|
OP, our nation was founded on the principal of "gently caress you Dad, I don't have to follow your rules, I'm moving out". This still applies to a lot of immigration today. The idea of leaving a bad situation to come somewhere where you can live with some autonomy and make a better life for one's self. Our country was founded in armed insurrection and then armed violent expansion. We don't trust our government and we don't trust each other. Almost everyone in this country can find a relative, maybe it will take a generation or two, who has has been hosed hard by a government. We came here because we were being hosed and some people got hosed again when they got here. My family is from West Virginia and this happened in my Grandfather's lifetime. quote:The Battle of Blair Mountain was the largest labor uprising in United States history and one of the largest, organized, and well-armed uprisings since the American Civil War.[1] For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers, called the Logan Defenders,[2] who were backed by coal mine operators during an attempt by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired,[3] and the United States Army intervened by presidential order. So yea, gently caress you dad, I would feel a little better if I owned a gun. I don't ever ever expect to need it but even as a big gay symbol I don't want to give it up.   Woody was a little optimistic imho. bongwizzard fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Dec 5, 2015 |
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
Subyng posted:LOL that you're comparing having guns to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. Self defense is more important than any of those other things.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
It "helps" because people have a right to defend themselves and guns are the best way to do it. Strip everything else away and that is why it is important. Now, if you don't believe in a right to individual self defense, then there is little reason to want guns around.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
But again, you are taking about the offensive use of arms, the the defensive use. My grandmother lived alone on a rural farm from age 83 to 90. She was maybe three miles from her nearest neighbor and didn't drive. Did she not have a right to posses the tools to defend herself? Same question, but now she lives in an apartment in Detroit where the police response time is measured in tens of minuets.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Guns are not the only way to protect yourself. Things like pepper sprays and tazers are widely available and cheap. Of course they have their drawbacks, but so do guns. Pepper spray and tazers don't really do poo poo to a lot of people and are mostly one shot deals, so they hinge on your ability to run the gently caress away after use. My grandmother with a fused hip would be poorly served by either of those options. In any case, it is pointless to argue this stuff because it is both a practical issue and a philosophical one. Even if I could snap my fingers and make all guns world wide disappear I wouldn't do it because I am philosophically opposed to the idea that people should be deprived of the means of self defense and almost any ills caused by guns can be solved by addressing the root causes of crime and interpersonal violence.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:You have one hell of a grandma, if she can still handle a shotgun with a fused hip. Anyway, the endgame of any type of self defense situation is always going to be the arrival of authorities. A pepper spray gives you more than enough time to call for help. (As someone who gets chilli in his eyes on a regular basis, I can't imagine how a concentrated dose of that stuff will gently caress you up. Bleeding eyes ahoi!) Grandma handled a pistol just fine, but couldn't move faster then a slow walk. I also suspect you have never lived in a rural or underserved area if you think that universally the police response time will be a few minuets. This is a big, unfair country and other then people living in dense, well off areas, you are more or less on your own. And finally, talking about nukes in a discussion about individual self defense kinda tells me that you are out of actual arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Not more feasible, but a lot more desirable. I would rather have grandma have a gun in a violent world full of guns then grandma have nothing in a violent world full of people stronger and quicker then her. Also this is dumb to talk about on a practical level as americans will always have access to at the very least handguns until 2/3 of the country can agree on it, which I will take any odds on never happening. So what we are left with is the slightly less impossible and in the end far more desirable course of action that is fixing the root causes of violent beheavour. The reason I waded into this thread was to try to explain to the OP the mindset of americans who believe in individual self defense. Nothing anyone has posted has addressed this so its hard to see the point in continuing to try and discuss thing with people who don't seem interested in actual discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Nobody is arguing against guns in rural areas and even the countries with the strictest gun laws have no problems with people using them for hunting. It's a legitimate, necessary and sane use of firearms. No problem here. Most people live in cities thought, and have totally different concern in life. Hunting isn't at all important at all and again, what do you think police response times are in the stereotypical under serviced american ghetto? Your "joke" is impossible to address without going into an incredibly pandenic and lengthy discussion on individual arms vs ordinance that I am sure that someone from tfr would be happy to have with you. If you really care to learn more about what the 2nd amendment means and the general idea of the right to self defense, the arguments from the Supreme Court case a few years ago that confirmed that right would be good reading as both sides laid out their cases pretty clearly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
Jeza posted:I think several people have posted both practical and philosophical discussion points on why proliferating guns is a very poor way of ensuring safety, and by proxy self-defense, so I don't see why you're denying discussion is taking place. If somebody armed with a gun broke into your grandma's house, at 90 she'd probably be nowhere near able to get her gun to defend herself anyway. And if she did grab a gun, it's more likely to cause any armed person to kill her in their own "self-defence". And I'm sure there's a fair slice of demented, racist, half-blind old people out there just waiting to execute some black kid on their lawn. Because obviously, you can have your driving license taken away for being incompetent, but you won't take away granny's .45 Magnum, no sir. That is a big pile of assumptions there buddy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 17:41
|
|