Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[coachdb18]

Why anyone ‘needs’ a gun is not up for question, it’s a basic human right, defended by the promise of the US government to the people, made binding in the 2nd amendment.

America’s liberal gun laws are often criticized as a contributor to the U.S.’s relatively high rates of violent crime. Homicide rates in the U.S. are among the highest in the world, exceeding homicide rates in some nations that have clamped down on civilian gun ownership.


However, Kleck studied crime rates from Great Britain and the Netherlands — two nations with much stricter gun ownership laws than the U.S. — and concluded that the risk of armed robbery is lower in America because of loose gun laws.

The rate of burglaries at occupied homes (“hot” burglaries) in Great Britain and the Netherlands is 45%, compared to a rate of 13% in the U.S. Comparing those rates to the percentage of hot burglaries in which the homeowner is threatened or attacked (30%), Kleck concluded that there would be an additional 450,000 burglaries in the U.S. in which homeowners are threatened or attacked if the rate of hot burglaries in the U.S. was similar to the rate in Great Britain. The lower rate in the U.S. is attributed to widespread gun ownership.

As predicted by the Founders, there are enemies of our Constitution, both foreign and domestic, which question our very right to exist, much less exist as a free country. They typically cite government as granting rights, a myth firmly rejected by the American view of actual vs perceived freedom. The above quote is from a study of the subject, the following is a link to it.

https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-rights-and-self-defense-721344

 

[KimGordon67]

Why anyone ‘needs’ a gun is not up for question, it’s a basic human right, defended by the promise of the US government to the people, made binding in the 2nd amendment.



As predicted by the Founders, there are enemies of our Constitution, both foreign and domestic, which question our very right to exist, much less exist as a free country. They typically cite government as granting rights, a myth firmly rejected by the American view of actual vs perceived freedom. The above quote is from a study of the subject, the following is a link to it.

https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-rights-and-self-defense-721344

Nuh ... it's only a 'right' in the US, Guatemala and Mexico. But humans exist in all the other places.
Things are only 'rights' because we all (or at least most of us) agree that they are. The notion of 'rights' has no existence in the natural world - its a human concept. 'Right' don't fall out of the sky - we create them by agreeing that there are certain things we should all have by virtue of being human. There is absolutely no agreement, at a 'human' level, that guns fall into this category.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Only for people in a well regulated militia, which we don't have any more, so, not a "basic human right."

Why anyone ‘needs’ a gun is not up for question, it’s a basic human right, defended by the promise of the US government to the people, made binding in the 2nd amendment.



As predicted by the Founders, there are enemies of our Constitution, both foreign and domestic, which question our very right to exist, much less exist as a free country. They typically cite government as granting rights, a myth firmly rejected by the American view of actual vs perceived freedom. The above quote is from a study of the subject, the following is a link to it.

https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-rights-and-self-defense-721344

 

[todski28]

Police = virtually no guns (as is the case at the moment).
Military ... whatever.

If no one has guns you don't need guns for self defense. If you introduce them for 'self defense', then effectively anyone can have one, and that's hardly 'no guns'.
I've heard all the arguments for guns as self defence, and the only context in which that makes sense is if everyone/lots of people have guns. Otherwise, it's redundant (e.g. where I live).

Ok so this is cut and dry for you.

Not trying to set you up for any ahha got you bullshit, simply trying to digure out if there is any point arguing on this topic, feom my perspective where I started life and where I am now in life has given me a suality mindset.

As it stands now. I live safe, comfortable wife, kids, own a business low to minimal crime rates, and its all sunny and rosey even when its raining.

Roll back to my child hood, where I used to live and yeah I wpuld advocate everyone in those areas have a gun or seven.

The exposure to violence on a serious large scale level from child hood to 16, then taking up wirk as a club bouncer has had a massive influence on my will to take the side of those advocating guns for self defense, especially if you have children.

Self defence, property defence, defence of your family and loved ones are the biggest factors in play from my perspective for advocating gun ownership. When you step back and look at the state of the world we see it now it is easy to think everything is just peachy, because so much has been sacrificed from so many to get to where we are, however political polarisationus and the inability for proper discourse is leading to a far more dangerous seeming environment.

Brazil has the highest murder rate per capita and its gun laws are strict, we see a divided perspective there on gun control also.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/new...t-brazil-can-teach-america-about-gun-control/

https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...arly-60-000-murders-and-it-may-relax-gun-laws

As to America because no one can be honest lest they be shouted down its hard to really identify the problem and why it exists

Sorry both articles and vids are quite long if you have the time and or inclination but both articles I believe are presented very well.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

https://youtu.be/8hyQDQPEsrs

 

[BotanyBoy]

Police = virtually no guns (as is the case at the moment).
Military ... whatever.

If no one has guns you don't need guns for self defense. If you introduce them for 'self defense', then effectively anyone can have one, and that's hardly 'no guns'.
I've heard all the arguments for guns as self defence, and the only context in which that makes sense is if everyone/lots of people have guns. Otherwise, it's redundant (e.g. where I live).

It's redundant?

No need so long as most others don't have a gun??

You're that confidant in your hand to hand combat skills??

Wow...not even I would say that and I was a professional in the field.

You must be unbelievably bad-fuckin-ass.

Only for people in a well regulated militia, which we don't have any more, so, not a "basic human right."

That's not at all what 2A says....2A says it's the right of the people, not the right of the militia nor the government.

Learn to read.

 

[KimGordon67]

It's redundant?

No need so long as most others don't have a gun??

You're that confidant in your hand to hand combat skills??

Wow...not even I would say that and I was a professional in the field.

You must be unbelievably bad-fuckin-ass.



That's not at all what 2A says....2A says it's the right of the people, not the right of the militia nor the government.

Learn to read.

I'm way more confident in my ability to defend myself in an immediate physical sense than I would be in my ability to use a gun to defend myself against someone else with a gun.
We've had this discussion before. In every instance where I've needed to defend myself, or someone I love has defended me, the absence of guns led to a happy outcome. I'm pretty sure that, in each of those instances, if the assailant had had a gun, that wouldn't have been the case, even if I/we had also had guns.

 

[todski28]

It's redundant?

No need so long as most others don't have a gun??

You're that confidant in your hand to hand combat skills??

Wow...not even I would say that and I was a professional in the field.

You must be unbelievably bad-fuckin-ass.



That's not at all what 2A says....2A says it's the right of the people, not the right of the militia nor the government.

Learn to read.

What I think she is saying is she is safe and it doesnt look like her safety will go away anytime soon so fuck it, its all good.

The problem is we are exposed less and less to violence and its capability to destroy us, it is a weakness and a positive for the overall state of humanity. But at the same time it makes people who advocate for large scale abilities to defend themselves look like whack jobs. Even easier when you have a moral grand stand to shout from thinkm of the children etc.


No guns for anyone is fine if everyone played nice but we're pretty much stupid as a species in that we dont recognize our own portent for violence and that in others.

 

[todski28]

Nuh ... it's only a 'right' in the US, Guatemala and Mexico. But humans exist in all the other places.
Things are only 'rights' because we all (or at least most of us) agree that they are. The notion of 'rights' has no existence in the natural world - its a human concept. 'Right' don't fall out of the sky - we create them by agreeing that there are certain things we should all have by virtue of being human. There is absolutely no agreement, at a 'human' level, that guns fall into this category.

There are certain cues cropping up in western society that mirror the advent of communism and nazi fascism

Both of those events triggered some of the largest scale deaths in the course of our history both times the people believed that it would turn out ok..... both times millions died.

Planning for the future and looking at the past is one thing that seems to be unique about humanity.

 

[KimGordon67]

What I think she is saying is she is safe and it doesnt look like her safety will go away anytime soon so fuck it, its all good.

The problem is we are exposed less and less to violence and its capability to destroy us, it is a weakness and a positive for the overall state of humanity. But at the same time it makes people who advocate for large scale abilities to defend themselves look like whack jobs. Even easier when you have a moral grand stand to shout from thinkm of the children etc.


No guns for anyone is fine if everyone played nice but were pretty much stupid as a species in that we dont recognize our own portent for violence and that in others.

Obviously there are aberrations - I'm not saying where I am is perfect in that respect. We have gun-related homicides. We have mass shootings (though barely any ... I can actually only think of one). But, as a general rule, the low rate of gun ownership, the lack of a culture that protects guns as a 'right', and the lack of easy access to guns on the part of the bad guys makes everything just way safer. Not just for me - for everyone. Hence our extremely low gun homicide rate compared to yours. Our overall homicide rate is also 20% of yours, so clearly knives aren't being used a substitute on a regular basis.
We have gangs, we have drugs, we have all that shit. People just don't get killed nearly so much, and we literally DO NOT ASSUME that anyone breaking the law is carrying a gun.

As I said before, I fundamentally believe that protecting this context IS a form of self-defence, because I just am much safer here than I would be there.

 

[todski28]

Obviously there are aberrations - I'm not saying where I am is perfect in that respect. We have gun-related homicides. We have mass shootings (though barely any ... I can actually only think of one). But, as a general rule, the low rate of gun ownership, the lack of a culture that protects guns as a 'right', and the lack of easy access to guns on the part of the bad guys makes everything just way safer. Not just for me - for everyone. Hence our extremely low gun homicide rate compared to yours. Our overall homicide rate is also 20% of yours, so clearly knives aren't being used a substitute on a regular basis.
We have gangs, we have drugs, we have all that shit. People just don't get killed nearly so much, and we literally DO NOT ASSUME that anyone breaking the law is carrying a gun.

As I said before, I fundamentally believe that protecting this context IS a form of self-defence, because I just am much safer here than I would be there.

Im not american, so my thoughts are attempting to be objective, but my bias comes from a fundemental understanding of death and damage from violence including having our house shot up a very young age.

I have been stabbed once, had three men hold me down and play lord of the dance on my head etc, etc.

And living in a place that has low levels of guns you can appreciate that not having guns around makes you feel far safer in almost every interaction. However if the basis for terrorist attacks in london has anything to go on the cultural diversity bollards to protect people means you adapt to your cuilture and things go on.

 

[KimGordon67]

Im not american, so my thoughts are attempting to be objective, but my bias comes from a fundemental understanding of death and damage from violence including having our house shot up a very young age.

I have been stabbed once, had three men hold me down and play lord of the dance on my head etc, etc.

And living in a place that has low levels of guns you can appreciate that not having guns around makes you feel far safer in almost every interaction. However if the basis for terrorist attacks in london has anything to go on the cultural diversity bollards to protect people means you adapt to your cuilture and things go on.

I think I understand the impact of violence ... we can play 'who has the worst story' if you want, but I'm utterly certain that, in the majority of cases of inter-personal violence that I've been anywhere near (and there's a fair few), guns would have lead to a less happy outcome. Unfortunately it's literally impossible to find statistics to back up this notion - I don't even really know what that research would look like.

 

[todski28]

I think I understand the impact of violence ... we can play 'who has the worst story' if you want, but I'm utterly certain that, in the majority of cases of inter-personal violence that I've been anywhere near (and there's a fair few), guns would have lead to a less happy outcome. Unfortunately it's literally impossible to find statistics to back up this notion - I don't even really know what that research would look like.

Probably looking into domestic violence and gun deaths would be a start since a lot of violence is perpetrated in the home.

As to little mr or mrs victimhood lol it can be a fun game to play but is the winner really the winner

 

[Carnal_Flower]

The sad thing is how many people have been killed through accidents (esp kids) because of all the parents who buy into this "self-defense" b.s. of the NRA

The number of people who die from guns--including accidents, suicide, murder and mass shootings--who wouldn't have otherwise (but do just because there is a gun in the home) is a million times more than the number of people who are alive because they actually had to defend themselves with a gun, specifically.

Having said that I can see in cases of stalking getting a LICENSED gun. If you have a bona fide case of stalking. The laws are such crap and stalkers kill.

Sitting around scaring yourself by watching "Look Who's Stalking" doesn't count.

 

[KimGordon67]

Probably looking into domestic violence and gun deaths would be a start since a lot of violence is perpetrated in the home.

As to little mr or mrs victimhood lol it can be afun game p play but is the winner really the winner

Mrs? Where TF did that come from?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm way more confident in my ability to defend myself in an immediate physical sense than I would be in my ability to use a gun to defend myself against someone else with a gun.

Like I said, you must be one serious bad ass machine.

We've had this discussion before. In every instance where I've needed to defend myself, or someone I love has defended me, the absence of guns led to a happy outcome. I'm pretty sure that, in each of those instances, if the assailant had had a gun, that wouldn't have been the case, even if I/we had also had guns.

I know and it still blows my mind you'd rather risk being victimized and let go after the fact than having an equalizer that allows you to IMMEDIATELY end the threat LOL

What I think she is saying is she is safe and it doesnt look like her safety will go away anytime soon so fuck it, its all good.

The problem is we are exposed less and less to violence and its capability to destroy us, it is a weakness and a positive for the overall state of humanity. But at the same time it makes people who advocate for large scale abilities to defend themselves look like whack jobs. Even easier when you have a moral grand stand to shout from thinkm of the children etc.


No guns for anyone is fine if everyone played nice but we're pretty much stupid as a species in that we dont recognize our own portent for violence and that in others.

It's cultural, in her world it's all nice and controlled and most people play nice.

If she grew up in Detroit or Oakland....she'd probably not leave home without at least 1 pocket rocket.


From my perspective I've been stabbed, beaten, blown up, shot with .22, 9mm and 7.62mm short and long...I've still got shrapnel in my ass, shit reminds me every day that I am only as safe as I make myself. I know for a fact the ONLY person who is going to defend me, is me.

Other people have guns, knives, bats, all kind of crazy shit...I've seen someone beat another persons brains out with a fire extinguisher so I know damn well you don't need a gun to be dangerous. I might once again face more than one armed attacker at the same time...might just be a big ol' sum bitch with a fire extinguisher or a god damn lunatic with a fuckin' rifle...whatever the case I want to be prepared.

 

[todski28]

Mrs? Where TF did that come from?

Political correctness its illegal to assume gender these days

 

[KimGordon67]

Like I said, you must be one serious bad ass machine.



I know and it still blows my mind you'd rather risk being victimized and let go after the fact than having an equalizer that allows you to IMMEDIATELY end the threat LOL



It's cultural, in her world it's all nice and controlled and most people play nice.

If she grew up in Detroit or Oakland....she'd probably not leave home without at least 1 pocket rocket.


From my perspective I've been stabbed, beaten, blown up, shot with .22, 9mm and 7.62mm short and long...I've still got shrapnel in my ass, shit reminds me every day that I am only as safe as I make myself. I know for a fact the ONLY person who is going to defend me, is me.

Other people have guns, knives, bats, all kind of crazy shit...I've seen someone beat another persons brains out with a fire extinguisher so I know damn well you don't need a gun to be dangerous. I might once again face more than one armed attacker at the same time...might just be a big ol' sum bitch with a fire extinguisher or a god damn lunatic with a fuckin' rifle...whatever the case I want to be prepared.

People don't play nice all the time ... when I was about 20, some guys I tangentially knew stabbed someone to death at a party at my place. I'm not living in some weird sheltered world where bad shit doesn't happen. I just know that guns would not have improved that situation either, nor any of the other situations I've seen/been involved in.
(We do have gangs here too.)

 

[BotanyBoy]

People don't play nice all the time ...

I know, that's why I've got guns.

I just know that guns would not have improved that situation either, nor any of the other situations I've seen/been involved in.
(We do have gangs here too.)

How do you know?

I bet the poor unarmed person who got stabbed to death would beg to differ...


Every situation I've seen the victim could have used some help...cranking some nuggets off into the piece of shit who's attacking them might have been just enough to save their lives. I know it's saved mine more than once.

If guns were such a terrible and ineffective means of self defense then why the fuck do all the big bucks, celebrities and powerful pol's surround themselves with security guards that carry guns??

 

[KimGordon67]

Political correctness its illegal to assume gender these days

*eyeroll* I've never referred to myself as 'Mrs', ever.

 

[KimGordon67]

I know, that's why I've got guns.




How do you know?

I bet the poor unarmed person who got stabbed to death would beg to differ...


Every situation I've seen the victim could have used some help...cranking some nuggets off into the piece of shit who's attacking them might have been just enough to save their lives. I know it's saved mine more than once.

If guns were such a terrible and ineffective means of self defense then why the fuck do all the big bucks, celebrities and powerful pol's surround themselves with security guards that carry guns??

He wasn't a 'poor unarmed person'. It was basically gang violence.

Celebrities etc surround themselves with guns in contexts where their assailants might be armed. That doesn't happen here. (Although our political security detail is armed ... interesting.)

 

[BotanyBoy]

He wasn't a 'poor unarmed person'. It was basically gang violence.

So he was armed?

He just lost then, hopefully a warriors death.

Well...nothing is guaranteed, this is why you stay out of windows/doorways and pay attention to what's going on around you.

Lil something I like to call SITUATIONAL AWARENESS!!!!
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/moviemorgue/images/d/d6/Gowron.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130529145902

Celebrities etc surround themselves with guns in contexts where their assailants might be armed. That doesn't happen here. (Although our political security detail is armed ... interesting.)

Yea....because someone there might be armed.

And the fastest route to safety is a controlled pair center mass.

 

[KimGordon67]

So he was armed?

He just lost then.

Well...nothing is guaranteed, this is why you stay out of windows/doorways and pay attention to what's going on around you.

Lil something I like to call SITUATIONAL AWARENESS!!!!
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/moviemorgue/images/d/d6/Gowron.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130529145902



Yea....because someone there might be armed.

And the fastest route to safety is a controlled pair center mass.

They've never ever deployed a gun. Even in situations of dildoes being flung at politicians. Apparently that's not really a 'risk'. (Actually, I don't think that politician even had a security detail - not everyone gets one.)

 

[KimGordon67]

I know, that's why I've got guns.




How do you know?

I bet the poor unarmed person who got stabbed to death would beg to differ...


Every situation I've seen the victim could have used some help...cranking some nuggets off into the piece of shit who's attacking them might have been just enough to save their lives. I know it's saved mine more than once.

If guns were such a terrible and ineffective means of self defense then why the fuck do all the big bucks, celebrities and powerful pol's surround themselves with security guards that carry guns??

There's actually no way to prove the rightness of either your nor my argument - this debate always grinds to a halt because of that. Everyone can produce anecdotal evidence to support their view, which is usually easy because it's view commonly supported by their own life experience. So it's a no-win debate.

 

[todski28]

They've never ever deployed a gun. Even in situations of dildoes being flung at politicians. Apparently that's not really a 'risk'. (Actually, I don't think that politician even had a security detail - not everyone gets one.)

No wonder you dont want guns when it rains dildoes..... wtf

Albeit in the same throbbing vein..... I was once witness to a security guard being beaten with a massive dildoe from an angry lesbians purse because he made her take it out during an entry to premisis bag search one of the more hilarious things i have seen

 

[todski28]

There's actually no way to prove the rightness of either your nor my argument - this debate always grinds to a halt because of that. Everyone can produce anecdotal evidence to support their view, which is usually easy because it's view commonly supported by their own life experience. So it's a no-win debate.

Part of the issue with a lot of these type discussions is they branch off anecdotally and in your story you're always right.

Stats take it to hopefully the objective level but even then stats are usually cherry picked to suit your own inclination and counter arguements are dismissed because we all have a fundamental desire to be right. Its the main reason science introduced peer review systems and provable data sets.