Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooders0n
if this isn't a gotcha idk what is
Fair, but my point was pretty clear. Hand guns are responsible for the vast, vast majority of gun deaths in the US, and two semi-auto pistols can do comparable damage to something like an AR-15, and rifles were responsible for something like 250 murders in 2014 out of 12k total deaths. And a lot of the mass killings shootings that make up those large counts reported are hand guns.
And the reason to raise this is to show how easily conversations and narratives shift and much of this is signaling. Somehow a domestic terrorist attack has turned to a moratorium on "assault weapons", where "assault weapons" makeup a relatively small % of gun violence, and not even an insane % of mass shootings.
And the counter to that is "so? So we shouldn't DO SOMETHING?!" And this same tact is taken by the same people who will point out the likelihood of being killed by a terrorist is minimal compared to X, so don't worry about it. But the same argument this way, you're cornered and all called a nut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Oi!
Sorry if my response had inappropriate snark. I just don't understand the "first they came for the guns and then we were all speaking German" line of thinking when that could've been said for slavery, unlimited presidential terms, the selection of the vice president, whites only voting, states rights to set their own voting ages, poll taxes, alcohol then the correction of the prohibition of alcohol. Why is guns so special because it was one of the first 10 instead of one of the last 10?
fair points, but I addressed somewhat when pointing out the Bill of Rights. The BoR is our bedrock. Messing it with it seems like a bigger deal than selling booze.
And I might be completely wrong, but another argument: most of those examples you cited were actual increases in freedom and in the name of liberty. Slavery, women's lack of suffrage, man's desire to imbibe, etc etc, were all restrictions on freedom by the state.
In the wording of the BoR, and the philosophy upon which it was based, self-defense is an
inherent right. And I tend to agree, but obviously there are limits, as I'm not allowed to put a mine field in my yard. So I dunno.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THAY3R
One of the primary reasons "winning" in the Middle East is so difficult is because of armed citizens fwiw, and those who think the "resistant to government tyranny" arguments are laughable seem to be very ignorant to the history of civilizations.
I'm being glib here, but
https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/you-a...ith-your-guns/
I tend to agree with that, but there are of course counter-examples, even in US borders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneel B4 Zod
Dirt poor people who live inland cant just go to the store to buy a deer, no.
I'm generally anti-gun but you asked what the benefits were. Go to rural Maine and you'll see how valuable a large dead animal is to certain people. Roadkill doesn't last for long.
Hunting is also an effective means of animal preservation and population control. Hunting licenses aren't just something we hand out to placate those HUNTER LOONIES, they're measured means to keep local ecosystems balanced. Though this specific issue I think you could work around sans gun ownership. It's at least doable.