Solution to gun violence in the United States

[redcent]

You live in a country that put people in jail for not taking a vaccine shot.

Nope. Who's being fed propaganda now?

We do though cut family benefits for not vaxxing kids. I think it's a well deserved fate for stupidly risking their life.

None of this is actually true. Most Americans are satisfied with their jobs. Most Americans are satisfied with their healthcare costs.

explain this then

More so, over 90% of Americans have health insurance. And US crime rates is rather low compared to the 90s so I don't see what you mean by "unsafe environment."

See the quote below, from this very thread:

Nigger, I know people who have died to gun violence for petty reasons. In fact, you've probably personally SEEN that incident about a year ago because it was fucking Livestreamed and was on every major news network for over a week all across the planet. Guess what? Criminals don't abide by the rules to guns. They get them anyway and no amount of legalese will stop it. Cartels and gang members still get guns in every gun banned country on the planet.

Anyway, all that aside....In the incident I'm referring to, guess what? Guy leaves gas station. Nigger asked him for a cigarette. He gave him one, went to give him a light. He accidentally drops the lighter so he kicked it over to him instead of bending over and picking it up. Nigger monkey rages about respect for all of a second, whips out a gun and chases guy, shooting him in the fuck back. He keels over from being shot and sits on the curb, bleeding and begging for his life. Nigger executes him in cold blood.

He tried to just get distance. Didn't fucking matter. His only chance was being fastest gun in the west and if he had a gun, shooting the nigger first was only chance for survival. You really are the

Sure convinced me

You are extremely uneducated about American life so I find it a bit odd you have such strong opinions about us

Meh. Possibly. To be fair you have strong opinions about other countries too. Dish it out, try taking some.

think arguing with A&Hers has poisoned your brain and view of reality tbh. Kiwifarms isn't real life or necessarily just Americans.

This is the first time you hit a good point.

That said I wish they'd quit bitching.

It's very clear to me you have never been in a dangerous situation in your entire life

I have been. Just didn't necessarily involve another human.

You do not whip out a gun and point it at someone unless you intend to KILL them.

No shit sherlock. This is why guns aren't a defence, they're an offense.

Just because you sometimes don't, doesn't mean you don't have intent to kill. That gun comes out because your life is in danger and you're prepared to kill. That is what is told to every armed police officer and legal gun owner on the planet. It is basic gun safety 101.

Secondly, do you have any comprehension of what it's like to take the life of another person?

Fortunately no, and I hope I never do. And this is something more legitimately fear inducing than any of your nigger doom posting: being driven to kill someone.

Do you know what it's like to hurt another person? Have you ever hurt ANYONE in a serious way intentionally? Hurting people is not fun. If you are sane person, you do not like doing it. It doesn't matter if it's not fatal or if they deserve to be hurt. You feel awful afterwards. Killing someone changes you for the rest of your life. You will NEVER be the same psychologically ever again. The only people who have the sheer arrogance to say "you'd shoot someone for sneezing" are faggots who have no idea what it's like to hurt actually hurt another being. You have no clue what you're talking about.

I think you misunderstood the barb. I'm not saying I or anyone would or should shoot anyone "for sneezing" I'm saying you would and I don't trust your judgement to handle the situation.

It's not fear. It's preparation.

Call it what you will if it makes you sleep at night better.

Chance favors the prepared. If a psycho breaks into your house looking to harm you or your family, you are braindead retarded if you think the cops will arrive in time to save you. They never do.

"cops can never help you" is what all the shitty abusive boyfriends say. There is enough stories of the contrary to what you say. Don't talk bullshit.

You must have protection. It doesn't matter if the chance of it happening is 0.000000000001%, you don't take gambles on your life. If you don't own a gun or weapon to defend yourself quickly, you are taking gambles on the lives of you and your family. You don't buy a gun hoping you'll have to use it to defend your home. You buy it praying you'll never have to.

Okay. Say a rapist attacks you in your sleep. How would a gun help you then? You gonna sleep shoot them? Or better yet they'd find the gun and use it themselves. What if you wake up and there's a gun pointed at you? Like it or not cops have advised you're better off trying to de escalate the situation rather than risk your life. This is how dangerous men think.

Here's a fun experiment for you to try. Time yourself walking through your house. Count how long it takes to get from your front door to your bed room. You tell me if you think cops will be there fast enough to save your ass. A stab happens quickly. A bullet even quicker. Life isn't a movie. It's not an anime. Fights happen faster than you realize.

I could say the same for a fire and I find it legitimately more of a concern to he worried about than a psycho. Really, your arguments hinge way to much on the maliciousness of humans. Not everywhere is a hell-hole like where you live. Is it really that hard to imagine life without fear. Oh. Sorry. ""prepared""

Here's an idea, you like being prepared? Go clean your roof gutters and get a fire extinguisher for yourself. Learn how to use it. Learn some first aid too. Oh, and get a defibrillator. There you go, "prepared"

Oh, you're from Australia? Fuck man that's even worse. At least New Zealand is pretty....

Lol.

And yet, its aslways the crotch goblins of the anti-gun advocates that go do it. newsflash! Schools are already "gun-free" zones and anti-gun advocates want to keep armed SRO's out and leave them defenseless to some hug-a-thug's semen demon that got bulied. If anything, the anti-gun advocates need the school shootings because they need the corpses of children as a platform to disarm the rest of the country.

This seems more like a failure if your own counties left politics than anti-gun advocacy as a whole.

Ok, then why are anti-gun advocates so dead-set against having those very people in the schools to protect the children from gun-toting psychopaths? WHY?! If they are trained individual who can talk down a crazed gunperson or plug one between the eyes of the fucker if they can't, you would think that is the one person you would want in the schools, and not just glorified hall monitors?

I'm pretty much for cops being there actually. Can't speak for anyone else though.

As bad as they are in usa (or what I hear they are) they at very least have experience, and professionalism under their belt. I wouldn't say that for a layman such as yourselves. Just because I think they aren't as good a tier and need improvements compared to cops here, doesn't mean I'm going negate them as a whole. They at least have a job they're sworn to.

But you guys? I wouldn't trust you with a BB-gun.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

That's a lot of words to say "I'm a cuck and I don't trust myself with a gun and therefore I don't think anyone else should have them"

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Nope. Who's being fed propaganda now?

It's not propaganda. Your country arrests people for speech, (in fact what people post here could get them arrested in your country), and your country arrested people for protesting COVID lock downs and vaccines.

explain this then

Luigi has wrote he was satisfied with his healthcare. He was rich along with his family. He went to Yale. His family is a bunch of millionaires, and he was set inherit millions from his family. More so, personal anecdotes are not counter arguments to statistical facts so this a moot point. In fact, Luigi's actions is the worst argument you could use here. It doesn't make any sense for you to celebrate Luigi while calling for gun control. Its a strange logical contradiction leftists make for some reason.

See the quote below, from this very thread:

You're on a website with the motto "Live Free Or Die", and still don't understand freedom comes with risk and responsibility. It's not our problem you're too afraid of freedom.

Sure convinced me

I don't need to convince you of anything because you don't have the ability to prevent me from ever owning or giving up my weapons. You don't have a right to vote in the U.S. As you said, it's very important, and this one of the reasons why it's important. Your words have very little power here.

 

[redcent]

It's not propaganda. Your country arrests people for speech, (in fact what people post here could get them arrested in your country)

What? You meaning grooming young blokes into becoming extremusts? I'm not surprised, they'd deserve it.

Unless you're stupid enough to believe yelling "poofter" at someone is illegal in Australia, the land of potty mouth. Good luck arresting half the population.

, and your country arrested people for protesting COVID lock downs and vaccines.

Because they were acting up. You think people just take a violent protest up the ass and move on? If that's the case no wonder you americans have the massive riots you have.

Luigi has wrote he was satisfied with his healthcare. He was rich along with his family. He went to Yale. His family is a bunch of millionaires, and he was set inherit millions from his family. More so, personal anecdotes are not counter arguments to statistical facts so this a moot point. In fact

evidence shows he clearly had a gripe with health insurance and even if you wish to discount him, while I did say celebrating his actions whas psycho, the guys in A&H did actually cheer him on. Seems dissatisfaction with health insurance in the usa is more rife than what you say.

, Luigi's actions is the worst argument you could use here. It doesn't make any sense for you to celebrate Luigi while calling for gun control

What makes you think I celebrate him? I've already made my point otherwise in other threads. I think the shooting was daft but I'm also not spastic enough to not notice that it's a sign the health insurance in usa is fucked.

. Its a strange logical contradiction leftists make for some reason.

You're on a website with the motto "Live Free Or Die", and still don't understand freedom comes with risk and responsibility. It's not our problem you're too afraid of freedom.

You and I have very different takes on what freedom is. And I'm far from alone.

have a watch if you will , you're probably going to dismiss it as propaganda, because heaven help it if you see another person's point of view, but do realise it is how people feel.

I don't need to convince you of anything because you don't have the ability to prevent me from ever owning or giving up my weapons. You don't have a right to vote in the U.S. As you said, it's very important, and this one of the reasons why it's important.

No fucking shit. you think this is what my aim is here?

Your words have very little power here.

It gave me the power to get your knickers in a knot and amuse myself. Which is all you're good for.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

You meaning grooming young blokes into becoming extremusts? I'm not surprised, they'd deserve it.

No, it's not extreme to criticize your government and protest it. Australians are really slaves since you think like that.

the guys in A&H did actually cheer him on. Seems dissatisfaction with health insurance in the usa is more rife than what you say. Seems dissatisfaction with health insurance in the usa is more rife than what you say.

Yeah, a couple of anonymous people on the internet venting doesn't mean much.

What makes you think I celebrate him?

There was no reason to mention him, and bringing him up made your argument even worse. Personal anecdotes are not a counter-argument to statistical facts.

You and I have very different takes on what freedom is.

You live in your own reality so there are a lot of things we differ on. And that's okay. You can play with yourself all you want.

It gave me the power to get your knickers in a knot and amuse myself. Which is all you're good for.

You should try getting some friends because it's not healthy to be like this - it's weird.

 

[redcent]

No, it's not extreme to criticize your government and protest it. Australians are really slaves since you think like that.

Hmmmn? You weren't exactly being specific. Frankly I figured you were referring to all the "nigger death" posts. But if that's what you're referring to, shitting on the government is a national sport.

There was no reason to mention him, and bringing him up made your argument even worse. Personal anecdotes are not a counter-argument to statistical facts.

The condition of health care has been brought up, and it is a hot topic now that it happened. Anyway, I've learned to pay more attention to what people say than random google searches on stats. Why are you bothering to tell me "health care here is fine bro" when I'm surrounded by hundreds if people who say otherwise? You want to convince me? Go convince them first. Go tell whoever is going goo-goo over luigi or getting butt ad over bad healthcare in the usa. When they're satisfied, then come back.

You live in your own side of the world so there are a lot of things we differ on. And that's okay.

FTFY. The feelings mutual. Do remember that many people where I livr find your kind of perspective whacked. But I find it amusing nonetheless

You should try getting some friends because it's not healthy to be like this - it's weird.

Assuming I don't, and it's pretty arrogant to think that I'm alone. Or are we getting calling each other "basement dwellers" now? Have you run out of insults already?

Unless you mean make friends in kiwifarms specifically, to which I'll take a hard no. No-one here is trustworthy and if you take nothing else from what I say, take this - I may say that people in meat space generally aren't malicious, but people online, (especially here) are.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

The reason for this conflict is cultural in nature. Completely different mentalities. Australians are subjects of the Crown, while Americans are a free people. Free people can defend themselves, while subjects of the Crown cannot, they need to wait for a constable or something.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Frankly I figured you were referring to all the "nigger death" posts.

Work on your reading comprehension skills then.

The condition of health care has been brought up, and it is a hot topic now that it happened. Anyway, I've learned to pay more attention to what people say than random google searches on stats. Why are you bothering to tell me "health care here is fine bro" when I'm surrounded by hundreds if people who say otherwise? You want to convince me? Go convince them first. Go tell whoever is going goo-goo over luigi or getting butt ad over bad healthcare in the usa. When they're satisfied, then come back.

You're just demonstrating you took the short bus to school, and that you can not understand basic statistics and simple logical deduction. There are plenty of free materials on the internet to help you with that. It's not really my job to teach you anything. Your intellectual deficiencies is the problem here, and there's no way for me to fix that. Frankly, Margaret, I do not care much for your pointless diatribes and red herrings.

If you want to use this logic of trusting random people on the internet, I'm just going to trust people here on Kiwifarms who have told me you're a pedophile, you groom minors for sex, and that I shouldn't talk to you anymore because you're registered sex offender since proof doesn't matter. Only hearsay on the internet matters. I'm going to pay attention to what people say on the internet, as you do, and disregard anything else. Thank you for making everything so simple for us.

it's pretty arrogant to think that I'm alone.

I think most people reading what you said would assume that. I don't think most people are arrogant.

 

[redcent]

Work on your reading comprehension skills then.

No. You should learn to be specific. You guys spin so much bullshit I can't keep track of it.

You're just demonstrating you took the short bus to school,

How can I? That's an American thing.

and that you can not understand basic statistics and simple logical deduction. There are plenty of free materials on the internet to help you with that. It's not really my job to teach you anything. Your intellectual deficiencies is the problem here, and there's no way for me to fix that. Frankly, Margaret, I do not care much for your pointless diatribes and red herrings

Awww, do you want me to go to uncle google like you do? Poor thing.

OK if you insist

since you like stats so much

https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/polling-gun-control-in-australia/

Are you done?

If you want to use this logic of trusting random people on the internet, I'm just going to trust people here on Kiwifarms who have told me you're a pedophile, you groom minors for sex, and that I shouldn't talk to you anymore because you're registered sex offender since proof doesn't matter. Only hearsay on the internet matters. I'm going to pay attention to what people say on the internet, as you do, and disregard anything else. Thank you for making everything so simple for us.

For the record I'm not.

Dude, if, heaven forbid, and hell froze over, you actually find a legit bunch of kids who without shadow of a doubt made such complaints about me, and they get cross examined etc, you're free to have at me, if I'm not doing a flip already. If there's a victim who needs to be heard, and it poo-poos someone's rep, even my own, doesn't matter. Pay attention to the victim.

As it stands, I saw a bunch of autists, they say health insurance gives them the bad touch. And, as I said, why don't you go argue with them? Why are you so butt mad about my opinion? You seem pretty hard pushed to prove to a complete rando everything is A-OK in America. Now why is that

I think most people reading what you said would assume that. I don't think most people are arrogant.

Yes, because everyone in the world is all gushing at the United States and how they wish they could all similarly pack heat and are so utterly confident in the health care there should they go, and are absolutely seething at any government or anyone saying gun control is a good thing and american health care is shit, just like yours truly. How dare anyone question the almighty Burgerland. Clearly they are mentally ill and should be exiled to the badlands, the utter lunatics.

 

[dick brain]

I'm not reading all that shit.

Why is it a right tho?

Look at what happens to countries that outlaw civilian gun ownership. That's why it's a right.

Edit: I have decided to preemptively elaborate so I don't have to read or respond to any longwinded bullshit.
To cite the founder of the German Democratic Party and fellow liberal faggot of yours probably, Max Weber, the state can be defined as the entity that holds a monopoly on violence. The state is allowed, under certain circumstances, to employ violence against the people, while the people are not under any circumstances allowed to employ violence against the state. This is in direct contradiction to the purpose of the state, which is to serve the people, and history has shown, time and time again, that any system of governance, no matter how well intentioned, will deviate from this stated purpose in the interest of self-preservation -- the master's tools will not dismantle the master's house -- and we have seen, time and time again, the consequences. The ONLY recourse that effectively protects the proletariat from this phenomenon is the credible threat of violence from the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, or more accurately, the members of the proletariat who enact the will of the bourgeoisie -- a sufficient incentive to make a cop think twice about enforcing legislation, if not the legislators writing it. Without the credible threat of violence, the constituents of a nation are cattle, and the only incentive the state has to act in your interest is in keeping you just healthy and happy enough to turn a profit for them. That's why the ONLY developed nation that isn't completely ratfucked and only partially overwhelmed by auth-left zog policy is America, where only half of the citizens have been convinced to give up their only viable means of recourse to defend themselves from tyranny.

 

[redcent]

I'm not reading all that shit.


Look at what happens to countries that outlaw civilian gun ownership. That's why it's a right.

Something I want to point out that I'm surprised no-one else brought up (or I admttedly missed it)

That is, spot the difference:

Why is it a right tho?

(I. E implying it shouldn't be a right)

Vs

outlaw civilian gun ownership

Edit: I have decided to preemptively elaborate so I don't have to read or respond to any longwinded bullshit

I'll try to keep my response (relatively) brief.

To cite the founder of the German Democratic Party and fellow liberal faggot of yours probably

John Howard, the fellow who got all this gun control going on in Australia, is conservative.

I am not liberal. (not as you know it as)

, Max Weber, the state can be defined as the entity that holds a monopoly on violence. The state is allowed, under certain circumstances, to employ violence against the people, while the people are not under any circumstances allowed to employ violence against the state. This is in direct contradiction to the purpose of the state, which is to serve the people, and history has shown, time and time again, that any system of governance, no matter how well intentioned, will deviate from this stated purpose in the interest of self-preservation -- the master's tools will not dismantle the master's house -- and we have seen, time and time again, the consequences. The ONLY recourse that effectively protects the proletariat from this phenomenon is the credible threat of violence from the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, or more accurately, the members of the proletariat who enact the will of the bourgeoisie -- a sufficient incentive to make a cop think twice about enforcing legislation, if not the legislators writing it. Without the credible threat of violence, the constituents of a nation are cattle, and the only incentive the state has to act in your interest is in keeping you just healthy and happy enough to turn a profit for them. That's why the ONLY developed nation that isn't completely ratfucked and only partially overwhelmed by auth-left zog policy is America,

America looks pretty rat-fucked to me

I said it once, I'll say it again, if all these yanks here just admitted that they're living in a shithole, I'd have fucked off already.


And thus, which I ask:

where only half of the citizens have been convinced to give up their only viable means of recourse to defend themselves from tyranny.

.... If (or if you're ever too proud to admit it's fucked... "" When""" ) the USA is rat-fucked as you so put it, why aren't you fellows using these ever so special guns?

Oh wait. You americans have. Trump had two assignation attempts so far (and for the record whatever my views on said politics I don't approve) . Other presidents would have and some assassinations were successful in the past but I doubt it is now. This is one argument but that's an aside as it brings up another: what if guns are used against one government you prefer because other people find it oppressive whereas you don't?

 

[Big Brutus]

I said it once, I'll say it again, if all these yanks here just admitted that they're living in a shithole, I'd have fucked off already.

Most, if not probably all, of the Americans posting in this thread live in areas that aren't infested with crime, poverty and drugs. Yes, surprise surprise, there are places where people aren't shooting, raping and robbing each other all the time.

Now, let's take a guess what might influence all this gun violence...





I'm not exactly an expert on this issue, but I think it may have something to do with young urban scholars and poverty. Almost like it isn't the guns, it's poor dumbasses and niggers.

 

[redcent]

Most, if not probably all, of the Americans posting in this thread live in areas that aren't infested with crime, poverty and drugs. Yes, surprise surprise, there are places where people aren't shooting, raping and robbing each other all the time.

So... Why do they need guns there then?

Now, let's take a guess what might influence all this gun violence...

Ver archivo adjunto 7027328
Ver archivo adjunto 7027354
Ver archivo adjunto 7027260
Ver archivo adjunto 7027388
I'm not exactly an expert on this issue, but I think it may have something to do with young urban scholars and poverty. Almost like it isn't the guns, it's poor dumbasses and niggers.

Nobody noticed me being a classist bitch and now I am sad going back to sleep.

 

[Big Brutus]

So... Why do they need guns there then?

Good thing it's the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs.

But to answer your stupid question: police aren't able to magically teleport to your location the millisecond someone threatens you or otherwise tries to commit a crime. Otherwise, crime would be super easy to solve, right?

Nobody noticed me being a classist bitch and now I am sad going back to sleep.

You were already suspected of leftoid motivations so I figure we all assumed it was bait.

 

[redcent]

Good thing it's the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs.

Respect that you're making a distinction. I'd still say it leaves you open to psychos having said guns.

But to answer your stupid question: police aren't able to magically teleport to your location the millisecond someone threatens you or otherwise tries to commit a crime. Otherwise, crime would be super easy to solve, right?

I. E. You have a lot of violence where you live and therefore it is a bad place to live.

I can go back and forth and continue to take the mickey but just to try to explain to you silly fucks:

For example: If you see someone on the street using a crutch, you are naturally going to assume that they have broken or damaged something. So, say you speak this out loud, and they reply "nu-uh! I'm fine! This is totally normal!".... No, it isn't. Me and everyone I know manage our lives on our own two legs without the need of a crutch. This crutch fellow denies he has something up until he us blue in the face, but the more he talks the less you believe it and he just sounds whacked because he is using a crutch.

If you're fine and healthy, you'd manage just fine without it. In fact, you'd find it cumbersome. He refuses to believe you can spend your life walking around on two legs, calls you crazy for not having a crutch. I just repeat, did you break something?

So I ask, is something broken in America? If not, why are the laymen there so much more dependent on guns than the majority of first world countries?

 

[Mike Matei's Penis]

If we had guns they probably wouldn't have been able to start locking us out of restaurants and firing us because we didn't get the government science juice.
You are a boot licking retard. You can't even defend yourself in this shithole from the African gangs who do have guns, and the police are too busy chasing white people exercising in Jewish areas to do anything about that.

 

[Big Brutus]

Respect that you're making a distinction. I'd still say it leaves you open to psychos having said guns.

I would rather psychos have guns than nobody have guns (which is oxymoronic, because psychos will still get them, as has been proven time and time again).

I. E. You have a lot of violence where you live and therefore it is a bad place to live.

Crime isn't bad where I live. Doesn't mean crime can't happen at all here.

I can go back and forth and continue to take the mickey but just to try to explain to you silly fucks:

For example: If you see someone on the street using a crutch, you are naturally going to assume that they have broken or damaged something. So, say you speak this out loud, and they reply "nu-uh! I'm fine! This is totally normal!".... No, it isn't. Me and everyone I know manage our lives on our own two legs without the need of a crutch. This crutch fellow denies he has something up until he us blue in the face, but the more he talks the less you believe it and he just sounds whacked because he is using a crutch.

If you're fine and healthy, you'd manage just fine without it. In fact, you'd find it cumbersome. He refuses to believe you can spend your life walking around on two legs, calls you crazy for not having a crutch. I just repeat, did you break something?

If he wants to walk around with a crutch in public, who cares? Is he hurting you with the crutch? No? Then why are you offended by it?

You're comparing a man using a crutch for no reason to people owning and carrying guns because, even if the crime rates in that area are low, they would still like to have those guns "just in case." Tell me, do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Or maybe one in your car? Do you have a glass breaker/seatbelt cutter in case you get into a car crash? How about a first-aid kit? Do you have a homeowner's insurance policy in case your house catches fire, or gets damaged by a storm? Do you have a life insurance policy in case you die in an accident at work? I bet you some of these things are rarer than defensive gun uses in the United States.

Whatever your motivation for having such tools or insurance, it's the same motivation people have for owning and carrying guns. No matter the crime rate in a given area, no matter the poverty or racial demographics, they see it as an insurance policy, a tool to get them out of a dangerous situation. To imply otherwise is just a dick move.

 

[redcent]

I would rather psychos have guns than nobody have guns (which is oxymoronic, because psychos will still get them, as has been proven time and time again).

I'm not even saying "no one ever ever have guns" I did say fine for cops or farmers if they get licence etc. But why are you so chill for psychos getting them?

Crime isn't bad where I live. Doesn't mean crime can't happen at all here.

Crime isn't exactly impossible where I live either but the majority of people don't feel the need for a gun. Why is that?

If he wants to walk around with a crutch in public, who cares? Is he hurting you with the crutch? No? Then why are you offended by it?

A psycho with a gun is hurting people though. He could kill someone with that. Obvs. But also everyone who sees that gun, be it a random psycho or for example you, aren't going to telepathically know "it's just for protection" they have every right to assume you're just another psycho out to hurt them and feel threatened. Therefore it harms their sense of having a secure environment.

But back to the analogy, if a man is healthy and continues using a crutch, he can atrophy. If he was injured once now but needs to heal, he needs to put aside that crutch and try putting weight on that foot. If he can't put weight on it why can't he admit he's damaged? Sounds like he's hurting himself mentally, like he's got some sort of pride/shame issue. Or is hiding something suss.

You're comparing a man using a crutch for no reason to people owning and carrying guns because, even if the crime rates in that area are low, they would still like to have those guns "just in case." Tell me, do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Or maybe one in your car? Do you have a glass breaker/seatbelt cutter in case you get into a car crash? How about a first-aid kit? Do you have a homeowner's insurance policy in case your house catches fire, or gets damaged by a storm? Do you have a life insurance policy in case you die in an accident at work? I bet you some of these things are rarer than defensive gun uses in the United States.

You'd be shocked. I get insurance is very very bad in America but it isn't as bad in other places. And Australia is the one country crazy about fire safety.

But none of those things listed have the intended purpose to hurt or worse kill other people.

Whatever your motivation for having such tools or insurance, it's the same motivation people have for owning and carrying guns. No matter the crime rate in a given area, no matter the poverty or racial demographics, they see it as an insurance policy, a tool to get them out of a dangerous situation.

An insurance policy doesn't kill someone (at least not the ones over here).

And dangerous situation? How will, say, a gun help you if you wake up at night and one is already pointed at your forehead point blank? One twitch you die. Or if sat someone tosses a Molotov cocktail in your house? You gonna shoot him down from your window or focus on fire/ getting the fuck out?

If this is an insurance policy it doesn't cover much. At best just the case where someone breaks in through the front door. Now why is that specific situation stuck in your heads? Shouldn't you go find a better insurance deal? At what point do you consider it junk/useless insurance? Because like i said, the majority of first world countries get by just fine without everyone having a gun.

Afaik the "insurance" excuse is a ruse, to hide the fact a gun holder wants to hurt someone.

To imply otherwise is just a dick move.

Then I am a dick.

 

[Big Brutus]

But none of those things listed have the intended purpose to hurt or worse kill other people.

Irrelevant. Placing some sort of moral quandary on the purpose or intended use of an object doesn't somehow make it bad. It really doesn't hold up against statistics, either, which I'll address later.

An insurance policy doesn't kill someone (at least not the ones over here).

Again, irrelevant.

And dangerous situation? How will, say, a gun help you if you wake up at night and one is already pointed at your forehead point blank? One twitch you die. Or if sat someone tosses a Molotov cocktail in your house? You gonna shoot him down from your window or focus on fire/ getting the fuck out?

These hypotheticals are extremely specific and ignore the reality of most defensive gun uses. If someone is breaking into your house, there will be noise and likely some sort of artificial light to alert you to the intrusion so you can prepare. Plus, if someone tosses a molotov cocktail at your house, there's a decent chance they might wait for you to come out and then shoot you. You're not being forward-thinking in this regard.

If this is an insurance policy it doesn't cover much. At best just the case where someone breaks in through the front door. Now why is that specific situation stuck in your heads? Shouldn't you go find a better insurance deal? At what point do you consider it junk/useless insurance? Because like i said, the majority of first world countries get by just fine without everyone having a gun.

So for one, the part about "first world countries" is a cherry-picked point. I can just as easily point out that these countries got by just fine with guns. Funny thing is, I'm sure a lot of these examples you implicitly cite either had higher homicide rates after their gun bans, or their homicide rates weren't affected.

Again, you're discrediting the "insurance" argument by blatantly disregarding the point and using highly specific examples. Attacks can happen at a variety of places and under a myriad of circumstances. Some are at an ATM, some are in traffic during a road rage incident, some are during stalking incidents and some are during burglaries. Sometimes you see/hear them coming, sometimes you don't, sometimes you catch them in the moment and have a short time to react. Arguing these disadvantageous situations just sounds disingenuous and unrealistic. The situations are ultimately a figure of conjecture.

Afaik the "insurance" excuse is a ruse, to hide the fact a gun holder wants to hurt someone.

Let's do some statistical mathematics and sourcing here.

Spoiler: Math sperging

In 2017, the United States had 120.5 guns per 100 people, according to the Small Arms Survey (archive link).
In 2017, the United States also had 11,020 homicides with firearms, according to Statista.
In July 2018 (the closest dataset I could find), the United States had a population of 327,167,434, according to the US Census Bureau.
Doing the math, this comes out to: 394,236,758 firearms; one gun homicide for every 29,689 people; and a gun homicide for every 35,775 firearms.

By contrast, a survey and subsequent paper by William English of Georgetown University questioned ~54,000 people, finding 16,708 gun owners.
It found that a third of the surveyed gun owners had at least one defensive gun usage (DGU), sometimes more.
The research paper estimates 1.67 million DGUs per year in the United States, based on the data.
Some specifics:
81.9% of DGUs do not result in shots fired.
25.2% of DGUs occurred within the defender's home.
59.3% of DGUs occurred outside the home but on the defender's private property.
9.1% of DGUs occurred in public.
3.2% of DGUs happened at the defender's place of work.
Doing the math, this comes out to: one DGU for every 196 people; one gun homicide for every 152 DGUs; and one DGU for every 236 firearms.

There are other studies and surveys (like by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz; John Lott; etc.) that confirm essentially the same or similar results and conclusion, but I think I've said enough to reasonably make my point.

Crime isn't exactly impossible where I live either but the majority of people don't feel the need for a gun. Why is that?

I could care less what Australians feel the need for. I am specifically countering misinformation and bullshit about American gun violence, crime and defensive gun use. Australia can do whatever it wants; not my clowns, not my monkeys, not my circus.

I'm not even saying "no one ever ever have guns" I did say fine for cops or farmers if they get licence etc. But why are you so chill for psychos getting them?

1. You are proposing that the US enact restrictive laws for gun licensure like Australia, based on misconceptions about, as I said earlier: American gun violence, crime and defensive gun use. This is basically centered around good cause and substantive requirements. I am telling you that it is a ridiculous idea to implement such laws in the US.
2. I never said I was so chill for psychos getting guns. I said that I preferred that psychos get guns rather than nobody have guns. In other words, if nobody could have a gun (which is functionally oxymoronic), and psychos could get guns (which they will anyway), then I would rather the psychos get their guns as long as I and other good folks get ours. It at least levels the playing field, and according to the statistics I cited, it works very well.

 

[redcent]

Irrelevant. Placing some sort of moral quandary on the purpose or intended use of an object doesn't somehow make it bad. It really doesn't hold up against statistics, either, which I'll address later.

It's a weapon, not a tool for fixing your door or a toy for kids to play with. It has one function only: kill. The only reason someone has a gun is to kill.

Now with cops, they have the legalities to show if they kill someone, it would be attackers. With farmers, wild boars. With you? Who are you going to kill?

These hypotheticals are extremely specific and ignore the reality of most defensive gun uses. If someone is breaking into your house, there will be noise and likely some sort of artificial light to alert you to the intrusion so you can prepare. Plus, if someone tosses a molotov cocktail at your house, there's a decent chance they might wait for you to come out and then shoot you. You're not being forward-thinking in this regard.

Because crooks breaking ins are going to make so much noise to alert you out of the goodness of their hearts.

And that's if they even break in while you're there. Why would they when they can simply break in during the day while you're at work?

countries" is a cherry-picked point. I can just as easily point out that these countries got by just fine with guns. Funny thing is, I'm sure a lot of these examples you implicitly cite either had higher homicide rates after their gun bans, or their homicide rates weren't affected.

USA ranks 76th on countries with most [homicides oer capita. /url] UK 147th, France 149th, Australia 162nd, Japan 191st. And so on.

Again, you're discrediting the "insurance" argument by blatantly disregarding the point and using highly specific examples. Attacks can happen at a variety of places and under a myriad of circumstances. Some are at an ATM,
some are in traffic during a road rage incident, some are during stalking incidents and some are during burglaries. Sometimes you see/hear them coming, sometimes you don't, sometimes you catch them in the moment and have a short time to react. Arguing these disadvantageous situations just sounds disingenuous and unrealistic. The situations are ultimately a figure of conjecture.

You still use ATM's?

Okay joking aside,

If you feel this happens a lot, it says a lot about how safe America is. After all, you're not going to waste money on flood insurance if you're living on a hill. If your invested in guns because of these reasons, it is because you think it has a very likely chance of happening. And you still can't imagine a world where it isn't.

In 2017, the United States had 120.5 guns per 100 people, [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20180620231909/http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Papers/SAS-BP-Civilian-Firearms-Numbers.pdf']according to the Small Arms Survey (archive link).

In 2017, the United States also had 11,020 homicides with firearms, according to Statista.
In July 2018 (the closest dataset I could find), the United States had a population of 327,167,434, according to the US Census Bureau.
Doing the math, this comes out to: 394,236,758 firearms; one gun homicide for every 29,689 people; and a gun homicide for every 35,775 firearms.

By contrast, a survey and subsequent paper by William English of Georgetown University questioned ~54,000 people, finding 16,708 gun owners.
It found that a third of the surveyed gun owners had at least one defensive gun usage (DGU), sometimes more.
The research paper estimates 1.67 million DGUs per year in the United States, based on the data.
Some specifics:
81.9% of DGUs do not result in shots fired.
25.2% of DGUs occurred within the defender's home.

25.2% is a rather large number and it doesn't specify why those shots were fired. Was it a break in, or was an abusive spouse attacking his/her family?

You want to protect your family from attackers, who's going to protect your family from you?

If someone feels threatened by you carrying a gun, are you simply going to whip out a bunch if statistics to say you're not? Any pyscho can do that. I think if you want to show you're safe you should prove it, as an individual.

59.3% of DGUs occurred outside the home but on the defender's private property.

Doesn't specify why. Was it against a real threat or was it against some bunch of randos who got lost? America is famous for simply walking on a private lot being a death sentence. Because not everyone hanging around your property is a crook out to hurt you

9.1% of DGUs occurred in public.
3.2% of DGUs happened at the defender's place of work.

Again doesn't specifically why. And this happening so often does not make America look like a safe place at all. Imagine taking your gun to work. WTF.

Doing the math, this comes out to: one DGU for every 196 people; one gun homicide for every 152 DGUs; and one DGU for every 236 firearms.
There are other studies and surveys (like by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz; John Lott; etc.) that confirm essentially the same or similar results and conclusion, but I think I've said enough to reasonably make my point.

You still make America look like a terrible place to live.

I could care less what Australians feel the need for. I am specifically countering misinformation and bullshit about American gun violence, crime and defensive gun use. Australia can do whatever it wants; not my clowns, not my monkeys, not my circus.

No shit dumbass. You think I don't know how tied in your second amendment is? And how batshit insane yanks are? I'm not here to magic away your precious guns. I'm here because, like I said, there's a guy with a crutch who can't admit something about him is broken.

And he is in complete denial of how broken and damaged he is.

1. You are proposing that the US enact restrictive laws for gun licensure like Australia, based on misconceptions about, as I said earlier: American gun violence, crime and defensive gun use. This is basically centered around good cause and substantive requirements. I am telling you that it is a ridiculous idea to implement such laws in the US.
2. I never said I was so chill for psychos getting guns. I said that I preferred that psychos get guns rather than nobody have guns. In other words, if nobody could have a gun (which is functionally oxymoronic), and psychos could get guns (which they will anyway), then I would rather the psychos get their guns as long as I and other good folks get ours. It at least levels the playing field, and according to the statistics I cited, it works very well.

Having guns will never be universal even in the USA. An old granny could have arthritis in her hands and would not be able to handle a gun. A blind man can not use a gun. How will they protect themselves?