Conceited CCW holders

You seem to assume that because I am 'foreign' I've never held a gun before. I do 'get it' that having a gun anywhere near my family will make them inherently much less safe as is evidenced by the horrendous US example.

 

So you say. You are your first line of defense. Police arrive to take notes after the fact. I would be considerably less safe if I could not defend myself. Gun violence in the States is not what many foreigners think it is. It is mainly in the large cities and mainly attributed to drugs and gangs like it is overseas. We just have a larger problem with it. Not many here actually ever experience that. We have one minority here that is responsible for 50% of gun violence for whatever reason. Another minority that is responsible for most of the remainder. We do not have the same cultures as other countries and culture is the key.

 

Given its inherent lethality maybe it would be healthier if you changed it then.

 

Change freedom? Not going to happen. You can be happy giving up freedom for security but that is not something a citizen of the US is willing to do at this point in time. I say this point in time because as more people think that they are not responsible for themselves and give that responsibility to government things will change and freedom will be lost, usually forever if other governments are an example.

 

And this is relevant how? Most households in this country do not own guns. Please demonstrate how one or two owners, who clearly feel strongly enough to post daily on forums, are in any way representative of the majority of Americans.

 

Nope. Change your ongoing veneration of firearms which has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom

 

Well, your idea of freedom is government control of the citizenry telling them what they can and cannot own. Mine isn't.

 

For the greater good of society I'm not allowed to own nuclear weapons either so by your measure I cannot therefore be free

 

Yeah, well for the greater good of society some of the worst oppression in history has come about. Sorry, but I will avoid your greater good as much as possible.

 

Which society? Examples?

 

Really? The 20th century is not a good enough example?

 

What greater good for society is served by having 300 million guns in circulation in the US ?

 

1- We can kill our own food.
2- We can protect ourselves against violent scumbags.
3- We have a chance if the government goes rogue.
4- Should a foreign military ever invade, we can help repel them.

Do I need to go on?

 

What greater good for society is served by disarming the very people that make up the government of the United States since we are a government of the people? You seem to think that only government should own guns. That has happened before with disastrous results.

 

Why do you still need to ?

You had 11,078 firearm homicides vs 232 legal defensive shootings in the US in 2013 so that argument doesn't bear any scrutiny either

You live in a democracy with armed forces that would vastly outgun you in any such improbable event

Hilarious !

I'll spare you your blushes

 

Strawman alert

 

I take it history is not your specialty.

 

On the contrary I have a keen interest and not just in the country I live in either

 

Ditto for me as well

 

And this is relevant how? Half of the households in this country are in states where the right to own guns is infringed heavily. How many more households would own guns if they were allowed to?

How is my posting every day any different from your posting every day?

 

Quote Originally Posted by Logician0311 View Post
And this is relevant how? Most households in this country do not own guns.

You have peaked my curiosity. How do you know that most households in this country do not own guns?Is there some magical database that the government owns that tells you everyone that owns a gun?

 

Simple. For the price of a $0.35 bullet I can acquire several hundred pounds of meat. Seems very efficient, no?

That doesn't take into account the number of legal defensive uses of a firearm in which no shots are fired. I've seen it estimated at as many as 2,000,000/year, and happen to have (at least) two friends who are alive today who probably wouldn't be were it not for such a use.

I am of the belief that should things get so bad that the Citizens are facing off with government officials with Arms, much if not most of the Armed Forces would side with the Citizens. I could be wrong. So be it.

 

Seems very immoral frankly. Nobody needs to hunt wild animals to survive anymore

I'm betting those are NRA 'estimates' yes ?

You can either live by the ballot or choose armed anarchy you cannot have both

 

Well there are millions of women who experience that sense of being weaker than many of those who are around themselves and I think I sense disdain in your post regarding them.

Weird.

 

So what? If I'm eating meat, it's an animal either I have killed for myself, or one that someone has killed on my behalf. Either way, unless you are against the consumption of meat completely, there is no moral issue.

Not sure. But my personal two friends who are alive because of it are not anyone's estimates.

Let's hope it never comes down to that. But if it does, I'd at least like to have a fighting chance.