while invading sovereign nations.

my 2 cents.

 

[Justin-case]

Not likely cause when you are trained you generally have a better understanding of the consequences.

I would only shoot if t heee was life in danger as the legal headache would be a pain

I act scared and let him chose what he wants then as he confidently leaves ....
my AK with turrets syndrome wants to have a word... but only after I yell out hey dumb fuck so he turns around to face me making it a semi legal kill lol

 

[Rob Roy]

N

I'm not interested in the argument but here's a thought:

most people in the US were born after 1950. we've been in a war or wars for every year since then. America is a violent nation. Is it any wonder that our population is violent too?

i'm saddened by all these school shootings but i'm also saddened at how many innocent people we as a country have killed while invading sovereign nations.

my 2 cents.

Thank you.

 

[gwheels]

As a Canadian I don't get it at all. But we have had more restrictive gun laws for years. The occasional shooting and that is mostly gang on gang with weapons we can not really have (handguns are a massive pain in the ass in Canada) but I have never felt impugned to have my shot gun and 338 win mag for hunting (birds and moose respectively). I used to have a wildcat 35 whelan that I had to hand load for because commercial ammo wasn't available.

I digress because the brownie really hit me just now.

I tell my friends who are adamant that there will be change in the USA....You have no idea of the culture there.

It is apples and oranges. Good luck convincing people to give their guns up. And bump stocks are not the problem. Not by a long shot.

5000 rounds of ammo with 30 house guns is getting close to the problem.

A friend from work (Texas) said he has 23 guns in his house loaded and ready. When someone rings the doorbell he goes to the garage with his 44 and sees who is calling on him.

I said has anyone ever robbed you or broke in?

Nope....it is because i have the guns. Well i really don't buy that. But I live here.

Here I have a bat. The rule of law is 1 inch into my house I can knock you into last generation. I can live with that. We all have bats. And we dont bring a bat to a gun fight. The guns are just not in general population. Dont make me get that sawd off side by side i didnt register....allgedly!!!

All this to say...it is your country. Do what you will but do not hide under covers and say guns are not part of the problem. Suicide excluded. That shit happens with guns or cars or knives.

The only hoard i want is infused coconut oil and bud.

That is my 2 cents. Take it or leave it. Either way I am not effected

 

[Sir Napsalot]

most people in the US were born after 1950. we've been in a war or wars for every year since then.

We weren't at war when I served in the Navy '75-'79

 

[Rob Roy]

We weren't at war when I served in the Navy '75-'79

Almost. There was a drug war.

Japan - OCCUPIED

Germany - OCCUPIED

Korea - OCCUPIED

I bet there were at least dozens of other places militarily occupied too.


Gold standard trashed, result = economic domestic war on American serfs

It all depends on how you define war.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm not interested in the argument but here's a thought:

most people in the US were born after 1950. we've been in a war or wars for every year since then. America is a violent nation. Is it any wonder that our population is violent too?

i'm saddened by all these school shootings but i'm also saddened at how many innocent people we as a country have killed while invading sovereign nations.

my 2 cents.

Thoughts and prayers.

 

[Fogdog]

As a Canadian I don't get it at all. But we have had more restrictive gun laws for years. The occasional shooting and that is mostly gang on gang with weapons we can not really have (handguns are a massive pain in the ass in Canada) but I have never felt impugned to have my shot gun and 338 win mag for hunting (birds and moose respectively). I used to have a wildcat 35 whelan that I had to hand load for because commercial ammo wasn't available.

I digress because the brownie really hit me just now.

I tell my friends who are adamant that there will be change in the USA....You have no idea of the culture there.

It is apples and oranges. Good luck convincing people to give their guns up. And bump stocks are not the problem. Not by a long shot.

5000 rounds of ammo with 30 house guns is getting close to the problem.

A friend from work (Texas) said he has 23 guns in his house loaded and ready. When someone rings the doorbell he goes to the garage with his 44 and sees who is calling on him.

I said has anyone ever robbed you or broke in?

Nope....it is because i have the guns. Well i really don't buy that. But I live here.

Here I have a bat. The rule of law is 1 inch into my house I can knock you into last generation. I can live with that. We all have bats. And we dont bring a bat to a gun fight. The guns are just not in general population. Dont make me get that sawd off side by side i didnt register....allgedly!!!

All this to say...it is your country. Do what you will but do not hide under covers and say guns are not part of the problem. Suicide excluded. That shit happens with guns or cars or knives.

The only hoard i want is infused coconut oil and bud.

That is my 2 cents. Take it or leave it. Either way I am not effected

totally agree that gun owners aren't going to change.

They are the 35%. It's the attitudes of non-gun owners that are changing.

 

[Sir Napsalot]

Almost. There was a drug war.

Japan - OCCUPIED

Germany - OCCUPIED

Korea - OCCUPIED

I bet there were at least dozens of other places militarily occupied too.


Gold standard trashed, result = economic domestic war on American serfs

It all depends on how you define war.

I didn't get wartime pay because we weren't at war AS I SAID

 

[abandonconflict]

Just deport all the whites.

 

[PCXV]

Thank you, sir. I held back as long as I could, but now I had to unleash the fury of a thousand blasting projectiles.

 

[PCXV]

Some people chose guns because if you are weaker than your attacker who is attempting to assault you with a baseball bat and you have a gun, their offensive force is repelled by your superior defensive force.

Which do you recommend grandma tries to wrestle with a couple of young thugs who have broken in or she goes into Dirty Harriet mode, pulls out her revolver and tells them, "run along punks or stay and make my day" ?

Then why did you equate guns to knives, rocks, hammers? You contradict yourself, which was the point of my rhetorical question. Guns are the most deadly, made for killing.

How successful have you been changing the law which takes your money and uses it to buy guns to kill people overseas that have never harmed you?

Not very successful because of the Republican constituency. Republicans are relentless in their fight to grow the MIC to further the financial interests of their constituents. But I have hope that truth will prevail in the long run. Either way, I'm standing on the right side of history.

So, which person has the authority to force another person who is willing to leave them alone that they must do something? I don't have that authority, do you have it? Where did you get it from if you think you have it?

My position is people own themselves and they don't other people. I don't think that is your position though.

Refer to our conversation in the other thread. We've covered this enough.

 

[PCXV]

Your first paragraph is lame and does not address the inherent contradiction of an idea which says starting a fight in order to defend yourself is a defensive action. It isn't, it is an offensive action if you assert authority over neutral people when you do not have it. Majorities alone do not confer authority, if they did gang rape would be acceptable and so would Democracy, but I repeat myself.

Not to be rude, but it seems you do not grasp the nuances of my argument. Say a person threatened to rape and kill you and your family members. They sit outside your house every day lurking menacingly and shouting about how they would harm you. They shot a bullet once, it whizzed past your baby's head and almost hit your wife. Your family is scared. Is your preemptive strike to stop this guy completely unjustified? Maybe not the best analogy but you should get the point.

You think by imposing your will or the will of a super majority that it can magically take offensive force and shift it to defensive force, it can't, it is impossible.

No, that's a straw man you put up. Let me reiterate: The government is enacting defensive force to defend the right to life of the majority. If the offensive force is killing the majority, what do you call the force opposed to that offensive force?

What's even more amazing, you flippantly flip your position when you cease advocating for the cessation of offensive use of guns by real thugs and propose using guns offensively to get your way over neutral people . You become what you say you are against.

I didn't propose that, I said it was a possibility I would like to avoid, but that it isn't entirely unreasonable because it is lives vs hobby, too easy access for bad guys, no other solution being offered, etc.

So, do you ever even WISH you weren't forced to pay for weapons which will be used to murder people ? Have you ever considered stopping doing that?

I don't pretend I know more than our intelligence agencies and military. I also try to weigh risk/cost vs benefit. History will judge though. Are we all complicit for paying taxes? Well I might give you some credit here, because it is a philosophical dilemma.

I will say on your behalf you do a better job of engaging in conversation / debate than some, but that is rather faint praise. I do appreciate your efforts to engage, but I have to be frank, and repeat myself, your belief in arbitrary authority is so great you are willing to pay for that which you disavow and you are willing to try to make an argument that rationalizes using offensive force in order to stop offensive force. Circular, contradictory and much cognitive dissonance.

Not true. I am standing up for authority when it is legitimate and recognizing its flexibility to continually increase legitimacy. I also recognize when it is flawed and don't see authority as inherently moral or immoral. I recognize that progress it has afforded us by being flexible and moving towards objective morality, justice, and legitimacy. It is legitimate defensive force to protect the minority form the tyranny of the majority. I would think you'd agree.