treezy z
Bluelighter
I've never shot someone in my life, don't want to unless it's the only option, love guns.
Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread
- Thread starter tathra
- Start date
I've never shot someone in my life, don't want to unless it's the only option, love guns.
invegauser
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2014
- Messages
- 1,400
i would have to defer to the fact there is a black and white outlook on home invasion by saying to defend or not defend. the details are many though.
not defending ones self is acquiescing to the invaders demands, hiding and calling the cops, running away from the house and talking things out if one is so sly with the tongue. you can always bore them to death with recordings of college professors giving lectures.
defending doesn't mean with guns alone. there is baseball bats, live replays of home alone movies, baseball bats, deadly ninja kittens, baseball bats, playing cards, baseball bats, steak knives, baseball bats, waking up your wife and telling her the guy downstairs called her fat and ugly, baseball bats and quiet honestly throwing a solid haymaker when they don't know your hiding behind the door.
there are non violent ways of defending your home too.
@alasdairm: much respect for not owning a gun and for saying what you did.
not defending ones self is acquiescing to the invaders demands, hiding and calling the cops, running away from the house and talking things out if one is so sly with the tongue. you can always bore them to death with recordings of college professors giving lectures.
defending doesn't mean with guns alone. there is baseball bats, live replays of home alone movies, baseball bats, deadly ninja kittens, baseball bats, playing cards, baseball bats, steak knives, baseball bats, waking up your wife and telling her the guy downstairs called her fat and ugly, baseball bats and quiet honestly throwing a solid haymaker when they don't know your hiding behind the door.
there are non violent ways of defending your home too.
@alasdairm: much respect for not owning a gun and for saying what you did.
Captain.Heroin
Bluelight Crew
Can I ask why, if that’s not too forward?
I would feel safer with one but at the same time I think I would probably end up blowing my brains out.
invegauser
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2014
- Messages
- 1,400
^ or accidentally shooting a toe off.
i'm jk cap'n.
i'm jk cap'n.
treezy z
Bluelighter
I'm 6'4" 243 pounds if I was to invade someone's home (unarmed) and was a bad person a missed haymaker would be a horrible mistake.
Edit: I've never been in a fight in my life, but at my size against most opponents I don't even need to throw a punch if I don't want to, just block theirs, move in, throw them to the ground and they get the point.
Last edited:
treezy z
Bluelighter
For context, a week ago, there was a 20 person home invasion a mile from me, in a nicer part of my city, AND I LIVE IN A LOW CRIME CITY ! shit happens!
Captain.Heroin
Bluelight Crew
Things like this are why I'm all for assault rifles, smg's, machine guns, and what not. There are some people who deserve a fighting chance in a situation like that. Many people also have guns like this and also are totally responsible owners.
Do you have a local news story? I'd love to read it.
treezy z
Bluelighter
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Not everyone is interested in the prospect of stabbing someone, but they don't feel uncomfortable having knives in their house.
I know what comes next, the next argument is that guns are made to shoot people whereas knives serve multiple purposes. I could argue how that's not entirely accurate, but I won't because even if it were true it doesn't change anything. It's still the reality that it can't do anything without a human user and so this whole idea that you would innately be uncomfortable with one sitting in your house doing nothing seems totally irrational to me.
A sword isn't a knife, a sword IS made to kill people, even more so than a gun is made to shoot people. But I've never heard anyone seemingly have a moral issue with a swords mere existence in their home doing nothing.
I don't get it at all, I think it's all irrational nonsense. Which is why I was curious to hear alasdairms perspective, although in hindsight I wish I'd asked it in PM, asking publicly was clearly a mistake. I should have realized it would completely derail the thread.
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
"Why does CE&P have thread titles?" 8(
Captain.Heroin
Bluelight Crew
Uh dude they raided a party
If someone shot at them with a MG 42, AK 47, or some type of SMG uhhhh they all would have fucking died
Unless you have a meth’d out sniper seeing them coming from miles away
Terrible example
I still believe in ALL gun rights but that was a bad example.
invegauser
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2014
- Messages
- 1,400
JessFR said:
i was going to ask is it safe to teach kids to use a pistol to smash walnuts, guess i'm the loon.
JessFR said:
bear comes running at you with a sword and you don't have a gun, only your bare hands and a sword which would you choose?! (same question could be applied to medieval samurai returning via time machine)
JessFR said:
wise words, this is what separates you from the rest of us plebes who can't make mod.
cduggles said:
i laugh, i found it rhetorical and yet i still ask myself the same question out of gobs of evidence provided.
I can't imagine being happy if i lived in a place that was so scary (and i was so legitmately scared of home invasions) that i'd need a machine gun. Or even a handgun.
I guess i'm just accustomed to living in places that (even at their sketchiest) aren't violent or dysfunctional enough to require firearms for self defence.
Maybe this is more about societal discord and/or attempts to force rural "frontier values" onto a population/world (an urbanised world) where they are no longer really relevant.
I don't have a dog in this fight though, really. I know that it's too late for the USA to legislate effective "gun control".
But that doesnt mean that i see the love for guns as being anything other than pathological.
But it is extremely interesting to me that when obama was in power, everyone's excuse for being armed to the teeth was "to protect from government tyranny".
Now that government tyranny is the reality, people say "home invasions!"
Lol - ok
I guess i'm just accustomed to living in places that (even at their sketchiest) aren't violent or dysfunctional enough to require firearms for self defence.
Maybe this is more about societal discord and/or attempts to force rural "frontier values" onto a population/world (an urbanised world) where they are no longer really relevant.
I don't have a dog in this fight though, really. I know that it's too late for the USA to legislate effective "gun control".
But that doesnt mean that i see the love for guns as being anything other than pathological.
But it is extremely interesting to me that when obama was in power, everyone's excuse for being armed to the teeth was "to protect from government tyranny".
Now that government tyranny is the reality, people say "home invasions!"
Lol - ok
treezy z
Bluelighter
I can't imagine being happy if i lived in a place that was so scary (and i was so legitmately scared of home invasions) that i'd need a machine gun. Or even a handgun.
I guess i'm just accustomed to living in places that (even at their sketchiest) aren't violent or dysfunctional enough to require firearms for self defence.
Maybe this is more about societal discord and/or attempts to force rural "frontier values" onto a population/world (an urbanised world) where they are no longer really relevant.
I don't have a dog in this fight though, really. I know that it's too late for the USA to legislate effective "gun control".
But that doesnt mean that i see the love for guns as being anything other than pathological.
But it is extremely interesting to me that when obama was in power, everyone's excuse for being armed to the teeth was "to protect from government tyranny".
Now that government tyranny is the reality, people say "home invasions!"
Lol - ok
No, it's still to protect from government tyranny (make the government have at least some respect/fear for the people.) And if they start rounding people up you can defend yourself.
Ultimately it is to enable the overthrow of a hostile government, like Hitler, Mao, Stalin who made sure everyone was disarmed (but realistically if people were apt to overthrow the government it would have happened by now, such as 2008 giving our money to banks, and it really wouldn't be possible without killing/disabling the internet as the greatest surveillance tool in history)
Captain.Heroin
Bluelight Crew
But it is extremely interesting to me that when obama was in power, everyone's excuse for being armed to the teeth was "to protect from government tyranny".
Now that government tyranny is the reality, people say "home invasions!"
Lol - ok
We don't have to justify having civil rights. The Supreme Court didn't have to excuse their opinion in allowing for gay marriage and we shouldn't be apologetic for our 2nd amendment rights.
Sure - but do people have to justify why they'd rather not have a gun in the house? I mean, look at the response to alasdair's comment a few posts back.
Just sayin' - i appreciate not being in a country full of people with so many weapons and fears.
It seems to me that "civil rights" are selectively applied - look at the attacks on the civil rights im recent times on muslims, immigrants and women, for instance.
A lot of people don't care so much about other people's civil rights - just their own. The ones that justify their own interests/values/beliefs.
I think that stating that you don't need to justify civil rights is a cop-out, frankly.
It doesn't strike me as the way people typically respond when they're confident about the argument they are making.
I mean, i'm pretty much a lifelong atheist - but i care about respecting people's relious freedoms, for instance - because i try to take into account the importance and wider implications of these sort of things.
I guess what i'm saying is that the proliferation of guns removes other civil rights and civil liberties - the amount of unarmed people that get killed by police, for instance, is a pretty serious flow-on effect of gun culture.
The fear (of other people) that prompts folks to cling so dearly to their guns - and their right to have guns - is the same fear that makes jumpy cops get trigger happy.
That affects the psychology of whole country in a number of ways - and of course misunderstandings, accidents and cost innocent lives.
Might be worthwhile to some, but personally i wouldn't trade the safe, chilled nature of life in australia for that "civil right". There is something about not fearing imminent personal danger that appeals to me, and i think it's worth examining.
People get shot and killed by cops here too, but it is thankfully very rare.
Again, i'm not really that interested in discussing US gun policy, because i honestly just cannot relate to the argument that people need all this crazy weaponry for self defence;
Here's the rub though - i don't care that much.
I take no pleasure in american gun violence - as i've said many times, a lot of my family and friends live in the USA, so i understand that it's an issue that is pretty polarised, and pretty deadlocked.
That being the case, i'm not interested in anyone being right or wrong, or trying to convince anyone. It's just interesting to explore different positions.
I would argue that there is a pretty serious cost to gun related "civil rights".
That being the case, i throughly support australia's gun laws, and how physically safe i feel in australia.
The most i've ever had around the house for self defence is a cricket bat (!) - and these days i don't even have that
That's not because i live in posh neighbourhoods or anything like that. I've lived in some pretty rough neighbourhoods by australian standards.
Over here though, where violence exists (and feels threatening on some level) it's pretty fucking rare for people to use guns for the purposes of petty crime or home invasions. Maybe if you're in a gang or whatever, but most people in australia have never had a gun pointed at them (i have though, fwiw)
I don't mean to sound like i'm gloating or being patronising or whatever - but i do think a lot of the justifications for gun ownership rights are a little disingenuous, and that - again - the whole gun-loving culture is pathological. Deeply unhealthy.
Obviously i know there are no easy answers, but i tend to think that the balance between personal safety and civil rights is complicated, and emphasising the "rights" aspect of guns in particular can mean overlooking - or simply ignoring all of the other issues in the discussion.
But yeah, i am not a patriotic person. I don't believe in national pride, and i think it's a joke - however, i am grateful that i grew up in a culture that is largely indifferent towards guns (and people's need to own them).
It makes this a good place to live. I never fear home invasion or random violence from armed strangers.
And i personally have never once ever thought "i wish it were easier to get a gun", though i know some aussies do feel that way.
But i dunno - when i visit america, i don't feel as safe as i do in other parts of the world. Simple as that.
For me, the "right" to live in a community where personal safety isn't an overriding concern isn't something i'd be prepared to jeopardise.
The fear that americans seem to - almost unconsciously - carry around with them (cops fear of being shot, other citizens' fear of cops shooting them, people arming themselves to defend themselves from other people who have armed themselves for the same reason) is something i really don't envy.
Fear is a very effective mechanism of social control, and i'm happy to pass up the right to gun ownership, because i live in a country that doesn't have the same obsession with self-defence - but australia is also a nation with less wealth inequality.
That is another factor that is often totally overlooked with america's gun issues; any society with such a huge gap between rich and poor (often in close physical proximity to one another) is going to produce more fear, resentment and insecurity of one's personal and material safety.
Australia is far from perfect, but the fact that we don't have the same kind of third world level of poverty mixed in with obscene wealth makes something of a difference there too.
I'm very much happy living without a gun in australia, and i think i would be pretty concerned about any change in my living arrangements that made me feel i needed a gun. It's all about quality of life, i suppose.
I have a limited understanding of the US constitution, but i'm curious about the 2nd amendment "government tyranny" thing.
Is the idea that people should have guns in case they need to overthrow governments really the implication of that amendment?
Is it saying that people should have guns in case they need to overthrow the state - in order to write a new constitution?
That's never made much sense to me. Like a self-destructing clause.
Or is it basically saying that people must have guns to overthrow radical governments so they can revert back to the old constitution (the one which has the second amendment about the right to bear arms?)
I guess i've always been confused by that.
I also think it is absurd for anyone to seriously believe any anti-government rebels in the USA could match the firepower of the modern US military.
The US armed forces may have faltered against guerrillas in Vietnam and taliban/rebel groups in Afghanistan, but they were both helped by the difficult landscapes (jungles and rugged mountains/caves) they were fighting in.
Again - i get the argument, but wonder how relevant or logical it still is when applied to the modern world as it exists in 2018.
I mean, we've seen what happened at waco - right?
I understand why people cling to guns like a safety blanket in these times of ever-diminshing democracy, but it seems like a false hope to me. I mean, i know revolutionaries on the other end of the spectrum - like marxist leninists - and i think a lot of their revolutionary aspirations (however well intentioned) are just batshit frazy.
Maybe i'm missing something in the whole idea of the second amendment?
By the way - sorry mods, this has gone way off topic. May be worth moving some of the gun stuff to the more appropriate thread?
Just sayin' - i appreciate not being in a country full of people with so many weapons and fears.
It seems to me that "civil rights" are selectively applied - look at the attacks on the civil rights im recent times on muslims, immigrants and women, for instance.
A lot of people don't care so much about other people's civil rights - just their own. The ones that justify their own interests/values/beliefs.
I think that stating that you don't need to justify civil rights is a cop-out, frankly.
It doesn't strike me as the way people typically respond when they're confident about the argument they are making.
I mean, i'm pretty much a lifelong atheist - but i care about respecting people's relious freedoms, for instance - because i try to take into account the importance and wider implications of these sort of things.
I guess what i'm saying is that the proliferation of guns removes other civil rights and civil liberties - the amount of unarmed people that get killed by police, for instance, is a pretty serious flow-on effect of gun culture.
The fear (of other people) that prompts folks to cling so dearly to their guns - and their right to have guns - is the same fear that makes jumpy cops get trigger happy.
That affects the psychology of whole country in a number of ways - and of course misunderstandings, accidents and cost innocent lives.
Might be worthwhile to some, but personally i wouldn't trade the safe, chilled nature of life in australia for that "civil right". There is something about not fearing imminent personal danger that appeals to me, and i think it's worth examining.
People get shot and killed by cops here too, but it is thankfully very rare.
Again, i'm not really that interested in discussing US gun policy, because i honestly just cannot relate to the argument that people need all this crazy weaponry for self defence;
Here's the rub though - i don't care that much.
I take no pleasure in american gun violence - as i've said many times, a lot of my family and friends live in the USA, so i understand that it's an issue that is pretty polarised, and pretty deadlocked.
That being the case, i'm not interested in anyone being right or wrong, or trying to convince anyone. It's just interesting to explore different positions.
I would argue that there is a pretty serious cost to gun related "civil rights".
That being the case, i throughly support australia's gun laws, and how physically safe i feel in australia.
The most i've ever had around the house for self defence is a cricket bat (!) - and these days i don't even have that
That's not because i live in posh neighbourhoods or anything like that. I've lived in some pretty rough neighbourhoods by australian standards.
Over here though, where violence exists (and feels threatening on some level) it's pretty fucking rare for people to use guns for the purposes of petty crime or home invasions. Maybe if you're in a gang or whatever, but most people in australia have never had a gun pointed at them (i have though, fwiw)
I don't mean to sound like i'm gloating or being patronising or whatever - but i do think a lot of the justifications for gun ownership rights are a little disingenuous, and that - again - the whole gun-loving culture is pathological. Deeply unhealthy.
Obviously i know there are no easy answers, but i tend to think that the balance between personal safety and civil rights is complicated, and emphasising the "rights" aspect of guns in particular can mean overlooking - or simply ignoring all of the other issues in the discussion.
But yeah, i am not a patriotic person. I don't believe in national pride, and i think it's a joke - however, i am grateful that i grew up in a culture that is largely indifferent towards guns (and people's need to own them).
It makes this a good place to live. I never fear home invasion or random violence from armed strangers.
And i personally have never once ever thought "i wish it were easier to get a gun", though i know some aussies do feel that way.
But i dunno - when i visit america, i don't feel as safe as i do in other parts of the world. Simple as that.
For me, the "right" to live in a community where personal safety isn't an overriding concern isn't something i'd be prepared to jeopardise.
The fear that americans seem to - almost unconsciously - carry around with them (cops fear of being shot, other citizens' fear of cops shooting them, people arming themselves to defend themselves from other people who have armed themselves for the same reason) is something i really don't envy.
Fear is a very effective mechanism of social control, and i'm happy to pass up the right to gun ownership, because i live in a country that doesn't have the same obsession with self-defence - but australia is also a nation with less wealth inequality.
That is another factor that is often totally overlooked with america's gun issues; any society with such a huge gap between rich and poor (often in close physical proximity to one another) is going to produce more fear, resentment and insecurity of one's personal and material safety.
Australia is far from perfect, but the fact that we don't have the same kind of third world level of poverty mixed in with obscene wealth makes something of a difference there too.
I'm very much happy living without a gun in australia, and i think i would be pretty concerned about any change in my living arrangements that made me feel i needed a gun. It's all about quality of life, i suppose.
I have a limited understanding of the US constitution, but i'm curious about the 2nd amendment "government tyranny" thing.
Is the idea that people should have guns in case they need to overthrow governments really the implication of that amendment?
Is it saying that people should have guns in case they need to overthrow the state - in order to write a new constitution?
That's never made much sense to me. Like a self-destructing clause.
Or is it basically saying that people must have guns to overthrow radical governments so they can revert back to the old constitution (the one which has the second amendment about the right to bear arms?)
I guess i've always been confused by that.
I also think it is absurd for anyone to seriously believe any anti-government rebels in the USA could match the firepower of the modern US military.
The US armed forces may have faltered against guerrillas in Vietnam and taliban/rebel groups in Afghanistan, but they were both helped by the difficult landscapes (jungles and rugged mountains/caves) they were fighting in.
Again - i get the argument, but wonder how relevant or logical it still is when applied to the modern world as it exists in 2018.
I mean, we've seen what happened at waco - right?
I understand why people cling to guns like a safety blanket in these times of ever-diminshing democracy, but it seems like a false hope to me. I mean, i know revolutionaries on the other end of the spectrum - like marxist leninists - and i think a lot of their revolutionary aspirations (however well intentioned) are just batshit frazy.
Maybe i'm missing something in the whole idea of the second amendment?
By the way - sorry mods, this has gone way off topic. May be worth moving some of the gun stuff to the more appropriate thread?
Last edited:
Cream Gravy?
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 12,447
Maybe if you've never been around firearms, they sound frightening. Most social gatherings in homes I attend these days inevitably end up with the home owner giving me a tour of their gun collection, and I legitimately enjoy it. I'm probably gonna get a firearm myself soon as I'll be away from home for months and want Mrs. Gravy to have protection, and I know a great number of folks who have been the victims of attempted home invasions.
I think people outside the U.S. can't fathom such an existence, but here guns are just part of life and we LIKE it that way. My father-in-law collects guns (I think he's well past 30 in total now), my friends are always inviting me shooting. I'm about as left as left gets around here and I'm totally okay with guns because they aren't causing any issues.
The assumption that the presence of firearms=violence is extremely misguided. The classic trope 'guns don't kill people' is still true and always will be. People choose to exercise violence, and as we've seen in Europe, people will find ways to commit mass killings either way.
Also, the idea of a popular uprising being thwarted by the military here is predicated on the assumption that the commanding officers of those forces have no conscience and see no evil in killing American citizens for an illegitimate government, which is a huge stretch. A CO in the U.S. Army doesn't swear an oath to the U.S. president like enlisted men do, they swear an oath to upholding morality and defending the country from all evils. It is their duty to judge whether the orders passed to them can be carried out morally and within reason, and if they see that it's against the people, and against the greater good, they can choose to disobey those orders under certain circumstances. I've met a number of young Lieutenants and Ensigns who will be the leaders of our forces during a hypothetical uprising in the coming decades and I just do not see them giving the orders to brutally murder swathes of their own kin.
I think people outside the U.S. can't fathom such an existence, but here guns are just part of life and we LIKE it that way. My father-in-law collects guns (I think he's well past 30 in total now), my friends are always inviting me shooting. I'm about as left as left gets around here and I'm totally okay with guns because they aren't causing any issues.
The assumption that the presence of firearms=violence is extremely misguided. The classic trope 'guns don't kill people' is still true and always will be. People choose to exercise violence, and as we've seen in Europe, people will find ways to commit mass killings either way.
Also, the idea of a popular uprising being thwarted by the military here is predicated on the assumption that the commanding officers of those forces have no conscience and see no evil in killing American citizens for an illegitimate government, which is a huge stretch. A CO in the U.S. Army doesn't swear an oath to the U.S. president like enlisted men do, they swear an oath to upholding morality and defending the country from all evils. It is their duty to judge whether the orders passed to them can be carried out morally and within reason, and if they see that it's against the people, and against the greater good, they can choose to disobey those orders under certain circumstances. I've met a number of young Lieutenants and Ensigns who will be the leaders of our forces during a hypothetical uprising in the coming decades and I just do not see them giving the orders to brutally murder swathes of their own kin.
Last edited:
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
The 2nd Amendment does in fact come from the idea that the people need to be able to be armed against tyranny. The Constitution was drafted during/after the war with Britain for independence. Basically, the people rising up and casting off an oppressive government. The founding fathers wanted to be sure it would always be possible to do so again. Of course I seriously doubt in this day and age, we could do such a thing, or would.
^ indeed.
i've said it before - in the past few years the government lied about weapons of mass destruction to take the country to war, carried out the most widespread assault on personal privacy in the form of warrant less wire-tapping and the 'patriot' act, handed over millions of dollars of public money to the ceos and others at banks who broke the law and plunged the country into a massive debt crisis. the list goes on.
what's it actually going to take for all you gun-totin' 'patriots' to actually do something about this tyranny? or are you all talk and no action?
alasdair
i've said it before - in the past few years the government lied about weapons of mass destruction to take the country to war, carried out the most widespread assault on personal privacy in the form of warrant less wire-tapping and the 'patriot' act, handed over millions of dollars of public money to the ceos and others at banks who broke the law and plunged the country into a massive debt crisis. the list goes on.
what's it actually going to take for all you gun-totin' 'patriots' to actually do something about this tyranny? or are you all talk and no action?
that's a rather broad generalization, isn't it?
alasdair
swilow
Bluelight Crew
edit: I split a bunch of posts from the "why is bluelight so far-left" thread, and tidied them up too.
I wonder if all the guns in your community embolden people to commit all these attempted home invasions.
I am curious in how many of this "great number" did a gun actively protect the homeowner? Do you therefore know a great number of people that have killed/shot in self-defense or was it a question of just waving the gun around that saved all of these lives?
I'm not even sure gun rights or whatever have anything to do with right or left. Guns were removed from Australian society by a right-wing government, not left. Plenty of left-wing governments have been happy to use guns to consolidate power.
From my limited perspective, it seems that the most convincing reason for gun ownership is that Americans "like" them. The argument against government tyranny is really weak on the ground. Certainly, I do not believe that the gun owners of America would ever be able to defeat the worlds biggest military using hand-guns; further to that, in countries with low rates of gun ownership, you tend to actually see more democratic governments. It doesn't seem that there is really much of a connection between owning a gun and being "free" in a social sense, at least.
Again though, if you are trying to say that firearms are going to protect your wife, for example, you're tacitly stating that firearms=violence; I don't think many attempted home invasions are thwarted when the victim uses their firearm to slowly hypnotise the would-be home invasion attempter. It seems that the guns used in self-defense are maybe more violent than the guns used in home invasions.
I have sympathy for the idea that the government shouldn't be able to dictate the sort of objects I own, but I also think the freedom to own a tool is pretty trivial compared to many other freedoms that I do have.
I wonder if all the guns in your community embolden people to commit all these attempted home invasions.
I am curious in how many of this "great number" did a gun actively protect the homeowner? Do you therefore know a great number of people that have killed/shot in self-defense or was it a question of just waving the gun around that saved all of these lives?
I'm not even sure gun rights or whatever have anything to do with right or left. Guns were removed from Australian society by a right-wing government, not left. Plenty of left-wing governments have been happy to use guns to consolidate power.
From my limited perspective, it seems that the most convincing reason for gun ownership is that Americans "like" them. The argument against government tyranny is really weak on the ground. Certainly, I do not believe that the gun owners of America would ever be able to defeat the worlds biggest military using hand-guns; further to that, in countries with low rates of gun ownership, you tend to actually see more democratic governments. It doesn't seem that there is really much of a connection between owning a gun and being "free" in a social sense, at least.
Again though, if you are trying to say that firearms are going to protect your wife, for example, you're tacitly stating that firearms=violence; I don't think many attempted home invasions are thwarted when the victim uses their firearm to slowly hypnotise the would-be home invasion attempter. It seems that the guns used in self-defense are maybe more violent than the guns used in home invasions.
I have sympathy for the idea that the government shouldn't be able to dictate the sort of objects I own, but I also think the freedom to own a tool is pretty trivial compared to many other freedoms that I do have.
Last edited: