7 ms·

> walk into a store and walk out with a weapon designed to kill people. 1. KitchenAid (or Wusthof, if you are well off) 2. Ford (or Ferrari, if you are well of

> walk into a store and walk out with a weapon designed to kill people. 1. KitchenAid (or Wusthof, if you are well off) 2. Ford (or Ferrari, if you are well off) Ability to kill is limited by your imagination only. I don't want to help, but do the exercise yourself, sit down for five minutes with a goal of hurting a faceless non-existent person and count how many ways you can come up with. Whether the tool is designed for that purpose has nothing to do with it. > I think you should be required to go through initial training, safely store your firearms, and go through refresher training every 2 years. At minimum. Real life, legal, gun needs are more urgent in nature than that. In gang infested areas, one could go through an event during evening grocery shopping run that would make that person buy a gun. Your "Let me feel good with there being a 2 week gun training course" is actually stopping a real life person from protecting themselves in a real life situation. I am fine with the course being a highly recommended thing that people should attend, but it shouldn't be required qualification for a gun purchase. Guns are much much easy to operate than planes. Yes, safety is important but self-preservation is even more important. I have seen this lately, existing gun owners are quite fine with new ardent restrictions on new purchases. If we say, everyone must deposit guns at armory first, take a course and then pick up their guns from armory, then we would get an immediate push back from existing gun owners. I got mine, now others should be thoroughly checked before they get their. I don't think that is fair to someone who needs a gun for personal safety immediately. Personal safety situations can't be planned for unfortunately, it creeps up on you when you least expect it. Last thing you want is some "let me feel good and righteous" has trimmed your rights to bear arms.

InitialLastName 9y ago
>1. KitchenAid (or Wusthof, if you are well off) 2. Ford (or Ferrari, if you are well off) There's a difference between "it's possible to kill a person with this" and "this is designed to be good at killing people". It's much easier to kill a person with a gun than a KitchenAid mixer. Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove that one is capable of operating an automobile to some minimum standard of "not killing people". > In gang infested areas, one could go through an event during evening grocery shopping run that would make that person buy a gun. Things people who have actually lived in "gang infested areas" know: The union of "gang infested area" and "grocery shopping opportunities are available" is approximately zero (c.f. food deserts).
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >"this is designed to be good at killing people" You are trivializing it. If you talk to a specialist they can tell you all about stopping powers of various calibers and round capacity of a gun. And, yes, it is designed to be good at killing people and I am glad for it. I don't want to threaten an aggressor with a dull letter opener, hardly qualify as a deadly force. When it is used, it better serve the purpose, lives depend on it. I firmly believe there are more good people than bad in this world. I would rather have my fellow human being, my neighbor, armed and able to help, than wait for cops to arrive. I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-) >Things people who have actually lived in "gang infested areas" know: The union of "gang infested area" and "grocery shopping opportunities are available" is approximately zero (c.f. food deserts). You may chose to not arm yourself, perfectly fine by me. When you say others shouldn't be armed either, that is when you are bigger enemy than the criminals. Do you even believe that people have right to defend themselves, or should they let the crime unfold and then let the law take its due course?
  - Thrymr 9y ago
    > I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-) You think that escalating a frustrating but not dangerous situation with deadly force is an "answer"?
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      It escalates because people think that it is safe to escalate. If one makes a threatening move that has full possibility of being responded with serious force, people will not be so fast to escalate. May be we will come up with an app for the "connected", electric vehicles where some permissible form of digital flipping can be conveyed to the drivers around you.
      - tasty_freeze 9y ago
        There is a flip side to this. If someone is a complete asshole to me, I should feel comfortable to express my displeasure with their behavior. That isn't escalating, that is communicating. But if I have to fear that the other person has a gun, it silences my legitimate right to communicate.
jaredklewis 9y ago
I don't know how common the personal safety situations you mention are, but if they are anything more than complete anamoly, then our society is in sad shape indeed. Other developed countries in Europe and Asia have much lower intentional homicide rates. Why are we such a murderous bunch in the US?
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  If you count gun violence only, that may be true. That is to say we use civil methods to attack one another. In Asia, if bare fists and feet aren't enough (most of the time they are) then stones, sticks, ropes, iron rods, dull knives, acid or kerosene serve the purpose. Criminals don't really need to carry guns, because government ensures that citizenry is disarmed. I think a granny with stick and a goon with stick, stick is not much of an equalizer. Granny with gun? now she stands a chance, if she wants to take it. US killed their goons in the streets, posse, sheriffs, bounty hunters, armed shop keepers, business owners and homeowners. West developed that way and I sincerely think is better because of it. Goon cultures in most of Asia would be suffocating to bear for most US westerners. Trust me you don't want it here.
  - jaredklewis 9y ago
    No, it is not just by gun violence. Regardless of method, other developed countries have a far low rate of intentional homicide than the US. Of course many countries, like Russia or Brazil have a much worse rates of intentional homicide than the US. But when compared to other developed countries like Japan, Germany, France and so on, the US is much higher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      Japan and Germany are far more homogeneous societies. Not same number of conflicts or cultural pressures as USA. France may be little more tolerant of abuse than us. I would rather have a violent confrontation than long term abuse.

InitialLastName 9y ago

>1. KitchenAid (or Wusthof, if you are well off) 2. Ford (or Ferrari, if you are well off) There's a difference between "it's possible to kill a person with this" and "this is designed to be good at killing people". It's much easier to kill a person with a gun than a KitchenAid mixer. Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove that one is capable of operating an automobile to some minimum standard of "not killing people". > In gang infested areas, one could go through an event during evening grocery shopping run that would make that person buy a gun. Things people who have actually lived in "gang infested areas" know: The union of "gang infested area" and "grocery shopping opportunities are available" is approximately zero (c.f. food deserts).

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>"this is designed to be good at killing people" You are trivializing it. If you talk to a specialist they can tell you all about stopping powers of various calibers and round capacity of a gun. And, yes, it is designed to be good at killing people and I am glad for it. I don't want to threaten an aggressor with a dull letter opener, hardly qualify as a deadly force. When it is used, it better serve the purpose, lives depend on it. I firmly believe there are more good people than bad in this world. I would rather have my fellow human being, my neighbor, armed and able to help, than wait for cops to arrive. I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-) >Things people who have actually lived in "gang infested areas" know: The union of "gang infested area" and "grocery shopping opportunities are available" is approximately zero (c.f. food deserts). You may chose to not arm yourself, perfectly fine by me. When you say others shouldn't be armed either, that is when you are bigger enemy than the criminals. Do you even believe that people have right to defend themselves, or should they let the crime unfold and then let the law take its due course?
- Thrymr 9y ago
  > I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-) You think that escalating a frustrating but not dangerous situation with deadly force is an "answer"?
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    It escalates because people think that it is safe to escalate. If one makes a threatening move that has full possibility of being responded with serious force, people will not be so fast to escalate. May be we will come up with an app for the "connected", electric vehicles where some permissible form of digital flipping can be conveyed to the drivers around you.
    - tasty_freeze 9y ago
      There is a flip side to this. If someone is a complete asshole to me, I should feel comfortable to express my displeasure with their behavior. That isn't escalating, that is communicating. But if I have to fear that the other person has a gun, it silences my legitimate right to communicate.

jaredklewis 9y ago

I don't know how common the personal safety situations you mention are, but if they are anything more than complete anamoly, then our society is in sad shape indeed. Other developed countries in Europe and Asia have much lower intentional homicide rates. Why are we such a murderous bunch in the US?

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
If you count gun violence only, that may be true. That is to say we use civil methods to attack one another. In Asia, if bare fists and feet aren't enough (most of the time they are) then stones, sticks, ropes, iron rods, dull knives, acid or kerosene serve the purpose. Criminals don't really need to carry guns, because government ensures that citizenry is disarmed. I think a granny with stick and a goon with stick, stick is not much of an equalizer. Granny with gun? now she stands a chance, if she wants to take it. US killed their goons in the streets, posse, sheriffs, bounty hunters, armed shop keepers, business owners and homeowners. West developed that way and I sincerely think is better because of it. Goon cultures in most of Asia would be suffocating to bear for most US westerners. Trust me you don't want it here.
- jaredklewis 9y ago
  No, it is not just by gun violence. Regardless of method, other developed countries have a far low rate of intentional homicide than the US. Of course many countries, like Russia or Brazil have a much worse rates of intentional homicide than the US. But when compared to other developed countries like Japan, Germany, France and so on, the US is much higher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    Japan and Germany are far more homogeneous societies. Not same number of conflicts or cultural pressures as USA. France may be little more tolerant of abuse than us. I would rather have a violent confrontation than long term abuse.