don't really feel a need as a civilian who is comfortable with the size of his genitalia.
don't really feel a need as a civilian who is comfortable with the size of his genitalia.
Nade Duck posted...
don't really feel a need as a civilian who is comfortable with the size of his genitalia.
i feel the need as a person who has a wife and kids to defend.
don't really feel a need as a civilian who is comfortable with the size of his genitalia.
I have an antique rifle but it is not operational
I have an antique rifle but it is not operational
I could hit someone with it though
I don't live in the ghetto and I'm not an enthusiast or a paranoid, so no.
I have a taser and mace but no family suicide stick.
Mead posted...
I have an antique rifle but it is not operational
I feel so sorry for your wife.
Zeus posted...
Mead posted...
I have an antique rifle but it is not operational
I feel so sorry for your wife.
Seems like you have a fixation on my marriage tbh @ Zeus
Go get your own
There are two reasons to own a gun.
1) to kill animals. Hunters need low-capacity rifles to kill animals, and sometimes also low-capacity handguns for protection from other animals.
2) to target shoot for fun.
The number of "goods guys with guns" who use them is tiny each year, to the point it almost doesn't happen. It's absurd to justify a firearm purchase as "protection." You didn't buy it for that reason, you bought it because you thought it was cool and it's fun to shoot. Just be honest about it.
No but I have considered getting a bow for some sports shooting. Dunno why, I find bow and arrow more fun than shooting a gun.
The number of "goods guys with guns" who use them is tiny each year, to the point it almost doesn't happen. It's absurd to justify a firearm purchase as "protection." You didn't buy it for that reason, you bought it because you thought it was cool and it's fun to shoot. Just be honest about it.
Which is like saying you can't justify car insurance "as a protection" because the number of people who get into crashes each year is almost-infinity smaller than the total number of people who drive insured.
Zeus posted...
Which is like saying you can't justify car insurance "as a protection" because the number of people who get into crashes each year is almost-infinity smaller than the total number of people who drive insured.
Zeus that comparison is unrelated. It's like you came in saying, "Sure, but what's that got to do with the price of beans?" We're not going to play stupid, intellectually dishonest games in this topic. Be honest, be plain, and make real arguments.
Then you edited and added in the classic, "the solution is more guns" argument, which is stupid and demonstrably wrong. Adding guns increases violence. Don't pretend and act stupid here.
Keep your hunting rifles. I like venison just fine. But there's no place in the US for AR15s and other assault weapons. For that matter, I'm all for banning pistol magazines with higher capacities. You don't need that shit.
SushiSquid posted...
Keep your hunting rifles. I like venison just fine. But there's no place in the US for AR15s and other assault weapons. For that matter, I'm all for banning pistol magazines with higher capacities. You don't need that shit.
There is a reason for it and the reason for it is the reason it was established in the constitution in the first place.
Oh? So arguing that one thing is ineffective because you only need it when shit happens isn't like another thing you only need when shit happens? Is that really the defense you're going to try to use today?
A gun is effectively an insurance policy. It's there to protect you IF or WHEN you need it.
Plus, as riots in the past few decades have shown us, you DO need that shit.
This was put into the Constitution so that we could violently overthrow our government. But by that rule, we should be allowed tanks, armed drones, armed fighter jets, bombs, missile launchers, etc. Clearly we cannot as citizens overthrow the government by force using what is legal still, so that argument has no merit. You're either for the original intent (and thus I am allowed to own nukes), or you understand that technology has changed too much for that to be valid still.
No it is not. The rate at which good guys with guns make the situation better is almost nothing. Law enforcement and first responders have a harder job because of the idiot thinking he's a hero. You're also far more likely to hurt an innocent than to actually do any real good. It's not insurance, it's gambling.
Given that this is the first time I've even acknowledged it
This was put into the Constitution so that we could violently overthrow our government. But by that rule, we should be allowed tanks, armed drones, armed fighter jets, bombs, missile launchers, etc. Clearly we cannot as citizens overthrow the government by force using what is legal still, so that argument has no merit. You're either for the original intent (and thus I am allowed to own nukes), or you understand that technology has changed too much for that to be valid still.
Okay. Let's say that's a valid reason to have guns. Can you honestly say that your paranoia about the government should outweigh the thousands of lives lost to firearms that wouldn't be lost if guns were less common and more regulated? And I'm not just talking homicide. Two thirds of gun deaths are suicide, and we know that if you make suicide harder, people are far less likely to kill themselves.
Is your paranoia about something that isn't likely to happen really worth thousands of lives? I think that anyone who honestly believes it is, is an ass hole.
It makes me happy not even remotely needing a gun where or I live or thinking that I need a gun. Very little bad shit is going to happen here.