Why Do People Like Guns So Much?

[Deleted member 7901]

You are not considering that when guns are illegal it becomes way harder for criminals to get them since they are simply not available. Here in Italy for example the only criminals that have access to guns are criminal organizations that 99% of the time don't bother civilians and only kill each other. The average thug gangster wannabe does not have any access to guns.

I don't think that as an italian you have the right of advocating to anything similar to whatever you have there back in home,
your country is a prime example of what happens when you monopolize guns

 

[Deleted member 4416]

I don't think that as an italian you have the right of advocating to anything similar to whatever you have there back in home,
your country is a prime example of what happens when you monopolize guns

?

 

[Deleted member 7901]

If you believe you have arguments for why what I am saying is wrong, I suggest you present them instead of attempting to deflect them by putting the focus on me not being american, or using a word you don't like.

You say I don't get the "full picture". Please point to exactly what factors it is that makes my argument not true for USA specifically.

I have already been in this, its a waste of time debating you, it feels like debating with redditors

 

[Deleted member 7901]

?

The Mafia controls your country

 

[Deleted member 6382]

tagging @tapout & @Tony for high iq analysis

Seeing 5.5ft tall soyboy faggots talk shit to somebody literally 3 times bigger than them without even the slightest fear because they have been so de-conditioned to fear physically superior males on top of having having guns is extremely and utterly cringe inducing.

Idk how americans dont kill each other 24/7. In the balkans if people owned guns murder would be a daily occurunce many times even myself my anger has gotten the best of me and i wouldve probably put a slug in someones skull

 

[Deleted member 5185]

I have already been in this, its a waste of time debating you, it feels like debating with redditors

You've been in what?

Very interesting argument. You can't refute my arguments, so you just give up and say its like "debating with redditors". Very impressive, you sound very intelligent.

Let me attempt, one last time, to make you see the light:

You believe in your personal right to own a gun is important. You envision scenarios where a criminal is attempting to hurt you or your family. You envision that criminal attempting to take your life, kidnap you or do other terrible acts. In such a situation, clearly owning a gun would be better than not owning a gun. This line of reasoning overshadows any logical relationship you can have to the policies of gun ownership and accesibility.

Try looking at it from an objective point of view - If the US has 300 million guns, and you could somehow reduce that number of guns to 10 million, does it make sense to say that gun violence would go down? Of course. Not only because of there being less guns around, but also because there is a snowball effect where the more guns you have, the more triggers will be pulled in any altercation. This is so painfully obvious, yet you cannot see it, or you do not put much weight on it, because of your emotional attachment to the scenario where you would need your gun.

On top of that, the criminal climate in the US is a lot worse than in most of western Europe, for instance. Still, the reality is that the envisioned scenario is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, and it is way more likely that you owning a gun in such a scenario would enlargen the risk you and your family is in - you owning a gun personally would make the situation MORE DANGEROUS. Now that is in todays climate. If guns weren't easily available, civilians would be safer both from each other, the police and other criminals.

 

[Deleted member 4416]

I don't think that as an italian you have the right of advocating to anything similar to whatever you have there back in home,
your country is a prime example of what happens when you monopolize guns

You're probably referring to the criminal organizations. They have been steadly losing power since the 80's and right now are at an all time low. There was an huge military effort in the last 40 years that has made the italian mafia weak af, obviously is still a big problem but not even remotely close to what the stigma would suggest but that's an off-topic.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

[1] So its basically something you pulled out of your ass. Again though, it doesn't matter. If, by chance, China is filled to the brim with home invasion murder gangs, so be it. I'm not speaking about China. For all I know, the logical thing is to always be wearing acid to defend yourself against child gangs attacking you in dark allies.

[2] Hmm, no. I have a realistic outlook on the criminal mind, whilst your outlook is more based on scary movies.

[3] Lets say its a 50% chance. Remember, the home invasion gang coming to kill and rape you and your wife definitely has way more experience than you, considering this is what they do. They likely are very experienced both with guns and how to swiftly murder regular people that just happens to own guns and practice at the gun range. Thats how they're still alive, after all.

[4] This very attitude has gotten several people killed. People so far up in their ass about their fantasy of protecting their homes from intruders have ended up killing friends and relatives because they shoot to kill the second they see a shadowy figure. This happens all the time.

[5] What statistics, exactly? What am I leaving out? My argument is based on pure logic. I'm as far from a liberal as they come, and even if I were hardcore liberal or hardcore conservative - that doesn't change the validity of my argument. It simply isn't relevant.

It's not filled to the brim, but when it does happen everybody dies. It happens regularly enough to be significant. Just google "mainland China home invasions".

"Lets say its a 50% chance. Remember, the home invasion gang coming to kill and rape you and your wife definitely has way more experience than you, considering this is what they do. They likely are very experienced both with guns and how to swiftly murder regular people that just happens to own guns and practice at the gun range. Thats how they're still alive, after all."

Lol, now who's been watching movies? That's not the case at all. The chance is much more than 50% in favor of the homeowner. And I never said a home invader would be coming with the intent to rape or murder anyone. Quit trying to put words in my mouth. The point is I don't know what their intentions might be, and I don't owe it to them to give them the benefit of the doubt. They could have been aiming to steal pencils and notebooks for all I care. If you enter my home unlawfully while I'm occupying it I will kill you.

And quit being stupid. Any fool can murder someone that they've got control over. It doesn't take a trained killer.

Do what you want with your life. I'd rather have a higher chance of being killed and still have a measure of control over a situation than to be completely at the mercy of someone else in favor of statistical safety, like a cuck.

 

[Deleted member 7901]

You're probably referring to the criminal organizations. They have been steadly losing power since the 80's and right now are at an all time low. There was an huge military effort in the last 40 years that has made the italian mafia weak af, obviously is still a big problem but not even remotely close to what the stigma would suggest but that's an off-topic.

They are just growing, they become so big that they are part of the government in some senses, and they don't need to operate as they used to
also when I was in Italy we were warned multiple times to not mess around by our guide because of the maifa
and we spoke with some taxi driver which spoke about them, we were in rome, and in the north and south parts as well

 

[Deleted member 4416]

They are just growing, they become so big that they are part of the government in some senses, and they don't need to operate as they used to
also when I was in Italy we were warned multiple times to not mess around by our guide because of the maifa
and we spoke with some taxi driver which spoke about them, we were in rome, and in the north and south parts as well

Don't speak about something you don't know

 

[Deleted member 7901]

You've been in what?

Very interesting argument. You can't refute my arguments, so you just give up and say its like "debating with redditors". Very impressive, you sound very intelligent.

Let me attempt, one last time, to make you see the light:

You believe in your personal right to own a gun is important. You envision scenarios where a criminal is attempting to hurt you or your family. You envision that criminal attempting to take your life, kidnap you or do other terrible acts. In such a situation, clearly owning a gun would be better than not owning a gun. This line of reasoning overshadows any logical relationship you can have to the policies of gun ownership and accesibility.

Try looking at it from an objective point of view - If the US has 300 million guns, and you could somehow reduce that number of guns to 10 million, does it make sense to say that gun violence would go down? Of course. Not only because of there being less guns around, but also because there is a snowball effect where the more guns you have, the more triggers will be pulled in any altercation. This is so painfully obvious, yet you cannot see it, or you do not put much weight on it, because of your emotional attachment to the scenario where you would need your gun.

On top of that, the criminal climate in the US is a lot worse than in most of western Europe, for instance. Still, the reality is that the envisioned scenario is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, and it is way more likely that you owning a gun in such a scenario would enlargen the risk you and your family is in - you owning a gun personally would make the situation MORE DANGEROUS. Now that is in todays climate. If guns weren't easily available, civilians would be safer both from each other, the police and other criminals.

I have debated with you before and it was just endless arguments which had no much though, its kinda like debating a euronpc

 

[Deleted member 5185]

[1]It's not filled to the brim, but when it does happen everybody dies. It happens regularly enough to be significant. Just google "mainland China home invasions".

"Lets say its a 50% chance. Remember, the home invasion gang coming to kill and rape you and your wife definitely has way more experience than you, considering this is what they do. They likely are very experienced both with guns and how to swiftly murder regular people that just happens to own guns and practice at the gun range. Thats how they're still alive, after all."

[2]Lol, now who's been watching movies? That's not the case at all. The chance is much more than 50% in favor of the homeowner. [3]And I never said a home invader would be coming with the intent to rape or murder anyone. Quit trying to put words in my mouth. The point is I don't know what their intentions might be, and I don't owe it to them to give them the benefit of the doubt. [4]They could have been aiming to steal pencils and notebooks for all I care. If you enter my home unlawfully while I'm occupying it I will kill you.

And quit being stupid. Any fool can murder someone that they've got control over. It doesn't take a trained killer.

Do what you want with your life. [5]I'd rather have a higher chance of being killed and still have a measure of control over a situation than to be completely at the mercy of someone else in favor of statistical safety, like a cuck.

[1] I tried googling "mainland China home invasion statistics" and to the surprise of nobody, murder rates in relation to other crimes were very low. https://www.statista.com/statistics/224776/number-of-crimes-in-china-by-type/ (not sure if the link works, it worked once for me then it was paywalled)

[2] I guess you didn't pick up on my sarcasm. You're the one creating a scenario of killer home invaders, not me. I was just pointing out how ridiculous that is, and if it were the case they would just be more experienced than you, considering thats what they do - invade homes and murder people. You're not a professional killer, they'll screw you up no problem.

[3] So they're not there to murder you, but you insist on giving them a reason by 1) having a gun and creating a violent and deadly altercation and 2) standing behind politics that ensures that any criminal will need to expect good faith civilians to own guns. Makes absolutely zero sense.

[4] I understand that you think you come across as a tough guy, but you don't - and what you're saying isn't making any sense. There is no logical reason to kill someone over trying to kill your notebooks. There is no logical reason creating a shootout situation and risk your own life and your family's life because someone attempts to steal your notebooks.

[5] This just makes zero sense. An analogy:

"I'd rather fly airplanes myself. Sure, you letting the pilot fly the airplane might be objectively safer, HOWEVER I'd rather fly the airplane myself and remain in control than to put my life in the hands of another man". It just doesn't make sense. The reality is that it is more dangerous to turn any altercation into a violent one, it is better to not create that situation with a gun. That is true for the situation now, and doubly true if gun laws were stricter so there weren't so many guns in circulation. It is so obvious that less guns = less gun violence.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

I have debated with you before and it was just endless arguments which had no much though, its kinda like debating a euronpc

Whatever, I'll just put you on my ignore list. I stay on topic and make an effort, you insist on being a dumb autist.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

[1] I tried googling "mainland China home invasion statistics" and to the surprise of nobody, murder rates in relation to other crimes were very low. https://www.statista.com/statistics/224776/number-of-crimes-in-china-by-type/ (not sure if the link works, it worked once for me then it was paywalled)

[2] I guess you didn't pick up on my sarcasm. You're the one creating a scenario of killer home invaders, not me. I was just pointing out how ridiculous that is, and if it were the case they would just be more experienced than you, considering thats what they do - invade homes and murder people. You're not a professional killer, they'll screw you up no problem.

[3] So they're not there to murder you, but you insist on giving them a reason by 1) having a gun and creating a violent and deadly altercation and 2) standing behind politics that ensures that any criminal will need to expect good faith civilians to own guns. Makes absolutely zero sense.

[4] I understand that you think you come across as a tough guy, but you don't - and what you're saying isn't making any sense. There is no logical reason to kill someone over trying to kill your notebooks. There is no logical reason creating a shootout situation and risk your own life and your family's life because someone attempts to steal your notebooks.

[5] This just makes zero sense. An analogy:

"I'd rather fly airplanes myself. Sure, you letting the pilot fly the airplane might be objectively safer, HOWEVER I'd rather fly the airplane myself and remain in control than to put my life in the hands of another man". It just doesn't make sense. The reality is that it is more dangerous to turn any altercation into a violent one, it is better to not create that situation with a gun. That is true for the situation now, and doubly true if gun laws were stricter so there weren't so many guns in circulation. It is so obvious that less guns = less gun violence.

The point is I'm not gonna be at the mercy of someone who would invade my home. And I wouldn't kill them because they might be there to steal books. I would kill them because I don't know what they might be there for. They're in my house and they pose a threat to me and my family. I'm not willing to hope for the best and find out what their intentions might be. It has nothing to do with being "tough".

Your pilot analogy is beyond stupid.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

The point is I'm not gonna be at the mercy of someone who would invade my home. And I wouldn't kill them because they might be there to steal books. I would kill them because I don't know what they might be there for. They're in my house and they pose a threat to me and my family. I'm not willing to hope for the best and find out what their intentions might be. It has nothing to do with being "tough".

Your pilot analogy is beyond stupid.

Again, you fail to recognize that the fact that home owners own a gun, and more specifically pulling a gun and starting a firefight is way more dangerous than to tackle a home invasion through other means. Thats before considering the massive toll widespread civil gun ownership takes on society.

The analogy works because it is the overall risk assessment that needs to be made - just because you're in "control" by owning a gun, just like you're "in control" by piloting the plane yourself, the overall risk is actually lower by not owning (or pulling) the gun versus just accepting that you're not in control of the situation, but the overall risk is lower.

 

[Deleted member 13076]

OP is a leftwing SWJ cuck faggot

 

[Uglybrazilian]

Well if our history is correct, the first proto guns were made in China. They used it coz they got tired of being mogged by chads like the Mongols and needed something to even the score.

And you can see to this day, the invention still rings true to its purpose. Doesn't matter how great your genetics are, it won't stop a bullet going through your skull. Spits at nature in its face.

This is not a good thing imo

 

[Bitch]

 

[ToursOverBoyo2020]

Well, whatever America becomes at least we'll still be armed.

So you don’t care about what the country becomes as long as you have a gun? Jfl

 

[Deleted member 12002]

Again, you fail to recognize that the fact that home owners own a gun, and more specifically pulling a gun and starting a firefight is way more dangerous than to tackle a home invasion through other means. Thats before considering the massive toll widespread civil gun ownership takes on society.

The analogy works because it is the overall risk assessment that needs to be made - just because you're in "control" by owning a gun, just like you're "in control" by piloting the plane yourself, the overall risk is actually lower by not owning (or pulling) the gun versus just accepting that you're not in control of the situation, but the overall risk is lower.

Who says there would be any "firefight"? Most times when a homeowner shoots and kills an intruder the intruder never even gets to squeeze off any rounds, if they're armed themselves.

And how do you know that it is a fact that owning and using a gun during a home invasion more dangerous?

Anyways, I think I've already made myself pretty clear on the issue. Even if it was more dangerous I still wouldn't care. I'm gonna have the advantage over anyone who would break into my home whether they're armed or not. Nobody breaks into a home if they think the people inside are armed. I'm gonna have the element of surprise on my side, and I'll know the layout of my house much better. I'm probably gonna hear them breaking in and have them in my sights before they even see me or know where I'm at. What do you think I'm gonna do? Yell at them that I've got a gun and they better not come around the corner? No, they will be surprised. I won't need to "pull a gun on them". It will already be pointed at them by the time they're able to see me, if they even get the chance.

Your pilot analogy is stupid because, while he might be a pilot (have and know how to use a weapon), I'm not only a pilot myself but we're inside my plane. You let somebody else fly your plane if it makes you feel safer. I'll do what I'm going to do.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

So you don’t care about what the country becomes as long as you have a gun? Jfl

No, because I care what the country becomes is precisely why I'll have a gun. We're all gonna die one day anyways.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

[1]Who says there would be any "firefight"? Most times when a homeowner shoots and kills an intruder the intruder never even gets to squeeze off any rounds, if they're armed themselves.

[2]And how do you know that it is a fact that owning and using a gun during a home invasion more dangerous?

Anyways, I think I've already made myself pretty clear on the issue. Even if it was more dangerous I still wouldn't care. I'm gonna have the advantage over anyone who would break into my home whether they're armed or not. [3]Nobody breaks into a home if they think the people inside are armed. I'm gonna have the element of surprise on my side, and I'll know the layout of my house much better. I'm probably gonna hear them breaking in and have them in my sights before they even see me or know where I'm at. What do you think I'm gonna do? Yell at them that I've got a gun and they better not come around the corner? No, they will be surprised. I won't need to "pull a gun on them". It will already be pointed at them by the time they're able to see me, if they even get the chance.

[4]Your pilot analogy is stupid because, while he might be a pilot (have and know how to use a weapon), I'm not only a pilot myself but we're inside my plane. You let somebody else fly your plane if it makes you feel safer. I'll do what I'm going to do.

[1] Can we just agree that you pulling a gun obviously makes the chances of a deadly fire fight happening? Of course you could end up shooting him immediately, and he could end up shooting you immediately, or anything inbetween. The point is that pulling a gun on someone else who also has a gun will result in someone being shot or a firefight ensuing - which is not necessarily the case if only one party has a gun.

[2] Its simply logical. Lets assume the following scenarios

1) You don't have a gun, the intruder has no intention of shooting unless he has to - no gun fire necessary
2) You don't have a gun, the intruder wants to murder you - you're dead
3) You do have a gun, the intruder has no intention of shooting unless he has to - you pull the gun, someone dies / gunfight ensues
4) You do have a gun, the intruder has intention of shooting - someone dies / gunfight ensues

As you can see, you pulling a gun essentially guarantees someone dying or being seriously injured. You not having a gun leaves it up to the intruder whether he is a murder or not. It is more likely that an intruder wants to steal something, not aimlessly murder. Again, we're still considering this with the current legislations.

[3] But they don't know, do they? Even the criminals are smart enough to avoid all out gun fights. But rest assured, they will shoot to kill if they deem it necessary. You getting to make use of your knowledge of your home depends on a variety of factors - for instance, if there are multiple intruders, you might get shot to death just by engaging in a gun fight.


[4] Its obviously not supposed to represent a 1:1 risk / reward relationship - if you tried to pilot the plane, you would likely crash and die 100% - which obviously isn't the case when having a gun for self defence. The point is simply to illustrate that it is illogical to say "I'd rather be in charge even though the overall risk is higher".

 

[Deleted member 12002]

[1] Can we just agree that you pulling a gun obviously makes the chances of a deadly fire fight happening? Of course you could end up shooting him immediately, and he could end up shooting you immediately, or anything inbetween. The point is that pulling a gun on someone else who also has a gun will result in someone being shot or a firefight ensuing - which is not necessarily the case if only one party has a gun.

[2] Its simply logical. Lets assume the following scenarios

1) You don't have a gun, the intruder has no intention of shooting unless he has to - no gun fire necessary
2) You don't have a gun, the intruder wants to murder you - you're dead
3) You do have a gun, the intruder has no intention of shooting unless he has to - you pull the gun, someone dies / gunfight ensues
4) You do have a gun, the intruder has intention of shooting - someone dies / gunfight ensues

As you can see, you pulling a gun essentially guarantees someone dying or being seriously injured. You not having a gun leaves it up to the intruder whether he is a murder or not. It is more likely that an intruder wants to steal something, not aimlessly murder. Again, we're still considering this with the current legislations.

[3] But they don't know, do they? Even the criminals are smart enough to avoid all out gun fights. But rest assured, they will shoot to kill if they deem it necessary. You getting to make use of your knowledge of your home depends on a variety of factors - for instance, if there are multiple intruders, you might get shot to death just by engaging in a gun fight.


[4] Its obviously not supposed to represent a 1:1 risk / reward relationship - if you tried to pilot the plane, you would likely crash and die 100% - which obviously isn't the case when having a gun for self defence. The point is simply to illustrate that it is illogical to say "I'd rather be in charge even though the overall risk is higher".

1. Well let me stop you, because I don't agree that I'd be "pulling" a gun. In my home I'm not the one likely to be surprised and startled by an invader's presence. I'll probably already have it out long before either of us are able to get a visual on the other. He's more likely the one to be surprised. But yes, obviously a firefight can only occur when two partys have a gun.

2. Me having a gun while I'm occupying my home as it's being invaded essentially ensures that someone dies? Yes, you're damn straight it does. One of us will die.

3. I make no mistake that he, or they, will shoot to kill if they end up shooting. As for your other point, many homeowners with a gun have successfully fended of multiple armed home invaders with no injury to themselves or their loved ones.

4. It's not illogical at all. It depends on what your values are. I'm not willing to potentially give someone control over my household and be at their mercy, even if my risk of ending up dead were increased. I value autonomy in my home more than safety, regardless of whatever the odds might be.

 

[ToursOverBoyo2020]

[1] Can we just agree that you pulling a gun obviously makes the chances of a deadly fire fight happening? Of course you could end up shooting him immediately, and he could end up shooting you immediately, or anything inbetween. The point is that pulling a gun on someone else who also has a gun will result in someone being shot or a firefight ensuing - which is not necessarily the case if only one party has a gun.

[2] Its simply logical. Lets assume the following scenarios

1) You don't have a gun, the intruder has no intention of shooting unless he has to - no gun fire necessary
2) You don't have a gun, the intruder wants to murder you - you're dead
3) You do have a gun, the intruder has no intention of shooting unless he has to - you pull the gun, someone dies / gunfight ensues
4) You do have a gun, the intruder has intention of shooting - someone dies / gunfight ensues

As you can see, you pulling a gun essentially guarantees someone dying or being seriously injured. You not having a gun leaves it up to the intruder whether he is a murder or not. It is more likely that an intruder wants to steal something, not aimlessly murder. Again, we're still considering this with the current legislations.

[3] But they don't know, do they? Even the criminals are smart enough to avoid all out gun fights. But rest assured, they will shoot to kill if they deem it necessary. You getting to make use of your knowledge of your home depends on a variety of factors - for instance, if there are multiple intruders, you might get shot to death just by engaging in a gun fight.


[4] Its obviously not supposed to represent a 1:1 risk / reward relationship - if you tried to pilot the plane, you would likely crash and die 100% - which obviously isn't the case when having a gun for self defence. The point is simply to illustrate that it is illogical to say "I'd rather be in charge even though the overall risk is higher".

High iq post

 

[Deleted member 6186]

This is not a good thing imo

Yeah if you're the one who lucked out in the genetic lottery.

So if you didn't luck out, do you just lie down and say I deserve to die to those chad aggressors coz God decided to give them better physical genetics?

 

[ShowerMaxxing]

Wdym back in the old day, even cavemen had spears and clubs to win fights. Weapons are far superior, humans learned that long ago. Even a rock or hard stick will give you a major advantage.

 

[ShowerMaxxing]

Who would I need to defend myself from if people didn't have guns? I workout and am in good shape and could take care of the vast majority of the population. But in a society where everyone has guns now everyone is a threat and I have to defend myself from even the weakest foid who can easily shoot and kill me from behind.

Overestimating your fighting ability, just because you "lift heavy weight, big strong" classic gymcel cope. Anyone with even a month training in combat would beat you up assuming weight is similar.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

1. Well let me stop you, because I don't agree that I'd be "pulling" a gun. In my home I'm not the one likely to be surprised and startled by an invader's presence. I'll probably already have it out long before either of us are able to get a visual on the other. He's more likely the one to be surprised. But yes, obviously a firefight can only occur when two partys have a gun.

2. Me having a gun while I'm occupying my home as it's being invaded essentially ensures that someone dies? Yes, you're damn straight it does. One of us will die.

3. I make no mistake that he, or they, will shoot to kill if they end up shooting. As for your other point, many homeowners with a gun have successfully fended of multiple armed home invaders with no injury to themselves or their loved ones.

4. It's not illogical at all. It depends on what your values are. I'm not willing to potentially give someone control over my household and be at their mercy, even if my risk of ending up dead were increased. I value autonomy in my home more than safety, regardless of whatever the odds might be.

1. Maybe my non-native English is failing me here - what I mean by pulling a gun is essentially just having it ready, not first presenting yourself to the intruders, then reaching for it.

2. Exactly. So you're risking you and your families only chance at this thing we called life.

3. Of course many situations have been averted by the home owners having a gun. I'm not saying it cannot possibly be useful in self defence situation - that obviously isn't the case. The question is whether it is better to have a gun and use it indiscriminately against intruders or not, and secondarily whether it is better that the general good faith civilian has guns for self defence against criminals or not.

4. But that is illogical. If you're telling me you value being able to kill someone who breaks and enters over you & your families lives, that to me is clearly illogical!

edit: I just want to say that I appreciate the civil discussion we're able to have here.

 

[Deleted member 7901]

Overestimating your fighting ability, just because you "lift heavy weight, big strong" classic gymcel cope. Anyone with even a month training in combat would beat you up assuming weight is similar.

the people in this post make lol hard
all of them are still stuck in this stage of thinking they are the strongest and that
and looking at those kind of fights as an ego thing,
I guess that this is what happens to you when you never enter into
a fight in your early life

 

[Deleted member 275]

JFL if you dont have a gun.
All you can do is cry for help from the government and its police-force in desperate time of need.

Men that have responsibility and take control over their lives (illegaly) possess firearms.

 

[PanMagister]

@MaherGOAT
If someone come to you and bit to face - don't punch him back! It would be stress him and you could be beaten harder. Better cover up like little pussy and let him bit you till it boring him.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

1. Maybe my non-native English is failing me here - what I mean by pulling a gun is essentially just having it ready, not first presenting yourself to the intruders, then reaching for it.

2. Exactly. So you're risking you and your families only chance at this thing we called life.

3. Of course many situations have been averted by the home owners having a gun. I'm not saying it cannot possibly be useful in self defence situation - that obviously isn't the case. The question is whether it is better to have a gun and use it indiscriminately against intruders or not, and secondarily whether it is better that the general good faith civilian has guns for self defence against criminals or not.

4. But that is illogical. If you're telling me you value being able to kill someone who breaks and enters over you & your families lives, that to me is clearly illogical

I'd say my family's life is already at risk the moment an intruder invades our home, whether I'm armed or not.

I'm not valuing me being able to kill someone over my families lives. You have quite a way of twisting things, don't you? We're were talking a certain amount of risk that having the ability to protect my family might hypothetically bring with it.

 

[ShowerMaxxing]

the people in this post make lol hard
all of them are still stuck in this stage of thinking they are the strongest and that
and looking at those kind of fights as an ego thing,
I guess that this is what happens to you when you never enter into
a fight in your early life

Yeah, they're the guys that critique professional fighters and say "I would've done this and that to win, x cant fight for shit" while sitting on the couch eating junk food and guzzling diet coke because it's good for you, jfl.

In a real fight you dont have much time to think, you will get tired very fast and anything can happen. Could go from dominating to getting rocked or kod by one lucky hit. Avg gymcel probably has no cardio because "cardios for pussies" so will gas after a minute of striking or 20seconss wrestling, max. After that even a guy they outweigh by 10kg that has energy to spare will do them in.

 

[Copeful]

2) You don't have a gun, the intruder wants to murder you - you're dead

This possibility of this scenario alone is enough to nullify any arguments for gun control
muhhh the odds of that happening are low
fact is, you’d want a gun in that situation, sure the chances of some deranged serial killer intruding might be low but it CAN still happen, and if they’re armed and you aren’t it’s over

 

[Deleted member 7901]

Yeah, they're the guys that critique professional fighters and say "I would've done this and that to win, x cant fight for shit" while sitting on the couch eating junk food and guzzling diet coke because it's good for you, jfl.

In a real fight you dont have much time to think, you will get tired very fast and anything can happen. Could go from dominating to getting rocked or kod by one lucky hit. Avg gymcel probably has no cardio because "cardios for pussies" so will gas after a minute of striking or 20seconss wrestling, max. After that even a guy they outweigh by 10kg that has energy to spare will do them in.

+++
being able to give quick punches and move away is so important in fights, gymcel physiques are useless and are trash

I was in many hand to hand fights when I was younger since I was kinda forced into them, and I usually won or the fight was stopped in the middle, all of the fights were so stressful and I can't remember feeling any high from even winning, it was so brutal for my mental health and it was nothing but pure stress, I don't even feel like my ego was boosted if so the upside, I cringe so hard when meatheads want to get into a self-defense fights and think that they will win+they think it will feel good if they win.
it can only be fun if its a competition and you do something like boxing

any smart person should avoid those at any cost and not be retarded, there is nothing fun about them

 

[ShowerMaxxing]

+++
being able to give quick punches and move away is so important in fights, gymcel physiques are useless and are trash

I was in many hand to hand fights when I was younger since I was kinda forced into them, and I usually won or the fight was stopped in the middle, all of the fights were so stressful and I can't remember feeling any high from even winning, it was so brutal for my mental health and it was nothing but pure stress, I don't even feel like my ego was boosted if so the upside, I cringe so hard when meatheads want to get into a self-defense fights and think that they will win+they think it will feel good if they win.
it can only be fun if its a competition and you do something like boxing

any smart person should avoid those at any cost and not be retarded, there is nothing fun about them

I think it's essential life experience to have fights tbh but it becomes impossible over 18 without legal backlash. That's why Fight Club is such a popular film. But yeah avoid If you can, unless the other person starts to get physical then you should fight.

 

[Deleted member 9666]

I'm Canadian as well. Speak for yourself.

I speak for the majority of Canadians, they don’t care. I remember seeing a nation wide survey that found the vast majority of people here were in favour of the new stupid gun restrictions.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

@MaherGOAT
If someone come to you and bit to face - don't punch him back! It would be stress him and you could be beaten harder. Better cover up like little pussy and let him bit you till it boring him.

This doesn't make any sense. If you had a reason to believe someone was out to hurt you, then owning a gun in self defence makes perfect sense. Your analogy fails because;

1) Someone is already biting my face, i.e., attacking me
2) Punching him back will not result in either one of us being shot and killed.

Further, not having a gun and attempting to murder someone breaking in isn't "being a pussy".

 

[Deleted member 5185]

[1]I'd say my family's life is already at risk the moment an intruder invades our home, whether I'm armed or not.

[2]I'm not valuing me being able to kill someone over my families lives. You have quite a way of twisting things, don't you? We're were talking a certain amount of risk that having the ability to protect my family might hypothetically bring with it.

[1] The reason you think that is because of your irrational belief that home invaders are out to kill you. Home invasions are relatively rare, and are not done with the intent to kill. The presence of homeowners with guns raises the chances of someone dying.

[2] How did I twist your words? You literaly said outright that your autonomy is more important than your safety in regards to gun ownership.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

This possibility of this scenario alone is enough to nullify any arguments for gun control
muhhh the odds of that happening are low
fact is, you’d want a gun in that situation, sure the chances of some deranged serial killer intruding might be low but it CAN still happen, and if they’re armed and you aren’t it’s over

This singular focus on a hypothetical situation is essentially what drives pro gun politics.

It is based on a completely irrational fear that has such a weak connection to the real world its laughable. Are you going to prepare for every 0.00xx% chance event, like atomic war (prepping), wearing epipens at you at all times in case of a killer bee attack or other poisonous animal etc? Of course not. The fear is irrational.

Even if you personally choose to own a gun in the current criminal climate isn't a good or even relevant argument to whether or not guns should be regulated further.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

[1] The reason you think that is because of your irrational belief that home invaders are out to kill you. Home invasions are relatively rare, and are not done with the intent to kill. The presence of homeowners with guns raises the chances of someone dying.

[2] How did I twist your words? You literaly said outright that your autonomy is more important than your safety in regards to gun ownership.

1. No, it's not all. Please don't tell me how I think. It's because I'm not willing to allow anyone to forcefully comandeer my household and assume control over me and my family under the threat of violence. At that point it doesn't matter what their intentions might have been. They have effectively forfeited their life, and their blood is on their hands. Whatever intentions they may have had cease to be relevant once they've made that choice.

2. Yeah, but the way you put it was as if a man didn't have snowball's chance in hell to defend himself from an armed intruder with the use of a gun. I'd say the odds are pretty damn good.

 

[Copeful]

This singular focus on a hypothetical situation is essentially what drives pro gun politics.

It is based on a completely irrational fear that has such a weak connection to the real world its laughable. Are you going to prepare for every 0.00xx% chance event, like atomic war (prepping), wearing epipens at you at all times in case of a killer bee attack or other poisonous animal etc? Of course not. The fear is irrational.

Dude home invasions aren’t some astronomically low occurrence like you make them out to be, rates in some US cities are pretty high, it depends on where you live so I wouldn’t call it an “irrational fear”
Also, your argument seems to hinge on the fact that most home invasions are nonviolent burglaries, and that disarming citizens would lead to less gun violence overall (due to misinterpretations of the situation, burglars having no reason to kill, etc.), which makes sense in theory - but that isn’t the case.

According to a United States Department of Justice report:

• 38% of assaults & 60% of rapes occur during home invasions.

You don’t know what intentions an intruder harbors, so it’s best to be armed. You might make the argument that there’s other ways to defend yourself, but those are all null if the other guy is carrying a gun (which he most likely is if he has the intent to assault/rape)

 

[Deleted member 5185]

[1]Dude home invasions aren’t some astronomically low occurrence like you make them out to be, rates in some US cities are pretty high, it depends on where you live so I wouldn’t call it an “irrational fear”
[2]Also, your argument seems to hinge on the fact that most home invasions are nonviolent burglaries, and that disarming citizens would lead to less gun violence overall (due to misinterpretations of the situation, burglars having no reason to kill, etc.), which makes sense in theory - but that isn’t the case.

[3]According to a United States Department of Justice report:

• 38% of assaults & 60% of rapes occur during home invasions.

[4]You don’t know what intentions an intruder harbors, so it’s best to be armed. You might make the argument that there’s other ways to defend yourself, but those are all null if the other guy is carrying a gun (which he most likely is if he has the intent to assault/rape)

[1] I'm not saying they are astronomically rare, but you have to consider the total number of home invasions compared to how many people live in the US. It is VERY rare to be the subject of a home invasion in general - obviously depending on where you live. I would imagine rural Minnesota to be safer than idk, Compton? It is irrational for the general american, because even in crime filled neighborhoods, its not like you're being home invaded yearly or anything. I don't have the statistics, but I can imagine that someone living a law abiding life in a crime filled area likely won't be home invaded where the criminal intends to murder that person.

[2] Home invasions into innocent peoples homes are almost always, unless in the case of serial killers, a question of robbery for the sake of winning - likely often done by desperate drug abusers or young gangs. As you say, it makes sense in theory. But it also makes sense in practice. If less people have guns overall, there will be less gun violence. I can guarantee it.

[3] Since you didn't leave the link, I can't look at the statistics - however this says almost nothing about the dangers of home invasions - for instance, if assaults and rapes makes up lets say 10% of home invasions, then there is a 1/10 chance of being assaulted or rape, let alone murdered IF you get your home invaded - i.e., very low chances of it occuring - and owning a gun would increase the chances of someone dying in that interraction. I obviously pulled that number out of my ass for illustrative purposes, it might be higher or it might be lower.

[4] You still seem to fail to consider the dangers of opening gun fire in that situation. You have to remember that when you bring your own gun to the equation, not only in that single circumstance but nation wide, you're escalating situations that didn't need to end in violence to guaranteed murder. We have to hold that up against the chances of home invaders wanting to murder innocent home owners for no good reason. I'm willing to bet the total amount of harm being done to home invaders is larger the more guns they have. Because when everyone has guns, someone is going to die.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

Dude home invasions aren’t some astronomically low occurrence like you make them out to be, rates in some US cities are pretty high, it depends on where you live so I wouldn’t call it an “irrational fear”
Also, your argument seems to hinge on the fact that most home invasions are nonviolent burglaries, and that disarming citizens would lead to less gun violence overall (due to misinterpretations of the situation, burglars having no reason to kill, etc.), which makes sense in theory - but that isn’t the case.

According to a United States Department of Justice report:

• 38% of assaults & 60% of rapes occur during home invasions.

You don’t know what intentions an intruder harbors, so it’s best to be armed. You might make the argument that there’s other ways to defend yourself, but those are all null if the other guy is carrying a gun (which he most likely is if he has the intent to assault/rape)

Just to try to bring some statistics into the equation; It proved a bit difficult to wade through the different numbers and definitions (apparantly, 66% of "burglaries" are "home invasions").

27 Alarming Burglary Statistics For 2023 | Policy Advice

policyadvice.net

Interesting excerpts:

"65% of burglars are already well-acquainted with the people they rob."
I.e., it is very likely that most of the victims of burglaries (which home invasions are a sub category of) are themselves criminals or involved with criminals to a larger degree than the gen pop

"88% of burglars may be robbing to support their drug habit."
As I suspected, most burglars are doing it to support a drug habit - not violent criminals out to murder the home owners

"Burglaries in the US have dropped by 37% since 2008."
Not something we've discussed, but interesting none the less

Now for the most interesting statistic:

"

Only 7% of home burglaries involve violence.​

A State of the USA report found that 7% of these (on average) resort to violence on a yearly basis; though, only a few (12%) burglars had used a firearm."

Now thats violence - it is likely that a significantly lower percentage makes up murder.

"

Almost two-thirds of burglaries happen during daylight hours."​

This is interesting because I bet most fantasize of them coming in at night - while its more likely they will come while you're at work. Not directly a counter argument for gun ownership per se, but rather lowers the statistics of actually facing them further.

Lastly:

"There are 2.5 million burglaries annually in the United States. 66% of these are home invasions. (US Department of Justice)"

So, bottom line:

Of the approx 140 million homes in the US, 2.5 are annually broken into, which means:

2500000 / 139684244 * 100 = 1.79 %

There is a 1.79% chance on average that your home is broken into, BEFORE you take into consideration that 1) home invasions make up 66% of burglarlies i.e, 2/3rds of the statistic, the fact that most home invasions are done by someone who knew the victim (i.e., criminal / druggies), mostof them happen during the day while you're at work, and with this NEW statistic, we can apply the 7% violence figure. I couldn't even find any statistics on murder.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

Because when everyone has guns, someone is going to die.

Sometimes someone needs to die. You say "gun violence" as if it's always a bad thing. It's not.

 

[Deleted member 7901]

You guys are still on this? majority of his arguments seem to be lazy and he will just jump to new things

 

[Deleted member 5185]

You guys are still on this? majority of his arguments seem to be lazy and he will just jump to new things

The point of discussion is still exactly the same. I even brought statistics. But since I'm disagreeing with you and it doesn't fit your narrative, its easier to just focus on deflecting and attempting to ridicule. I advice you to just not come back to the thread - that way, you can keep sticking your head in the sand like an ostritch, and not have to deal with reality.

 

[Albeacho]

@TsarTsar444 Im disappointed that you ugh reacted me

 

[Deleted member 275]

+++
being able to give quick punches and move away is so important in fights, gymcel physiques are useless and are trash

you don't get it
The best fights with the best outcome are the fights that don't end with physical force.
Projection of a capability of violence: A large gymcelled physique, allows you to win most confrontations before they even start.

Looking small and undangerous, but being a good fighter, is literally the exact opposite of what you want. People will think you are weak and will not be affraid to confront you physically, so you end up constantly having to show your fighting capabilities in fights. Pointless.

 

[TsarTsar444]

@TsarTsar444 Im disappointed that you ugh reacted me

Jfl guns are based af, @MaherGOAT your argument about guns being outdated now and military being able to easily defeat people is giga low iq, u heard of Afghanistan and assymetrical warfare? The US just pulled out from the place with 2 trillion in debt with zero gain cause the Taliban controls half the country now, how did their superior drones fare? You have no idea how warfare works and it shows, you can bomb a place millions of times with drones, bombs and waste billions in the process, but it won't matter shit until footman come and occupy the place themselves. Civilians will build underground tunnels fast and drones won't be able to do shit, the government will extremely quickly start to go bankrupt from a the huge war of attrition and the it would collapse. The US has perfect terrain for attrition warfare, it has tons of mountain ranges bigger then Afghanistan in the west, deserts, swamps, woods. The economy will collapse, you can't fight a war for long like that


Also Serbia has 40 guns per 100 people and had no school shooting in their history or gun violence, its all about culture