Current Events > How many firearms do you own?

(+) Yeah! (+)

*Tips fedora*

Nunchucks are the best home defense weapon.

None, because I don't suffer from penile insecurity.

None, because I don't suffer from penile insecurity.

Its odd to me that people always default to this when gun ownership is mentioned.

What happens if you live in an area with a lot of crime? Having one for protection just makes sense in that situation doesnt it?

Its odd to me that people always default to this when gun ownership is mentioned.

What happens if you live in an area with a lot of crime? Having one for protection just makes sense in that situation doesnt it?

Its odd to me that people always default to this when gun ownership is mentioned.

What happens if you live in an area with a lot of crime? Having one for protection just makes sense in that situation doesnt it?

Hes probably of the same mindset that thinks their guns are going to be effective against a government that controls smart missiles and nukes, both of which can be launched from hundreds of miles away and wipe them out before they even know what hit them.

Like they did against goat farmers with old Russian AKs?

The desertion rate of the US military if it came to an armed conflict with their own populace would be at least 50%, making it around 700k.

700k, against 81 million gun owners, well entrenched in their own familiar territory.

Stop.

Nukes arent on the table, and even drones are drastically over used as an example in this type of argument.

Drone strikes will kill your supporters; there will be collateral damage.

And moreover, drone operators have families.

Its easy to sit behind your computer screen and make claims like you are, its another when its the real thing.

Soldiers follow orders, whether they personally agree with them or not.

Soldiers follow orders, whether they personally agree with them or not. And I doubt the desertion rate would be 50%, as any soldier found AWOL would most likely be shot on sight for desertion and cowardice. Its easy to sit behind your computer screen and make claims like you are, its another when its the real thing.
land yes, they can fire the missiles with only a few people needed.

This isn't even close to accurate. Since the invent of social media soldiers have an increasingly hard time following lawful orders as is. Every weekend you tell soldiers basic common sense bullshit like "dont marry that fat crackhead you just met today" or "wear a condom, wear a fucking condom thats an order" or "if you drink and drive I'll murder your family" or "just stay safe and have a good weekend", and every weekend more than a handful consciously fuck up and do exactly the opposite.

And nobody gets shot going AWOL, source: Ive known 7 ppl that did and only 1 allegedly got brig time, he was gone for about a year and we were shipping overseas right when he was found.

I grew up in an area with a lot of crime. Owning a gun did not make sense.

In times of war, AWOL soldiers have been shot on sight, as history as shown. To claim otherwise is pure ignorance. But you do you, dude. Just don't be surprised when reality slaps you in the face.

How so? You dont think it makes sense to be able to protect yourself if necessary?

Guns arent the only way to protect yourself and using one here would see you end up in prison, which kind of defeats the purpose.

Are you in a country that completely bans guns (which would in turn severely limit the number of guns in criminal hands)?

Im referring to the US where that is unlikely to ever happen. Plenty of people live in neighborhoods where crime is a problem and the criminals have guns. It makes sense for those people to arm themselves for protection.

Are you in a country that completely bans guns (which would in turn severely limit the number of guns in criminal hands)?

Im referring to the US where that is unlikely to ever happen. Plenty of people live in neighborhoods where crime is a problem and the criminals have guns. It makes sense for those people to arm themselves for protection.

Yes, I do live in a country where owning anything other than a shotgun is more or less always going to be illegal, and owning a shotgun isnt easy.

Criminals do still have guns, and Ive not been entirely sheltered from dealing with them. However, the number of criminals who have them would be significantly lower than in the US.

My original response however, was to refute the idea that if you live in a rough area it just makes sense to have a gun. Nothing was said about it being in the US, though I still think that the issue there isnt that the criminals have guns, its that your police officers arent up to the task of dealing with that situation.

Okay? I dont disagree about the police but at this point it is what it is. So people in that situation have two choices, try to make sure they can protect themselves since the police are not reliable, or just hope they never end up being a victim of a crime that requires defending themselves. Given the options its more practical to at least be prepared to defend themselves.

You dont necessarily need a gun to defend yourself and having one puts you at greater risk of it being used against you.

Also, saying it is what it is is lazy. Why just accept that the country is fundamentally broken and live with that?

Its not a surrender, its an acknowledgment that its a certain way and it isnt going to change overnight.

And not having a firearm when confronted with someone who does have one is worse than having one yourself which is the type of situation Im referring to.

Yes, I do live in a country where owning anything other than a shotgun is more or less always going to be illegal, and owning a shotgun isnt easy. Before that I lived in the UK, which is mostly the experience Im speaking of.

Criminals do still have guns, and Ive not been entirely sheltered from dealing with them. However, the number of criminals who have them would be significantly lower than in the US.

My original response however, was to refute the idea that if you live in a rough area it just makes sense to have a gun. Nothing was said about it being in the US, though I still think that the issue there isnt that the criminals have guns, its that your police officers arent up to the task of dealing with that situation.

Home invasion crime and violence during burglary is much worse and higher in the UK because the homeowner is not likely to have protection. UK has near twice the home invasion rate as the US and they occur when he home is occupied because not only are guns banned, but other forms of self defense are punished. You can't even rest easy beating up a burglar there because if you're not charged with assault by some luck the criminal can always successfully sue you. You can even physically assault someone(start attacking them) and if you lose that fight and suffer an actual injury like an orbital fracture or broken nose/jaw you can sue. To cope with this the populace has been conditioned to think it's actually wrong or "not the best choice" to defend yourself and your home.

Here's another clown world nugget. They have what's called a "known trespasser". So if someone routinely trespasses on your property(a crime in a sane society) they have all the rights and protections of a guest or invited person.

Home invasion crime and violence during burglary is much worse and higher in the UK because the homeowner is not likely to have protection. UK has near twice the home invasion rate as the US and they occur when he home is occupied because not only are guns banned, but other forms of self defense are punished. You can't even rest easy beating up a burglar there because if you're not charged with assault by some luck the criminal can always successfully sue you. You can even physically assault someone(start attacking them) and if you lose that fight and suffer an actual injury like an orbital fracture or broken nose/jaw you can sue. To cope with this the populace has been conditioned to think it's actually wrong or "not the best choice" to defend yourself and your home.

Here's another clown world nugget. They have what's called a "known trespasser". So if someone routinely trespasses on your property(a crime in a sane society) they have all the rights and protections of a guest or invited person.

Like they did against goat farmers with old Russian AKs?

The desertion rate of the US military if it came to an armed conflict with their own populace would be at least 50%, making it around 700k.

700k, against 81 million gun owners, well entrenched in their own familiar territory.

Stop.

Nukes arent on the table, and even drones are drastically over used as an example in this type of argument.

Drone strikes will kill your supporters; there will be collateral damage.

And moreover, drone operators have families.

Yeah I was done arguing with him when he said the gov would nuke their own territories. Dude has absolutely no idea what he's talking about

Los AlamosBikini Atolletc

Los AlamosBikini Atolletc

LMFAO yeah because test sites are totally the same thing as using them on the continental US and tainting the food and water supply there for decades making the land completely unusable for anyone.

Jesus christ man

My dude, those are very different things than nuking civilian centers that have risen up against you. Like I said, you are not to be taken seriously in any way.

You can take martial arts lessons, they do teach to defend yourself against an armed attacker. Like I've said, more guns is not the best solution.

you're more likely to be shot by a family member than a stranger.

The authors of the study acknowledged it had several shortcomings. For example, the researchers said they could not determine which victims had been killed by the handgun owners or with the in-home weapons. They couldnt account for illegal guns and looked only at handguns, not rifles or other firearms. The dataset also was limited to registered voters in California who were 21 and older. Its not clear that the findings are generalizable to the whole state, let alone to the rest of the country.

uhhh Bikini is now uninhabitable, in case you werent able to comprehend that. And Los Alamos is in New Mexico. You know, in the continental US. Jesus Christ man yourself.

Soldiers follow orders, whether they personally agree with them or not. And I doubt the desertion rate would be 50%, as any soldier found AWOL would most likely be shot on sight for desertion and cowardice. Its easy to sit behind your computer screen and make claims like you are, its another when its the real thing.
land yes, they can fire the missiles with only a few people needed.

Yeah I was done arguing with him when he said the gov would nuke their own territories. Dude has absolutely no idea what he's talking about

You dont understand. The military is comprised of people who largely come from gun owning families, who are second amendment people, and who value the Constitution.

Any civil conflict would result in the automatic dissolution of the military as you know it. There would be immediate infighting, theft of equipment and resources and a mass exodus of soldiers returning to protect their families.

Soldiers arent robots, and following orders to attack foreign nations is much different than following orders to attack your friends, family, and neighbors.

immediate dissolution of the military? No, it wouldn't. The soldiers are bound by contract to serve, regardless of their families. A soldier would be a fool to desert, knowing capture by either side would mean the firing squad for them. And then their family would have one less family member. Plain and simple, not worth the risk of desertion.

I grew up in an area with a lot of crime. Owning a gun did not make sense.

Who's your main?