1 Like
You can always argument in favour for using guns against others. Americans love to use guns, it solves all kinds of problems and creates new ones. Same story in Israel, the middle east, Russia, Africa.
Only way to solve crime is to get rid of everyone. Violence has to be countered with massive, brutal and swift action. Gun vs gun does not make a difference.
I am not turning around my words, you just imply I am a pacificst. I just donât support gun crimes and arming people because of crimes, because that does not solve crimes, it just deals with a outcome of fuckups of society we all are part of. And no one can say he is not (to some extend) responsible for the stuff that happens in far off countries. Everything is globalized by now. Back in the pre-colonization times folks were separated and dealt with their problems on their own, by now some countries try to rule over others, play world police or show muscle, point fingersâŠyou name it.
If everyone was armed and would use the weapon against any threat, it would end up in anarchy. Having no guns would end up in a tyrany.
And we all agree that not everyone should have a weapon. That many individuals still obtain weapons illegally results in more heavily armed home owners, which results in better equipped criminals (just take a look at mexican drug cartels or brazilian gangs). Eventually, the police has to use APCs to get close enough to a gang camp for raids, being opposed by shoulder fired rocket launchers and airborne attacks. Only way would be a laser guided bomb to root out the entire bulding, which leads to guerilla tactics from the side of the gang members assaulting off-duty police men and so on.
Not seeing this being a problem is, in my eyes, a huge issue on your end. I donât want to restict your right to bear arms or use them in self-defense. I am just saying that it wonât solve the issue of crime and armed mobs.
And while Texas is definitely not Chicago, the comparison is irrelevant. The sheet does not reflect education, unemployment rates, backgrounds et cetera. Violent crime is not committed by the wealthy, happy fellow. It arises out of despair and no future.
But I wonât argue with you about that matter, I just accept that you fight for the right of using guns your way, I will do the same my way.
median household income of $38k !!! what ! thats like ÂŁ24,000 thats fucking shit .
thats the real issue here !
I havenât had time/motivation to gather a broader base and even a short look at the sources mentioned in this thread gave a generous look at their own orientation. 
Never forget the 2 golden rules of statistics in practical use:
- never trust statistics you didnât fake yourself
- correlation doesnât necessarily imply causation
So leaving this angle aside for the moment, my main problem with free and legal access to guns is the missing control on how and when they are used.
I donât mean in a technical manner, any idiot can learn to shoot a gun with a bit of training, enough at least for the mentioned use cases, but do we really want that idiot to decide when it is necessary to shoot? (disclaimer: nationality independent, in any group large enough you have your share of idiots(*))
In general terms they represent a force multiplier and an escalation, and you hope that you end up with a winning hand at the end.
Also, I doubt most civilians have the training, experience and level head to make a reasoned decision on what is overkill in stress situations. Proportionality in your response matters, itâs also something we demand from others and our governments regularly.
If you really want to be safe, you have to shoot first and ask questions later and thatâs not a policy I can condone.
PS: side note, from reading some of the comments here, there are at least some I wouldnât hand over a gun independent from their local laws, but thatâs just meâŠ
(*) used in the broadest sense
1 Like
A little FĂŒhrer complex, maybe?
3 Likes
you get my like for that video , fucking killed me
1 Like
didnât expect anything less from you⊠and you made my point quite nicely, thanks. 
1 Like
OK, I thought that you are just trolling, but it seems you were serious, so Iâll answer.
This line of thought is typical of totalitarian states. From Saudi Arabia where women are not to be trusted with driving cars ([irony]for fuckâs sake, do you know how irrational and stupid women are?![/irony]), to Bulgaria where they have stiff sentences just for growing weed for your own purposes (because people are not to b e trusted with cannabis, [irony]donât you know that if you smoke weed on monday, you will surely be taking cocain on thursday and killing your mother on sunday?[/irony]) to communist states which allowed only the state police and communist militia to be armed (because people donât know what is good for them and in their ignorance could try to overthrow the system - something that actually failed in the 1950s in Czechoslovakia due to lack of guns). That is because you can use this argument to anything. You can say people should not have the right to free speech, because look where it led in Hungary and Greece where neo-nazis got to power thanks to it [irony]look there are so many idiots around and they will just trust whatever they read, including nazi propaganda, hence free speech must be banned[irony]? You can say that people should not have the right of assembly, because look at what happened in Brussels last week, or in any large city before[irony]there are so many idiots that will always start making problems even in peaceful demonstrations, hence the right of assembly must be forfeighted[/irony]. You can say people should not have right to travel freely, because look how many criminals get across the borders (funny is that this is actually mainstream political agenda in UK the same as banning guns). You can say that people should not have large dogs because those can become dangerous at any moment. You can continue all the way to saying that infants should be given to professional nannies in hospitals because most people donât have the training to take care of kids - and actually in my country where people have right to conceal carry firearms and 200.000 of them do so legally (until 2009, the Czech Republic had more conceal carry permits per capita than Texas!), we have many more children dying of insufficient/mischievous care of their own parents than legal guns being used in illegitimate self-defense.
To use your own words and logic, rather than gun control, the reality shows us that we need much more state control of parental behaviour, and since putting a cop in every household is impossible, taking the kids away seems to be the only solution to make sure all are safe, because of course, you donât want to have any idiot taking care of kids, more so when they donât have the training, experience and level head to make a reasoned decision on what is overkill in stress situation - and there is hardly anything more stressful then having an infant that wonât let you sleep for a few months and which requires constant attention.
Unlike you, I have followed the most of the 700 entries here, and I am quite sure that this is the most insanely iditiotic thing anyone has written here.
No they donât. They represent the final argument in situation where a law-abiding citizenâs health and life is threatened by a criminal. Then the gun is either used successfully, and that is the end to it, or is not used successfully, and that is also the end to it - apart from criminal proceedings for the attacker. It is the option of last resort where avoiding, de-escalating, evading and escaping the threat becomes either impossible or inappropriate (for example due to presence of your children whom you need to protect above all). Illegitimate uses of legal firearms are so rare in my country that the Police stopped making special statistics about it in 2007 - and that being probably the country with the most permissive gun laws in EU.
1 Like
that was a brutal âheadshotâ moment right there.
Jumping from my comment about knowing when to use a weapon, and applying restrictions in terms of training and experience above simple technical usage skills, to this response is more telling about you than about my original point or just being overly literal for the sake of argument, canât really tell ;).
Either way I doubt further arguing will get us anywhere, have fun.
not really, but if you like to think so, please do.
I only used your knowledge. If you consider people too stupid (idiotic in your words, actually) to behave responsible when being armed, then by the same logic they must be even less capable of taking care of children. If armed citizens present danger to others, then they are even more so dangerous to those most vulnerable, i.e. the children. I only used your own logic in different setting to show how stupid it sounds.
1 Like
!=
but another excellent case of selective perception. I donât think logic means what you think it means. 
Anyway, itâs not that I think âallâ people would behave irresponsible when armed, but if you give access to all, you give it also to people you wouldnât trust with a gun (or other things for that matter). So in general I prefer a bit of training and experience when they decide if and when the âlast resortâ is a valid choice. And itâs not that mandatory training and tests arenât requirements in other real life cases.
Maybe itâs from a perspective of a relative safe environment background, where I doubt carrying a gun would improve my safety, while on the other hand having to carry around a loaded gun for years (to have any practical effect in self defence situations) seems to have a higher probability for loss, accidents, errors is judgement or something similar.
automobiles cna be weaponized, if you ban them, vehicle related accidents and murders will go down to zero. if you ban forks, fork stabbings and fork related accidents go down.
are you sure this is the path you want to go down in regards to things that are useful and beneficial that may pose a danger if used improperly?
but a guns sole purpose is to kill , it has not other practical use.
a car is not designed to kill , neither is a fork or even a knife . so why would you want something in the hands of untrained people that is designed to kill at great numbers .
people will always find something to use to kill of course , but why make it so easy for them ,
if you wish for legal guns then sell them responsibly and have gun licences where you actually have to take tests etc .
not a buy one AK47 get one free store
I have to disagree. A gun is a tool. Just like a hammer, a fork or a electric drill. You can use a hammer in many different ways, of course, even for killing. The first weapons were made for hunting and skinning. Only later such tools were used as offensive weapons. Guns are just a more sophisticated hunting tool also used for killing. If a gun is âgoodâ or âbadâ depends on its use and user. I own guns solely for recreational/competitive purposes. They would be used in self-defense if necessary.
That does not make them killing machines, a loaded gun wonât harm anyone unless the user intends to.
1 Like
The sole purpose of pistol is providing defense. The first Czech pistols (âpĂĆĄĆ„alaâ, pictured) were used mainly as peasantâs arm against raiding heavily armed cavalry and would be probably quite ineffective in other scenarios. They later developed into the small firearms we are used to today, and still their primary function is providing defensive capability. That is evident especially from the small effective range they provide.
early 14th century pĂĆĄĆ„ala
Rifles, on the other hand, have been designed from the beginning as offensive guns (only later being adopted also for hunting and sporting purposes). So if your reasoning is about purpose, then pistols meet the threshold.
early 14th century hĂĄkovnice
I am in complete agreement with you. I am quite happy with the state of things in my country and wouldnât have it any other way (OK, maybe a bit less restrictions regarding some things, but that would be a completely different debate).
defence , offence the purpose remains the same , to kill .
a defence weapon can be used as an offence weapon and vice versa it makes no odds , they are designed to win battles and thats it
The pistol I carry was primarily designed for police use. I personally use it mainly for leisure and sport and as a carry gun for the purpose of my personal protection. The designers didnât design it for killing, but for enforcement of law. I also donât use it and donât intend to use it for killing. So I guess my carry gun should be a safe tool by the abovemention standard of âpurposeâ (which I donât condone, but since it was raisedâŠ)
the gun you carry is designed to kill doesnt matter how you want to sugar coat it , you may hope you never have to use its primary role but its designed to kill and thats it doesnt matter what or who carryâs it , the end game is someone dying .
thats my problem with untrained people having guns is that you HAVE to respect the gun for what it is a killing machine if you fail to respect that and wave it around like a toy (not saying you personally do ) then you will end up killing or seriously harming someone .
i was always told to never point a gun at someone unless you are prepared to kill that person .
how many times do we hear about the kids that wave a gun around like a toy and it goes off ? alot . mostly from the US but even in the UK we get a few the most recent being at a house party and a boy was showing it off when he pulled the trigger by mistake and killed a young girl . every single one of them cases are down to people not respecting the gun for what it is .
you can say you have yours for defence but at the end of it when you are in the postion of having to use it in defence your going to let the gun go off right ? youâre going to kill the person who is attacking you right ? if not then you have no purpose carrying one 24/7
Failure to conceal properly is misdemeanor with âŹ2.000 fine and possibility to lose gun license (=all guns) in my country, âwavingâ would be most probably criminal offense. That doesnât really happen here, at least I havenât heard of it (not taking into account various Russian/Balcan immigrants and their airgun replicas - which usually ends up in swift imprisonment and bye bye to Schengen Visa).
Not if I can help it. Anyone who is just a little bit sound will reconsider doing anything criminal when they realize the victim is armed. I hope to be one of the 99% people for whom brandishing will solve the problem just fine.
I will not play a game of âwhat ifâ, especially if the question is âwill you killâ.
You basically stated that you value safe society above all, which in your eyes mean no guns in hands of civilians even in case that it may mean leaving some people totally defenseless to predators. I donât understand that view, but OK, whatever works for you. I live in society where law abiding citizens have relatively easy access to guns and the possibility to carry and use them for self defense - and this society is many times safer than yours. I value that any and each law abiding member of the society has the right and the possibility to effectively defend themselves against the predators, even though vast majority of people feel safe to the extent they donât own and donât carry. But should they ever feel the need to prepare for the worst, they will and shall have the possibility to do so. For example when people living in a small no-crime town realize that the new neighbors who came by dozens are quite dangerous and the gun ownership rate gets basically from null to all.
1 Like