5 ms·

Because I want it. It doesn't affect your life or liberty that I have it. Stop blaming guns for the actions of crazy people.

jacknews 9y ago
It does indeed affect my liberty and perception of (and actual) safety. How do I know you're not a crazy person? Or that you won't have crazy moments (like most people do)? Or that you're not crazy, just evil, or megalomanical? Or just the kind of dishonorable person who thinks a gun can win an argument? I don't want to have to arm or defend myself against any of those possibilities, just so you can satisfy your desire, which can easily be acted out in controlled areas; shooting ranges, hunting parks, gun theme parks etc. Or better yet, you can examine your desire, understand it, dissipate it. Try meditating.
- cobrabyte 9y ago
  By that logic, we should limit owning and operating a motor vehicle to special car parks because we're scared of the mental fitness of our fellow citizens. Why take the risk? I'd much prefer you arm yourself if you are genuinely worried about crazy people. It's precisely why I never leave the house without arming myself. The world is full of crazy people and those people don't follow laws. It may surprise you to find that lawful gun owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens out there. CCW permit holders, for instance, are 37 times more law-abiding than the population, as a whole, and they're roughly 9 times more law-abiding than our own police officers. So, no... your irrational fear of people with guns will not keep me from defending myself. The 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms... it ensures that the natural right to bear arms is not infringed upon.
  - jacknews 9y ago
    This is a common argument, but what are the benefits of cars, vs guns? Clearly cars offer numerous benefits despite the dangers, whereas guns (in public spaces, rather than hunting or military etc) are just a hobby, a fetish, or a "security crutch". The "defense" argument doesn't really wash (buy better locks, or running shoes), and the "militia" argument doesn't either (can you hit a drone, or pierce tank armor with your full-auto?). The crazy people who don't follow laws can easily get guns now, since they are generally available. They wouldn't be able to get them if they were generally illegal and only available at shooting ranges etc, unless they were willing (and able) to put in much more effort (and money). Some crazies might be sufficiently motivated and able to do that, but most won't be. That few are most properly dealt with by specialists, not have-a-go armed citizenry.
    - cobrabyte 9y ago
      We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this topic and that's okay. We can't uninvent the gun and we can't, realistically, make them illegal. As for shooting drones and tanks, look to our wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam. It doesn't take much to bog down a well-oiled fighting force like ours.
      - jacknews 9y ago
        Perhaps not. We can't un-invent the gun, but that's not to say we can't radically restrict ownership, and of course we can make them illegal, why not? It just takes everyone to agree to compromise. War is clearly a different situation, but the Afghans and Vietnamese didn't fight with a bunch of hand guns. Do you think they had RPG's, grenades etc, stacked up in their basements awaiting an opportunity to rebel? Of course not, they found the means with the cause. If you want to talk about guns, make videos about shooting them (preferably from a range), or otherwise advocate, I completely support that right - but I will be swayed by your arguments, not the fact that you are waving a gun around. I guess that's my point. Guns are not power. They belie weakness, even cowardice, and infect the rest of society with insecurity.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - taoistextremist 9y ago
    > By that logic, we should limit owning and operating a motor vehicle to special car parks because we're scared of the mental fitness of our fellow citizens. Why take the risk? We do regulate where you can drive a car, though. Large swathes of cities can block off the use of cars in certain areas, and of course you're only allowed to drive them on the road, according to strict regulations. We even have a licensing and registration system for cars that says you can't drive one unless you pass a test, and that your car must meet certain specifications to be road-legal and actually get registration. It would also be extremely difficult to impose the kind of regulation we have around cars, on guns. It's extremely unpalatable politically. While we ban certain modifications (though a lot of those bans have expired) typically there's no mandatory registration, save for some states.
daxorid 9y ago
This is more or less the "argument" I bring to bear in gun control debates. There is no point arguing. My go-to "argument" is a form of the following: I don't argue what should be, only what will be. And this is what will be: If a functionary of the State comes to take my firearms, one of us will die. Period.
- fredch 9y ago
  Another gun person who thinks he's living in an action movie...
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    The massacre of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, was real life. Black Lives Matter can produce many examples of citizens slaughtered where they stand, simply because someone imagined they might have been carrying a weapon. If it were an action movie, one could make a case that it would always be the gun-taking bureaucrat that would die, and in a cathartically satisfying way, but in real life, they come with overwhelming force, and kill the citizens without remorse. Then they investigate themselves and clear themselves of all wrongdoing. Perhaps you imagine you're living in a sitcom instead? Does your entire family always sit on just one side of the dining table? We remember the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943, because a lot of Holocaust survivors emigrated to the US and made sure to tell their stories to everyone who would listen. The lesson learned was to always fight back, and to start the instant anyone tries to undermine your ability to do so. In doing so, you will likely die, but the fear you put into your killers might just save someone else. That's the honeybee defense. The bee that stings will die, but there are more bees willing to sting and die than attackers willing to feel the pain, and thus the hive is preserved.
- yongjik 9y ago
  It's OK. The state can still come to collect your firearms after you die... of old age. Sometimes progress is made when old generation dies off. It's painfully slow, but hey, it's better than nothing.
  - 9y ago

jacknews 9y ago

It does indeed affect my liberty and perception of (and actual) safety. How do I know you're not a crazy person? Or that you won't have crazy moments (like most people do)? Or that you're not crazy, just evil, or megalomanical? Or just the kind of dishonorable person who thinks a gun can win an argument? I don't want to have to arm or defend myself against any of those possibilities, just so you can satisfy your desire, which can easily be acted out in controlled areas; shooting ranges, hunting parks, gun theme parks etc. Or better yet, you can examine your desire, understand it, dissipate it. Try meditating.

cobrabyte 9y ago
By that logic, we should limit owning and operating a motor vehicle to special car parks because we're scared of the mental fitness of our fellow citizens. Why take the risk? I'd much prefer you arm yourself if you are genuinely worried about crazy people. It's precisely why I never leave the house without arming myself. The world is full of crazy people and those people don't follow laws. It may surprise you to find that lawful gun owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens out there. CCW permit holders, for instance, are 37 times more law-abiding than the population, as a whole, and they're roughly 9 times more law-abiding than our own police officers. So, no... your irrational fear of people with guns will not keep me from defending myself. The 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms... it ensures that the natural right to bear arms is not infringed upon.
- jacknews 9y ago
  This is a common argument, but what are the benefits of cars, vs guns? Clearly cars offer numerous benefits despite the dangers, whereas guns (in public spaces, rather than hunting or military etc) are just a hobby, a fetish, or a "security crutch". The "defense" argument doesn't really wash (buy better locks, or running shoes), and the "militia" argument doesn't either (can you hit a drone, or pierce tank armor with your full-auto?). The crazy people who don't follow laws can easily get guns now, since they are generally available. They wouldn't be able to get them if they were generally illegal and only available at shooting ranges etc, unless they were willing (and able) to put in much more effort (and money). Some crazies might be sufficiently motivated and able to do that, but most won't be. That few are most properly dealt with by specialists, not have-a-go armed citizenry.
  - cobrabyte 9y ago
    We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this topic and that's okay. We can't uninvent the gun and we can't, realistically, make them illegal. As for shooting drones and tanks, look to our wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam. It doesn't take much to bog down a well-oiled fighting force like ours.
    - jacknews 9y ago
      Perhaps not. We can't un-invent the gun, but that's not to say we can't radically restrict ownership, and of course we can make them illegal, why not? It just takes everyone to agree to compromise. War is clearly a different situation, but the Afghans and Vietnamese didn't fight with a bunch of hand guns. Do you think they had RPG's, grenades etc, stacked up in their basements awaiting an opportunity to rebel? Of course not, they found the means with the cause. If you want to talk about guns, make videos about shooting them (preferably from a range), or otherwise advocate, I completely support that right - but I will be swayed by your arguments, not the fact that you are waving a gun around. I guess that's my point. Guns are not power. They belie weakness, even cowardice, and infect the rest of society with insecurity.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- taoistextremist 9y ago
  > By that logic, we should limit owning and operating a motor vehicle to special car parks because we're scared of the mental fitness of our fellow citizens. Why take the risk? We do regulate where you can drive a car, though. Large swathes of cities can block off the use of cars in certain areas, and of course you're only allowed to drive them on the road, according to strict regulations. We even have a licensing and registration system for cars that says you can't drive one unless you pass a test, and that your car must meet certain specifications to be road-legal and actually get registration. It would also be extremely difficult to impose the kind of regulation we have around cars, on guns. It's extremely unpalatable politically. While we ban certain modifications (though a lot of those bans have expired) typically there's no mandatory registration, save for some states.

daxorid 9y ago

This is more or less the "argument" I bring to bear in gun control debates. There is no point arguing. My go-to "argument" is a form of the following: I don't argue what should be, only what will be. And this is what will be: If a functionary of the State comes to take my firearms, one of us will die. Period.

fredch 9y ago
Another gun person who thinks he's living in an action movie...
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  The massacre of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, was real life. Black Lives Matter can produce many examples of citizens slaughtered where they stand, simply because someone imagined they might have been carrying a weapon. If it were an action movie, one could make a case that it would always be the gun-taking bureaucrat that would die, and in a cathartically satisfying way, but in real life, they come with overwhelming force, and kill the citizens without remorse. Then they investigate themselves and clear themselves of all wrongdoing. Perhaps you imagine you're living in a sitcom instead? Does your entire family always sit on just one side of the dining table? We remember the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943, because a lot of Holocaust survivors emigrated to the US and made sure to tell their stories to everyone who would listen. The lesson learned was to always fight back, and to start the instant anyone tries to undermine your ability to do so. In doing so, you will likely die, but the fear you put into your killers might just save someone else. That's the honeybee defense. The bee that stings will die, but there are more bees willing to sting and die than attackers willing to feel the pain, and thus the hive is preserved.
yongjik 9y ago
It's OK. The state can still come to collect your firearms after you die... of old age. Sometimes progress is made when old generation dies off. It's painfully slow, but hey, it's better than nothing.
- 9y ago