6 ms·

Yes. The police, along with everyone else, should be disarmed. NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun. Guns should only be allowed for huntin

Yes. The police, along with everyone else, should be disarmed. NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun. Guns should only be allowed for hunting. Are you seriously suggesting they shouldn't?

make3 8y ago
also, is hunting that important? like, if that hobby is the only reason for people to keep guns, I'm fine with sacrificing it so that no one has a reason to have guns
- magduf 8y ago
  I agree, however, hunting is important for keeping wild animal populations (mostly deer) in check, since humans have eliminated most of their natural predators like mountain lions. Therefore, it would need to be replaced with something else, such as state-operated culling (basically hunting, but done by professionals, and preferably in a way so that older/sick animals are killed rather than ones in their prime).
- 15155 8y ago
  The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. The Federalist papers will enlighten you to the actual purpose of private arms if you need.
  - mikepurvis 8y ago
    I don't disagree with you, but those are documents written over two centuries ago, mostly about long guns, and at a time when it was suggested that the federal standing army be no more than 30k troops. The fact that these things are regularly trotted out as if they have anything but the most peripheral relevance in discussions about things like handguns, bump stocks, and silencers is nuts.
    - 15155 8y ago
      At the time the Constitution was penned, almost all of our actual ordnance and navy was privately owned. People had the right, ability, means to own cannonry and mortars. None of the intent behind the Second Amendment has changed. It's quite frankly sad that to hear that people think so lowly of the Framers' intelligence to foresee technological advances. The Girandoni Air Rifle existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle The Framers couldn't extrapolate or imagine future technology? If you read the original justification, private ownership of arms has everything to do with individual liberty in spite of destructive capability.
      - mikepurvis 8y ago
        Given your deeper study of these things, I'd be delighted for your participation in a brief thought experiment: If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? Would they look at all the mass shooting deaths, suicides, law enforcement killings, accidental discharges by children, road rage incidents, overseas military adventurism, and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA and say to all of it, "Yup, that's pretty much what we envisioned for the future of firearms in this country"? If not that, what kinds of common sense measures do you think they might suggest as appropriate to tackle some of the worst of the problem?
        15155 8y ago
        > If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." > mass shooting deaths Statistically insignificant relative to any other cause of death in the country. > suicides Not pertinent to this discussion: why should a suicidal person have any bearing on _my_ rights? > law enforcement killings Do you know how few of these actually happen? > accidental discharges by children Sad, but statistically very rare. > road rage incidents ?? > and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA I honestly believe the framers would be sad to see that such an organization (albeit almost entirely member-funded - yay, democracy!) needs to exist in the first place. You can see that mentality in the fact that the Bill of Rights didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written. The Framers believed rights existed "naturally" - far beyond those that were explicitly enumerated. They believed that documenting individual liberties would cause the Bill of Rights to be seen as an all-inclusive list. I wouldn't go so far as to say our current situation is what the Framers "envisioned," but I can say they would probably accept the costs of freedom, whatever those may be.
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  Me too, but I have relatives who grew up in families where hunting was a thing and they just don't see it this way at all— to them, a hunting rifle is exactly as dangerous as a kitchen knife or circular saw. Basically, a tool that has a time and place and needs to be treated with respect. Which is not unreasonable, but more importantly, someone with this context sees comments about taking away hunting guns as ignorant urban superiority, scapegoating, and cultural disregard.
- mozumder 8y ago
  Hunting helps sustain the environment, so it does have its useful purpose, and guns become a tool for that purpose.
  - eric_h 8y ago
    Hunting helps fix a problem that, one could argue, was caused by hunting in the first place (the hunting of predators - wolves, mountain lions, etc.)
AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
> NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun Why?
- 15155 8y ago
  People who take this mentality would rather you die/get raped/be a victim, it's really quite that simple. I am not tough or delusional enough to think that I (trained, in peak physical condition) could take on multiple armed or unarmed assailants who wish to do me grievous bodily harm. How could a 90 year old woman defend against one or more individuals? How could a single mother protect herself and her children? Firearms are the only means that give the individual a fighting chance. The police are going to show up after crimes have been committed: they cannot help you if they're not there, nor are they legally mandated to help you even if they're there and the crime is in progress.
  - lutorm 8y ago
    This is painting the devil on the wall. First, out of all risks you face in life, "multiple armed or unarmed assailants who wish to do me grievous bodily harm" is not really the one that you should be worrying about. Second, how would a handgun help you take on assailants armed with automatic weapons? So then you need an automatic weapon? But how will an automatic weapon help you take on assailants armed with hand grenades and RPGs? So then you need hand grenades and RPGS? Tanks? Fighter jets? Nuclear weapons? Your reasoning can be taken arbitrarily far. Do you take the same approach to all other, very unlikely, risks that you face in life?
    - 15155 8y ago
      > is not really the one that you should be worrying about. Not all of us are as privileged as you to live in a safe area. > Second, how would a handgun help you take on assailants armed with automatic weapons? So then you need an automatic weapon A handgun is good enough of an equalizer in the situations I am likely to face. For the relatively low cost, effort required, there's no substitute. > Do you take the same approach to all other, very unlikely, risks that you face in life? - How is it your place to determine the likelihood that I get into a violent altercation? - Why does my area now require some standard of "likelihood of violence" before I am allowed to protect myself? - How is it your place to make these risk-based judgment calls for me and others? The fact is: carrying a firearm takes ten seconds out of my day (to put on). Some might describe that as "living in fear," but I'll trade the ten seconds for the capabilities having said firearm confers. It's really not a big deal, despite what some might think. I'll also take the time to test and install fire extinguishers in my home.. or is my home catching fire a "very unlikely risk" I shouldn't be prepared for, too, in one's expert opinion?
pluto9 8y ago
And when Elmer Fudd decides to commit a crime with his hunting rifle, what should the police do about it?
- mozumder 8y ago
  Are you saying we should allow more crimes since we can't stop all crimes?
  - pluto9 8y ago
    Were you trying to reply to a different comment?
yonaguska 8y ago
What should they be allowed to defend themselves with? Where do you draw the line? Should a woman not have the right to defend herself against a potentially stronger rapist? Should an individual not have the right to defend himself against a group? A group as small as two on one drastically changes the risk factor if you are a victim. Not everyone has the privilege to be physically fit enough to ward off any attacker with success, nor the privilege to live or work in a safe area.
- mozumder 8y ago
  So, how does the vast majority of the country live without guns? Is everyone without guns dead? How do they manage to survive, but gun owners can't without their guns?
tristor 8y ago
> NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun. I'm exceptionally happy that you are not the one making the decisions on these rules then. You appear to not have put much thought into this at all. We already know what happens in a world completely bereft of firearms, it's called history. And history is dark and brutish for much of it, until very very recently. Firearms are but one of many technological advancements human society has achieved that has brought about an end to the dark and brutish existence we lived until now. Why, you might ask? Quite simply, eliminating firearms returns society to a situation in which defense is only possible through literal force of arms (e.g. the force you can exert with the arms attached to your body) which greatly enhances the power of those who are physically fit when they behave in a brutish manner. In your world the old, infirm, meek, physically unfit, and women have no effective way to defend themselves. Self-defense becomes the hallmark of only the strong, and something which is a far bloodier and less sure affair. Spare me your world, because I have been a student of history and I see what that world is like. I like the world I live in now, where I can be reasonably assured that I will not be attacked by someone simply because of my small stature and have the legal and practical means to defend myself if I am.
- mozumder 8y ago
  Please don't use simplistic models of the world. You don't have enough information to deduce how the world works and know how everyone in society behaves. I do. Pro-tip: ask yourself how the vast majority of people in the country live without firearms. And ask yourself why they don't live in fear, while you do. Perhaps government should offer mental-health counseling services for people that seem to be unable to live without firearms? You know, in order to allow these people to live normal lives like the rest of society, without fear of dying a violent gruesome death. Again, if a 90-year old grandma can live without firearms, you can, too!
  - hackerman12345 8y ago
    All of us have enough information to know that violent crimes still happen - and people should be allowed to defend themselves from it - that's a human right, after all. Fact is, if the attacker is bigger than you, you're going to need a weapon to defend yourself.

make3 8y ago

also, is hunting that important? like, if that hobby is the only reason for people to keep guns, I'm fine with sacrificing it so that no one has a reason to have guns

magduf 8y ago
I agree, however, hunting is important for keeping wild animal populations (mostly deer) in check, since humans have eliminated most of their natural predators like mountain lions. Therefore, it would need to be replaced with something else, such as state-operated culling (basically hunting, but done by professionals, and preferably in a way so that older/sick animals are killed rather than ones in their prime).
15155 8y ago
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. The Federalist papers will enlighten you to the actual purpose of private arms if you need.
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  I don't disagree with you, but those are documents written over two centuries ago, mostly about long guns, and at a time when it was suggested that the federal standing army be no more than 30k troops. The fact that these things are regularly trotted out as if they have anything but the most peripheral relevance in discussions about things like handguns, bump stocks, and silencers is nuts.
  - 15155 8y ago
    At the time the Constitution was penned, almost all of our actual ordnance and navy was privately owned. People had the right, ability, means to own cannonry and mortars. None of the intent behind the Second Amendment has changed. It's quite frankly sad that to hear that people think so lowly of the Framers' intelligence to foresee technological advances. The Girandoni Air Rifle existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle The Framers couldn't extrapolate or imagine future technology? If you read the original justification, private ownership of arms has everything to do with individual liberty in spite of destructive capability.
    - mikepurvis 8y ago
      Given your deeper study of these things, I'd be delighted for your participation in a brief thought experiment: If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? Would they look at all the mass shooting deaths, suicides, law enforcement killings, accidental discharges by children, road rage incidents, overseas military adventurism, and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA and say to all of it, "Yup, that's pretty much what we envisioned for the future of firearms in this country"? If not that, what kinds of common sense measures do you think they might suggest as appropriate to tackle some of the worst of the problem?
      - 15155 8y ago
        > If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." > mass shooting deaths Statistically insignificant relative to any other cause of death in the country. > suicides Not pertinent to this discussion: why should a suicidal person have any bearing on _my_ rights? > law enforcement killings Do you know how few of these actually happen? > accidental discharges by children Sad, but statistically very rare. > road rage incidents ?? > and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA I honestly believe the framers would be sad to see that such an organization (albeit almost entirely member-funded - yay, democracy!) needs to exist in the first place. You can see that mentality in the fact that the Bill of Rights didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written. The Framers believed rights existed "naturally" - far beyond those that were explicitly enumerated. They believed that documenting individual liberties would cause the Bill of Rights to be seen as an all-inclusive list. I wouldn't go so far as to say our current situation is what the Framers "envisioned," but I can say they would probably accept the costs of freedom, whatever those may be.
mikepurvis 8y ago
Me too, but I have relatives who grew up in families where hunting was a thing and they just don't see it this way at all— to them, a hunting rifle is exactly as dangerous as a kitchen knife or circular saw. Basically, a tool that has a time and place and needs to be treated with respect. Which is not unreasonable, but more importantly, someone with this context sees comments about taking away hunting guns as ignorant urban superiority, scapegoating, and cultural disregard.
mozumder 8y ago
Hunting helps sustain the environment, so it does have its useful purpose, and guns become a tool for that purpose.
- eric_h 8y ago
  Hunting helps fix a problem that, one could argue, was caused by hunting in the first place (the hunting of predators - wolves, mountain lions, etc.)

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago

> NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun Why?

15155 8y ago
People who take this mentality would rather you die/get raped/be a victim, it's really quite that simple. I am not tough or delusional enough to think that I (trained, in peak physical condition) could take on multiple armed or unarmed assailants who wish to do me grievous bodily harm. How could a 90 year old woman defend against one or more individuals? How could a single mother protect herself and her children? Firearms are the only means that give the individual a fighting chance. The police are going to show up after crimes have been committed: they cannot help you if they're not there, nor are they legally mandated to help you even if they're there and the crime is in progress.
- lutorm 8y ago
  This is painting the devil on the wall. First, out of all risks you face in life, "multiple armed or unarmed assailants who wish to do me grievous bodily harm" is not really the one that you should be worrying about. Second, how would a handgun help you take on assailants armed with automatic weapons? So then you need an automatic weapon? But how will an automatic weapon help you take on assailants armed with hand grenades and RPGs? So then you need hand grenades and RPGS? Tanks? Fighter jets? Nuclear weapons? Your reasoning can be taken arbitrarily far. Do you take the same approach to all other, very unlikely, risks that you face in life?
  - 15155 8y ago
    > is not really the one that you should be worrying about. Not all of us are as privileged as you to live in a safe area. > Second, how would a handgun help you take on assailants armed with automatic weapons? So then you need an automatic weapon A handgun is good enough of an equalizer in the situations I am likely to face. For the relatively low cost, effort required, there's no substitute. > Do you take the same approach to all other, very unlikely, risks that you face in life? - How is it your place to determine the likelihood that I get into a violent altercation? - Why does my area now require some standard of "likelihood of violence" before I am allowed to protect myself? - How is it your place to make these risk-based judgment calls for me and others? The fact is: carrying a firearm takes ten seconds out of my day (to put on). Some might describe that as "living in fear," but I'll trade the ten seconds for the capabilities having said firearm confers. It's really not a big deal, despite what some might think. I'll also take the time to test and install fire extinguishers in my home.. or is my home catching fire a "very unlikely risk" I shouldn't be prepared for, too, in one's expert opinion?

pluto9 8y ago

And when Elmer Fudd decides to commit a crime with his hunting rifle, what should the police do about it?

mozumder 8y ago
Are you saying we should allow more crimes since we can't stop all crimes?
- pluto9 8y ago
  Were you trying to reply to a different comment?

yonaguska 8y ago

What should they be allowed to defend themselves with? Where do you draw the line? Should a woman not have the right to defend herself against a potentially stronger rapist? Should an individual not have the right to defend himself against a group? A group as small as two on one drastically changes the risk factor if you are a victim. Not everyone has the privilege to be physically fit enough to ward off any attacker with success, nor the privilege to live or work in a safe area.

mozumder 8y ago
So, how does the vast majority of the country live without guns? Is everyone without guns dead? How do they manage to survive, but gun owners can't without their guns?

tristor 8y ago

> NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun. I'm exceptionally happy that you are not the one making the decisions on these rules then. You appear to not have put much thought into this at all. We already know what happens in a world completely bereft of firearms, it's called history. And history is dark and brutish for much of it, until very very recently. Firearms are but one of many technological advancements human society has achieved that has brought about an end to the dark and brutish existence we lived until now. Why, you might ask? Quite simply, eliminating firearms returns society to a situation in which defense is only possible through literal force of arms (e.g. the force you can exert with the arms attached to your body) which greatly enhances the power of those who are physically fit when they behave in a brutish manner. In your world the old, infirm, meek, physically unfit, and women have no effective way to defend themselves. Self-defense becomes the hallmark of only the strong, and something which is a far bloodier and less sure affair. Spare me your world, because I have been a student of history and I see what that world is like. I like the world I live in now, where I can be reasonably assured that I will not be attacked by someone simply because of my small stature and have the legal and practical means to defend myself if I am.

mozumder 8y ago
Please don't use simplistic models of the world. You don't have enough information to deduce how the world works and know how everyone in society behaves. I do. Pro-tip: ask yourself how the vast majority of people in the country live without firearms. And ask yourself why they don't live in fear, while you do. Perhaps government should offer mental-health counseling services for people that seem to be unable to live without firearms? You know, in order to allow these people to live normal lives like the rest of society, without fear of dying a violent gruesome death. Again, if a 90-year old grandma can live without firearms, you can, too!
- hackerman12345 8y ago
  All of us have enough information to know that violent crimes still happen - and people should be allowed to defend themselves from it - that's a human right, after all. Fact is, if the attacker is bigger than you, you're going to need a weapon to defend yourself.