Are Americans cowards for wanting guns?

Question

Answer 1

N192K001 | 1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

lol No. We train in them because U. S. Police have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT US, unless we're incarcerated. Sound too absurd to be true?

Behold!
“U. S. judge says law enforcement officers had no legal duty to protect Parkland students during mass shooting”
21 December 2018
「U. S. District Judge Beth Bloom said neither the school nor sheriff’s deputies had a legal obligation to protect students from the alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, who is accused of killing 17 people at the school Feb. 14. Her reasoning? The students were not in state custody, the Sun Sentinel reported.」
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/12/21/us-judge-says-law-enforcement-officers-had-no-legal-duty-protect-parkland-students-during-mass-shooting/
“Officers Had No Duty to Protect Students in Parkland Massacre, Judge Rules”
18 December 2018
「“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out.」
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit-ruling-police.html
“Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone”
28 June 2005
「The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.」
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

And given law-enforcement's increasing militarization, now-famous abuses of their employers (the taxpaying citizenry)'s civil-liberties, and pushes to defund them, people need to be able to defend their homes & neighborhoods, right?

React

3 People

__inkRat

1 y
isn't that summary of America?

Reply
N192K001

1 y
@__inkRat Indeed, it is. That's why we've coped the we have. Unfortunately, a number still don't realize this and unrealistically expect law-enforcement officers to be their personal body-guards (as though that's not an altogether different profession) and are massively surprised when reality shows itself.

When their 'personal body-quards' detonate the wrong man's house in a botched raid, rendering a man & his family homeless, and the courts decide no compensation is owed; people are surprised.
www.npr.org/.../police-owe-nothing-to-man-whose-home-they-blew-up-appeals-court-says
lol They were law-enforcement trying to enforce the law, but failed. End of story. As to the well-being of people NOT the specific person-of-interest? What does that have to do with enforcing the law? 🤣 And taxpayers are surprised!

In the end, we are responsible for our own well-being & personal-security, while law-enforcement officers are in charge of enforcing the law. The 2 are separate here, but a number of people (even those born and raised here) unfortunately still don't get it. I wonder how many (tragic!) reality-checks are needed for this realization to be nearly universal.

Reply

Answer 2

__inkRat

isn't that summary of America?

Answer 3

N192K001

@__inkRat Indeed, it is. That's why we've coped the we have. Unfortunately, a number still don't realize this and unrealistically expect law-enforcement officers to be their personal body-guards (as though that's not an altogether different profession) and are massively surprised when reality shows itself.

When their 'personal body-quards' detonate the wrong man's house in a botched raid, rendering a man & his family homeless, and the courts decide no compensation is owed; people are surprised.
www.npr.org/.../police-owe-nothing-to-man-whose-home-they-blew-up-appeals-court-says
lol They were law-enforcement trying to enforce the law, but failed. End of story. As to the well-being of people NOT the specific person-of-interest? What does that have to do with enforcing the law? 🤣 And taxpayers are surprised!

In the end, we are responsible for our own well-being & personal-security, while law-enforcement officers are in charge of enforcing the law. The 2 are separate here, but a number of people (even those born and raised here) unfortunately still don't get it. I wonder how many (tragic!) reality-checks are needed for this realization to be nearly universal.

Answer 4

WhiteSteve | 3.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Americans have unfortunately been led to believe that we live in a much more aggressively violent and confrontational world than we even remotely do. So it’s not so much that people are cowards as much as they’ve been misled to the point of paranoia. Having a gun is whatever, I don’t really care if you want to have a weapon for the unlikely event of a Code Red, but it’s the idea that you’re extremely vulnerable without it --realistically speaking, not in the aforementioned unlikely event of a do-or-die confrontation — on a day-to-day basis that troubles me. Obviously you would want to carry 100% of the time if you have the mentality that you’ll need it, you can’t just guess when shit is going to jump off... I guess I’d just like to see more acknowledgement from gun enthusiasts that they’ll likely never, ever need to use their gun in a violent situation. I just feel like we perpetuate this fallacy that we live in a war zone with danger at every turn, that’s the big issue for me. Most danger can be mitigated with your fists, and that’s kind of my biggest thing, aversion of fistfights through gun brandishing. Somebody challenges you with hands, whether they’re right or wrong, be a man and answer with your own hands, and if you get dropped, so be it, handle your shit like a G at all times. Somebody comes waving a pistol at you, they have bad intentions, open fire if you want. But don’t pull a gun out because you’re afraid of a punch in the nose, that’s an extreme life violation to me.

React

1 Person

Abtraction

1 y
This depends on where you live and how big or strong you are. The average woman cannot fend off a man very well. Yes the likelihood you will need it are slim but when you do, you need it just like a fire extinguisher. Also if someone is about to attack you, you have no idea of his capability or intentions, yes maybe he will just punch you and move on, but he may beat you to a pulp or even kill you. A well train man can kill a person with a single blow. in my opinion the aggressor is fair game, if you can brandish and he walks away good, if he attacks he gets dropped. Not risking my life for some scumbag that can't control himself.

Reply

Answer 5

Abtraction

This depends on where you live and how big or strong you are. The average woman cannot fend off a man very well. Yes the likelihood you will need it are slim but when you do, you need it just like a fire extinguisher. Also if someone is about to attack you, you have no idea of his capability or intentions, yes maybe he will just punch you and move on, but he may beat you to a pulp or even kill you. A well train man can kill a person with a single blow. in my opinion the aggressor is fair game, if you can brandish and he walks away good, if he attacks he gets dropped. Not risking my life for some scumbag that can't control himself.

Answer 6

Jessicafarber

Xper 2

Wanting guns?

There are so many ways we can go with this...

Let's start with a little thing called "the constitution". It guarantees the right to own a firearm. Don't you learn that in schools nowadays? Or is it all transgender and rainbow?

America was built by people carrying guns for defense. Even as we expanded our and settled down and became more civilized, people still had guns. It's not changed. More people came, and since everyone else has guns, so do they.

If you want to ban the 2nd amendment you have to be blessed with some magical rainbow powers for sure. What's gonna happen is that the law abiding citizens who follow the rules will turn in their gun. The criminals who obviously don't care about the laws will keep their guns. This way you will have the situation of lots of European countries, where they live with the threat of gangsta dumbasses who have a gun, but they can't defend themselves.

On the actual question "cowards " I don't think I rightly understand what you mean, but if a guy or girl wants to be able to defend him or herself I don't think that makes coward. People who have kids are wanting to defend their kids too.

If anyone threatens me or my family, I won't hesitate to empty my clip in their worthless body, thus eliminating the immediate threat to me and my loved ones, and also rid the society of a piece of human trash that is clearly not needed for anything

Peace

React

4 People

Meldrum

1 y
READ the second amendment!! It does NOT say any yahoo with the money can buy and own a gun. It SAYS, IF you are part of A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed... Written when everyone needed to protect their COUNTRY, shoot to hunt animals. If you're not a member of the National Guard, you're not a part of a well regulated militia, in the eyes of the government.

Reply
N192K001

1 y
@Meldrum Original intent (& History) must be remembered. In the beginning, We the People were the military… Well, certain people were.
"Militia Act of 1792" Ⅰ & Ⅱ passed on the 2nd & 8th of May 1792
「I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.」
www.mountvernon.org/.../
And the rest of the 2nd act's Section 1 required the free White men to arm themselves. The acts amending it (1862 & 1903) expanded the militia to include non-White citizens & foreigners seeking citizenship.

Following in the original intent & the historical trajectory, the free citizenry (& prospective-citizens) are were the militia. It took the World Wars to make the military permanent. Before then, we were supposed to own and train in gunnery, both to dissuade an invasion and to speed-up training when war was declared by Congress.

If we only returned to that tradition and personally took responsibility of the Union's security how much smaller our military-budget can be while keeping the U. S. safe, how many worthless but expensive years' long wars we would have avoided by knowing that allowing Washington to do so would mean we and/or our loved-ones would be sent to die far from home for no good reason, and how much more disciplined & civil we would be (like the Swiss, who have ≥1soldier and/or veteran in just about every household)?

Reply
hellionthesagereborn

1 y
@Meldrum First and foremost it states, and I quote, "the right to bare arms shall not be infringed." so your incorrect on that. Now lets argue the militia part, what is a militia? Armed citizens, literally any and all citizens historically comprised the militia, they where not some special group, they where everyday citizens that would be conscripted ergo an armed militia is by definition, an armed civilian. Ergo civilians can and are encouraged to own and buy guns as per the constitution.

Reply
Show All Show Less
Meldrum

1 y
@hellionthesagereborn The ONLY recognized militia by our government is the National Guard. It consists of just what you said, normal everyday citizens who put on a uniform once a month to train and are called out to protect those within their state borders from outside harm or terrorism within. But then, they turn their guns in at the end of their tour and another company takes up the mantle. You can justify all day why you want your guns but the only purpose behind the gun is to kill. If you want to hunt then fine. Learn how to kill with one shot. Otherwise, you are torturing the animal or human and if you can't kill with one shot, find a new hobby because you're incompetent.

Reply
hellionthesagereborn

1 y
@Meldrum Again, you do not understand what a militia is (what kind of stupidity is this? That the second amendment protects the rights of the military to bare arms? That is an idiotic argument, you didn't think that through at all). Here is the definitions: "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
synonyms:
armed forces · army · forces · services · soldiery · navy · air force · marines · special forces
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
synonyms:
armed force · force · military detachment · military unit · unit · platoon · brigade · regiment · squadron · battalion · company · legion · corps · troops · soldiers
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service." As such every person is part of the militia and by definition have the right to bare arms. Lets look at the historica context: "
A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a country, or subjects of a state, who may perform military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or to members of a warrior nobility class." So again, as one can see the militia is the citizen in and of themselves.

Then you have the words of the people who drafted the constitution themselves who openly stated that all people have the right to bare arms, which is not only in their documentation but also letters, and responses to others (sailors asked if they could out fit their boats with cannons in order to fight off pirates. The founding fathers response was to state that of course, that is what the second amendment states, that they have the right to bare arms and it shall not be infringed (i. e. limited in anyway). So again, you are entirely incorrect on every level.

Reply
JackSmy

1 y
@Meldrum Like so many "Anti-gun" people, you have TOTALLY misunderstood the 2nd Amendment!
Did you not see Penn & Teller's episode of "BULLSHIT" regarding this issue?

The Supreme Court RULED, that the RIGHT to Keep and Bear arms IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, AND NOT IN ANY WAY to be construed as requiring membership in a Militia, or the National Guard!

District of Columbia vs. Heller, 2008
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53."

Reply

Answer 7

Meldrum

READ the second amendment!! It does NOT say any yahoo with the money can buy and own a gun. It SAYS, IF you are part of A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed... Written when everyone needed to protect their COUNTRY, shoot to hunt animals. If you're not a member of the National Guard, you're not a part of a well regulated militia, in the eyes of the government.

Answer 8

N192K001

@Meldrum Original intent (& History) must be remembered. In the beginning, We the People were the military… Well, certain people were.
"Militia Act of 1792" Ⅰ & Ⅱ passed on the 2nd & 8th of May 1792
「I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.」
www.mountvernon.org/.../
And the rest of the 2nd act's Section 1 required the free White men to arm themselves. The acts amending it (1862 & 1903) expanded the militia to include non-White citizens & foreigners seeking citizenship.

Following in the original intent & the historical trajectory, the free citizenry (& prospective-citizens) are were the militia. It took the World Wars to make the military permanent. Before then, we were supposed to own and train in gunnery, both to dissuade an invasion and to speed-up training when war was declared by Congress.

If we only returned to that tradition and personally took responsibility of the Union's security how much smaller our military-budget can be while keeping the U. S. safe, how many worthless but expensive years' long wars we would have avoided by knowing that allowing Washington to do so would mean we and/or our loved-ones would be sent to die far from home for no good reason, and how much more disciplined & civil we would be (like the Swiss, who have ≥1soldier and/or veteran in just about every household)?

Answer 9

hellionthesagereborn

@Meldrum First and foremost it states, and I quote, "the right to bare arms shall not be infringed." so your incorrect on that. Now lets argue the militia part, what is a militia? Armed citizens, literally any and all citizens historically comprised the militia, they where not some special group, they where everyday citizens that would be conscripted ergo an armed militia is by definition, an armed civilian. Ergo civilians can and are encouraged to own and buy guns as per the constitution.

Answer 10

Meldrum

@hellionthesagereborn The ONLY recognized militia by our government is the National Guard. It consists of just what you said, normal everyday citizens who put on a uniform once a month to train and are called out to protect those within their state borders from outside harm or terrorism within. But then, they turn their guns in at the end of their tour and another company takes up the mantle. You can justify all day why you want your guns but the only purpose behind the gun is to kill. If you want to hunt then fine. Learn how to kill with one shot. Otherwise, you are torturing the animal or human and if you can't kill with one shot, find a new hobby because you're incompetent.

Answer 11

hellionthesagereborn

@Meldrum Again, you do not understand what a militia is (what kind of stupidity is this? That the second amendment protects the rights of the military to bare arms? That is an idiotic argument, you didn't think that through at all). Here is the definitions: "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
synonyms:
armed forces · army · forces · services · soldiery · navy · air force · marines · special forces
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
synonyms:
armed force · force · military detachment · military unit · unit · platoon · brigade · regiment · squadron · battalion · company · legion · corps · troops · soldiers
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service." As such every person is part of the militia and by definition have the right to bare arms. Lets look at the historica context: "
A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a country, or subjects of a state, who may perform military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or to members of a warrior nobility class." So again, as one can see the militia is the citizen in and of themselves.

Then you have the words of the people who drafted the constitution themselves who openly stated that all people have the right to bare arms, which is not only in their documentation but also letters, and responses to others (sailors asked if they could out fit their boats with cannons in order to fight off pirates. The founding fathers response was to state that of course, that is what the second amendment states, that they have the right to bare arms and it shall not be infringed (i. e. limited in anyway). So again, you are entirely incorrect on every level.

Answer 12

JackSmy

@Meldrum Like so many "Anti-gun" people, you have TOTALLY misunderstood the 2nd Amendment!
Did you not see Penn & Teller's episode of "BULLSHIT" regarding this issue?

The Supreme Court RULED, that the RIGHT to Keep and Bear arms IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, AND NOT IN ANY WAY to be construed as requiring membership in a Militia, or the National Guard!

District of Columbia vs. Heller, 2008
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53."

Answer 13

purplepoppy | 3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

ABSOLUTELY. No other western country has such a gun obsession. The problem is everyone buys a gun because everyone else has one. It's just snowballed out of control. They all believe they can play the hero When the time rises but truth is most just pee their pants. The reality is that gun they bought to stop the home invasion that will never actually happen will most likely be used to kill a neighbour over a barking dog.

React

29 People

Tyrael

1 y
Truth.

Reply
007kingifrit

1 y
no other western country will survive

Reply
WindAtMyBack

1 y
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. You just make shit up without having any real knowledge.

Reply
Show All Show Less
Rangers

1 y
That must be why an estimated 500,000-3,000,000 lives are saved every year through the defensive use of firearms. https://youtu.be/2iFo1TrYMq4
The only people peeing their pants are criminals when they encounter an armed civilian, and for good reason, we know how to use our guns and they don't.

Reply
Not_Average

1 y
If you live in an area of low crime, sure. But not everyone is so privileged to live in an area in which a home invasion or violent altercation is such a rare occurrence.

Reply
goaded

1 y
@Not_Average Aren't you better off if the person you're having a violent altercation with, or invading your home, doesn't have a gun?

Reply
Not_Average

1 y
@goaded Sure, if all attackers had guns. In my two life circumstances, they did not have guns. Brandishing my firearm got them to back off. One had a knife and one of those heavy construction rods. If the criminal towers above you, then they can hurt you without another gun

Reply
Not_Average

1 y
Most criminals obtain firearms illegally since they don’t meet the criteria to legally purchase one. So by banning firearms, you’re only stripping law abiding citizens

Reply
goaded

1 y
@Not_Average That's not so. You're also making it much harder to obtain firearms illegally, making it less likely that criminals will carry a firearm while committing crimes that don't need one (you'll get a longer sentence, and could be arrested for possession before you even commit the crime).

Reply
Lιʅʅყ

1 y
Pro gun owner by the way but look at Australia for a model to follow

Reply
Not_Average

1 y
@goaded My experience from working in law enforcement showed me that most guns have the serial numbers scratched off and stolen. Sure it might be harder for the criminals to steal them, but that’s not right to the law abiding citizens who own them. A much better solution to is teach gun owners how to lock away and store their weapons.

Most democrats think that gun owners like me literally live and breath guns. I own some. I keep them in a safe. I don’t talk about them. Nobody really knows I have them. I never really pull them out unless I want to go to the range which is even a rare occurrence. My guns don’t consume my identity. This stereotype isn’t accurate.

Reply
Fuentes

1 y
Im just here to give the wanna be American another dislike

Reply
KrakenAttackin

1 y
@purplepoppy. You have shown a complete lack of understanding of Americans and American culture.

by the way, the fucking British are who started our obsession with guns.

Reply
purplepoppy

1 y
@goaded has it spot on. A guns a tool to do a job and should be kept in one locked cabinet and the ammo in a separate locked cabinet. We all have bad days, get pissed off and ready to snap. Having a loaded gun on you is just asking for trouble.

Reply
KrakenAttackin

1 y
@Lιʅʅყ Australia, no thanks..

The people should have access to any weapons the police do.

Reply
goaded

1 y
@KrakenAttackin Why? The police are outnumbered by the people thousands to one. If there's a real reason for overthrowing the government, sheer weight of numbers should do it. Of course, if you want a small minority of fanatics to be able to take over the government, that's the way to achieve it.

Under His Eye.

Reply
WindAtMyBack

1 y
@goaded
"Aren't you better off if the person you're having a violent altercation with, or invading your home, doesn't have a gun?"

Yes, but the problem with so many anti-gun arguments is that they are one sided. First of all, very few home invaders will have a gun on them. Second, homeowners with guns not only stop large numbers of crimes, but they also act as a huge deterrent. Convicted criminals have consistently said over many years that homeowners with guns are a much bigger deterrent than cops.

A homeowner with a gun has an advantage over a home invader with a gun. Without either having a gun, that advantage significantly decreases and may even give the advantage to the invader.

It's intuitive that more guns will translate to more gun crimes. But people ignore the other side of the equation. They look at one side, not the net effect. They don't look at the crimes being stopped. And they don't look at the deterrent effects.

Aside from what's intuitive, the empirical evidence strongly suggests that guns are NOT the cause of increased violent crimes. The empirical evidence shows that something else is the major cause.

As long as people keep focusing on guns, they are avoiding looking for the real cause. Guns make an easy scapegoat. It's easier to point fingers at guns than to look for more complex and deeper social issues.

Reply
goaded

1 y
@WindAtMyBack Much like it's the love of money that's the root of all evil, not the money itself?

A violent society with fewer guns is safer than a violent society with more guns. Does fear-mongering about people taking away your guns make a society more or less violent, do you think?

By the way, I realise that the situation in the US is probably beyond redemption, but some regulation is popular and practical; the problem is people like the Republican party and the modern NRA (it started out quite reasonable, aiui). Stopping people convicted of violent crime from possessing firearms seems quite reasonable, for example. Temporarily stopping people accused of the same is also reasonable (part of a restraining order, for example). Both of those would be fought tooth-and-nail (ironically) as being a slippery slope to taking away all the gunz. People in, say, the UK, have guns - they just have to have a good reason.

Reply
purplepoppy

1 y
Most invaders don't carry weapons because they know it massively increases the sentence they'll get if caught. This means that you can't claim self defence if you kill a burglars. You simply can't argue you were in danger from an unarmed man at distance. No judge can sentence you to death for theft yet every gun enthusiast believes he has the right to execute the most minor of criminals.

Reply
supercutebutt

1 y
purplepoppy is correct. A gun in the home is way more likely to end up injuring or killing yourself or a family member than warding off an intruder. I am all for self defense but I would rather have my trusty softball bat handy than live with a gun. And good luck unlocking your gun cabinet and getting things all loaded up properly in time to use that gun for protection. If someone dares to break into my house while I'm there, I will be swinging for the fences. And I swing HARD. :)

Reply
purplepoppy

1 y
Guns are more common in the UK than most people realize. But unless you want one for a legitimate reason such as hunting/sport or pest control then it's viewed by the public that you shouldn't have one. Guns must be kept locked up and cabinets are inspected by the police. One positive thing about gun licences in the uk is you must not have a criminal record and that fact is often enough to keep people on the straight and narrow because they don't want to lose their licence.

Reply
Rangers

1 y
Where did you hear that nonsense, CNN? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, there's over a million home invasions while the owner is present every year in the US and the number of negligent discharges (all of which the user is at fault) is less than 100 and the number of defensive uses of firearms every year is over a million. Ok, then you use a soft ball bat against two assailants, one of which has a gun, which is the statistical norm for deadly force encounters. And that's exactly why I keep guns ready for use and closeby. You can't be for self defense and against guns at the same time as a firearm is the only viable form of self defense. And that last claim is another entirely baseless claim and doesn't even pass the sniff test. 70% of deadly force encounters where the victim had a gun end without a problem once their firearm is drawn and the perpetrator gives up or runs away. There are zero documented cases where a legally armed civilian shot a criminal for a petty crime or any crime that wasn't a violent felony in which their life was at immediate risk from them. But by all means live in your fairytale land and know that no matter what laws pass regarding guns, I won't comply and the police in my area won't enforce them because I back the blue, and the blue backs me.

Reply
supercutebutt

1 y
@Rangers Fuckwad, I can list about a half dozen instances among friends and family alone where a gun led to the death or near death of an unintended victim. I cannot list a single instance where a gun stopped an intruder. And I guarantee if I hear you rustling outside my house, trying to gain access to my wicked hot ass, I will exit out the opposite door you attempt to enter, calmly saunter outside and around to the door your sorry ass broke into, see your ugly, shadowy self, raise up my bat from behind you, and send you directly home to Jesus. And I will feel zero remorse. In fact, I may even desecrate your corpse, just for shits and giggles. Stay off my property, dicklick. And kindly go fuck yourself. And I hope CNN shows the pics of your corpse, with my bat sticking out of your asshole, to send a warning to Trumptarded insurrectionists all over this once great land. :)

Reply
KrakenAttackin

1 y
@supercutebutt You are LYING. Stop with the stupid, brainwashed, left wing, liberal, gibberish. You are a 20 year old female. The only thing on which you are an authority is getting fucked.

You want our guns? "Come and take them".

Reply
gotc147

1 y
And every other western nation is constantly teetering between fascism and communism.

By the way, the "your gun will be used against you" argument is invalid as most, if not all, the studies that claim that never actually say it's *your* gun that gets used against you, just that you're more likely to get shot if using a gun against someone.

Like pretty much everything else I see you post on here, your arguments have no basis in reality.

Reply
KrakenAttackin

1 y
@gotc147 Well said.

Reply
Tyrael

1 y
@gotc147 you sure you want to have a go at other countries "teetering" while you've got home grown terrorists storming the capitol and trying to overturn the results a democratic election?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Reply
gotc147

1 y
@Tyrael The homegrown terrorists you speak of are BLM and Antifa who have committed terroristic acts over the last four years.

There was nothing terroristic about the Capitol riot. There was no organization, no goal, and very little violence on the part of the rioters.

Reply
goaded

1 y
@gotc147 Just five people dead in a matter of hours among thousands of "protesters". No, not that violent.

Reply
gotc147

1 y
@goaded One died because she was unjustifiably shot in the neck by Secret Service and three others died of medical episodes. Compared to dozens murdered, hundreds injured and billions of dollars in damage from Antifa and BLM.

You would have been outraged had a leftist protestor been killed like that during say, a hypothetical defense of Minneapolis 3rd Precinct.

Reply
Tyrael

1 y
@gotc147 since when was being beaten to death with a fire extinguisher called a "medical episode" gtfo here with your dumbass attempts at justifications.

Reply
gotc147

1 y
@Tyrael Would love to know where you get your fantasies from.

Reply
supercutebutt

1 y
@gotc147 Trump encouraged the violence. Biden never encouraged violence. Your logic is fucked.

Reply
Fuentes

1 y
You guys should all know that @Supercutebutt is not a females its a crazy Male SJW who doesn't believe im gender labels

Reply
goaded

1 y
@gotc147 She was shot climbing through a window over a barricade with representatives on the other side and a mob behind her, it was totally justified.

Reply
Fuentes

1 y
@supercutebutt yes this is Trumps America not Biden he stole it and its 2A all day at least im not a crazy leftist rainbow supporter and support 8 years old being mutilated so they "transition" lime you did

Reply
goaded

1 y
@Fuentes No, he didn't steal it, that's why Biden's president.

Reply
supercutebutt

1 y
@Fuentes Trump lost the electoral college 306-232. Trump lost the popular vote by over 7 million. Anybody who refuses to believe this is either stupid or mentally ill. You need to step into reality or else your life will be a complete waste. :) Also, I am a moderate not a "leftist." Meanwhile, you are an unemployed, QAnon, extremist weirdo.

Reply
gotc147

1 y
@goaded You see this is why I don't debate you, you make up fantasies to try to justify your positions.

Reply
gotc147

1 y
@supercutebutt You have that exactly backwards.

Reply
goaded

1 y
@gotc147 You have that exactly backwards.

Reply
Rangers

1 y
https://youtu.be/ISFU5ehObC0
Spoiler alert: You'll try to come to my house with a bat and I'll shoot you through your heart and you'll fall down and take the floor temperature challenge. The memes about you trying to kill me with a bat will surface immediately

Reply
Rangers

1 y
Plus, I guarantee you can't even lift a bat and I'd never invade someone's home because I'm not a criminal, unlike you.

Reply
Fuentes

1 y
@supercutebutt i think you're self projecting and you're unemployed and want free stuff from the government you're just making up excuses your a clear democrat if you wanted BIDEN to win and nope you're crazy and insane if you think BIDEN had more VOTES then OBAMA and the fact that when Biden does things nobody shows uo but when Trump does things everyone shows up thats a clear sign the election was a lie and in California the voter booths didn't even ID the voters for some odd reason and some immigrants said they were even able to vote this year and that's cpewr voter fraud thr election is a SHAM

Reply
Fuentes

1 y
@supercutebutt so Obama ran against Mcain and Romey and ge still didn't have as many votes as Biden why? Especially in the black community who racist Joe Biden said you not black for voting for me a big ass joke also Trump has hella supporters your speaking like everyone in the US hated him ur wrong just look at all his events lol look at the capitol no way Biden won

Reply
Rangers

1 y
Reread the hilarous threat you made to me and then tell someone else that they're crazy for calling it how it is that you're completely uninformed and out of your mind. And apparently you didn't learn about trying to target people with guns after what happened in Kenosha when three sex offenders, one of which had a gun tried to attack Kyle Rittenhouse and two of them took the asphalt temperature challenge and the other had most of his arm blown off.

Reply
supercutebutt

1 y
@Rangers If you break into my house, I will send you directly to Jesus. That isn't a threat. That is my legal right. I can end you if you try to rape and murder me. Don't you want to meet Jesus?

Reply
Rangers

1 y
I'm not gay, nor a monster, so I'd never rape you or anyone. Good to see you finally acknowledge a right to self defense exists, too bad you think it only exists for you and still think a bat is a viable weapon for self defense and you haven't mentioned how exactly you plan on being able to conceal and quickly deploy that bat when you're in public and some shitbird tries to kidnap you? Sooner or later you'll have to come to terms with the reality that firearms are the only viable means of self defense, you can acknowledge it now and get a gun, or wait until you're tied up and in a cartels truck wishing you'd had a gun on you when they snatched you. Think about that and acknowledge that I never want to see that happen to anyone including you, despite how idiotic and delusional you are. Threatening people who have guns when you admit that you don't have one is pretty stupid and if you do it to the wrong person, say a cartel member, that's how you get killed. They kill and dismember people every day for no reason at all, so don't put a target on your back without at least having a way to give them a reason why they should go back where they came from when they meet you.

Reply
supercutebutt

1 y
@Rangers What is this cartel business? I live in Michigan. I am not worried about cartels. Where do you live?

Reply
Rangers

1 y
Texas, somewhat close to the border. But I've been threatened by cartels for a long time because I started fucking with their online crime scamming "business" when I was in Connecticut and they've been threatening me ever since. I didn't have guns until I came to Texas and God knows what they would've done to me if they'd known i had no gun up there. Those members literally have nothing better to do, if you were to make them mad, they'll travel to Michigan, it's best not to take that chance and make yourself a target by acting hard and making your anti gun stance known at the same time. Cartel members are weak, pathetic losers and they know it, too, that's why they're so barbaric and do such unthinkable things to random people, to make themselves feel powerful and scare others. Even if there's 10 of them, they'll scatter away as soon as one of them goes down because they want victims, not fighters. A bat won't do it, a firearm will. I've never seen a cartel continue to engage a civilian after the civilan fired back, that's if there's any cartel members left at that point.

Reply
purplepoppy

1 y
Cartels are armed to the teeth and kill each other for fun. If they wanted you dead you'd be dead by now. Being armed doesn't prevent a shot in the back of your head or your car being bombed. I think you live in a fantasy world.

Reply
Rangers

1 y
They don't go after me because they know I'm armed and willing to fight back, cartels are unintelligent and unsophisticated, hence why they don't mess with explosives because they'll just end up blowing themselves up. I'm constantly aware of my surroundings and everyone around me and wear concealed body armor wherever I go. Cartel members can't hit the broadside of a barn and I train every single day my emotional and spiritual fitness as well as my shooting skills. If they decide to roll up, I'll make them wish they hadn't. They know that, which is the only reason they haven't tried anything with me yet. I do look forward to it in a way because I'll have the honor of taking at least one of them off of the streets. You're a spoiled British girl who's never worked a day in her life and concerns herself with how an objectively superior country runs themselves and thinks anyone here cares. You live in a fairytale land, which is why people fled your country to the colonies in the first place.

Reply
supercutebutt

1 y
@Rangers It is possible that you are a paranoid schizophrenic. Your concerns don't sound rational to me.

Reply
Rangers

1 y
crazyshit.com/.../75562-mother-of-hell-the-most-brutal-video-of-2020-is-here
You don't even know what a paranoid schizophrenic means, and I simply acknowledge that evil exists in this world. Cartel members have shot out windows at my workplace 3 times and sent me messages asking me if I liked the "redecorating" they did. There's no denying that they're after me, but they lack the balls to roll up on me because they know they have no chance of survival if they do and I'll be just fine. If you think that video is bad, you should see the videos they've been sending me for years

Reply
Meldrum

1 y
@Tyrael I'll leave you folks that love the idea of having a gun in your possession when you've never been attacked, invaded in your home, or threatened with gun violence. Good luck with that and I'll see you at the morgue.

Reply
Rangers

1 y
So just wait until it happens so you can be totally unprepared for it? Great plan, I'm sure that'll workout great for you and evil definitely won't come your way knowing that you have absolutely no means of resisting it when it arrives👍

Reply
007kingifrit

1 y
@gotc147 arguing with goaded? blocked him last week. he just ran out of real arguments to make

Reply
Rangers

1 y
www.heritage.org/.../

Reply
Tyrael

1 y
@Meldrum I honestly have no idea what you're on about.

Reply
Fuentes

1 y
@supercutebutt your a MALE thats jealous and insecure about what im packing and im comfortable in my skin and your not lol

Reply
Fuentes

1 y
@purplepoppy lol you live in the true fantasy world you talk as if you live here and keep talking about the US in third person like your actually here and trying to tell Americans how it is when you never even lives in America all you do is watcg the fake NEWs and you think you seen it all in your safe uk enviorement where your cops get beat upand over powered and rape is super sky high WHY because y'all choose to not have weapons and the immigrants come to your country and wreck havoc but see here in the almighty USA bodies drop if you get outta line and that's our countries right thats why you lobster backs got sent packing home so mind your business and kee your delusional fantasies and vicariously livings to yourself

Reply
Fuentes

1 y
@supercutebutt you admitted you were from Michigan it all makes sense now no wonder your a confused SJW, you're clearly poor and see America in a false view because you live in crap everyday but if you did something to change your situation and lived in a better enviorement you would no longer think you deserve free stuff nor would u be a confused male sjw no longer

Reply
supercutebutt

1 y
@Fuentes I am wealthy (stock genius) and I live in the richest county in the state. Good try, though.

Reply
Fuentes

1 y
@supercutebutt yeah their is nothing rich about michigan it's a 3rd world state bad unemployment rates, dirty brown water, ghost town cities & broke people even the governor is being sued for his ignorance in that state, you're clearly struggling lol

Reply
supercutebutt

1 y
@Fuentes The governor who was sued is the old Republican governor who mishandled the Flint water crisis. I don't live near Flint. I live in the wealthiest county, as I stated earlier.

Reply
Fuentes

1 y
@supercutebutt Michigan is a third world state their is nothing wealthy about it stop lying lol you Defenitley live in LALA LAND.

Reply
Abtraction

1 y
@supercutebutt BS, guns don't just get up and shoot, just like a knife in the cutting block doesn't get up and stab someone. If it's in a safe, it's useless.

Reply
Abtraction

1 y
@KrakenAttackin lol, so true

Reply
Abtraction

1 y
At least we die trying, maybe take a few of them with us...

Reply
KrakenAttackin

1 y
@supercutebutt You and your bat would be quickly separated, you would be raped and/or killed. Damn, so many liberal women like you are so fucking delusional, you think you are "invincible" when in fact you are totally vulnerable.

The hell of it is you would IMPOSE your vulnerability on the rest of us, and frankly I will not tolerate it.

Reply
hellionthesagereborn

1 y
Yeah, and they are shittier then the US. I mean the UK has more murders per year then the US does (well, as long as we actually define a murder as an intentionally killing as we do in the US unlike in the UK where you define it as a murder only if a conviction occurs). We also have fewer assaults then the UK does. And fewer knife attacks. And fewer acid attacks. In fact if we look at the US we have in general, a decrease in crime in all the areas that have concealed carry. Its almost as if people don't want to fuck with you if they know you can defend yourself, weird right? Probably why the UK put so much effort to prevent all of their subjects and colonies from having guns, like Ireland, India, and the US (tried and failed to limit our access to weapons), you know for our own good and not to make sure we couldn't fight against them when they fucked us over.

Reply
Tyrael

1 y
@hellionthesagereborn so the UK has more murders so long as you fiddle with how you count the stats? Convenient lol. It's not a proven murder if they're not convicted of murder.

The reason we have more assaults and less murders is precisely because we're not all armed with deadly weapons. And a knife attack is significantly less dangerous than a gun attack, doesn't matter how you try and spin it.

And yes limiting access to firearms for your enemies is a good way not to have them used against you. Kind of like what we've done here in the UK and Australia for example. Not had a single mass shooting for years as a result. You fail to make a valid point.

Reply
goaded

1 y
@hellionthesagereborn Wrong. The UK counts dead bodies, same as everywhere else. The only difference is that when there is a conviction, the murder is recorded in that year, not the year it took place. That makes things look bad when there's a mass murder, (Shipman 173 over decases, recorded in 2003, Hillsborough 96, from 1989, in 2017), but generally evens out.

In 2018, the UK murder rate was 1.20 murders per million population. US had 4.96.

"In the year ending March 2019, there were 662 separate homicide incidents" in England and Wales, population nearly 60 million.

www.ons.gov.uk/.../yearendingmarch2019
en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Reply
hellionthesagereborn

1 y
@goaded www.ons.gov.uk/.../yearendingmarch2019

Reply
goaded

1 y
@hellionthesagereborn Why are you giving me the same link I just gave you that backs up what I said? Quote the part you think proves me wrong.

Reply
hellionthesagereborn

1 y
@goaded Because it doesn't state what you claim it does. It literally states that they do not count a murder until their is a conviction while in the US any death that is not deemed natural or suicide is in fact deemed a murder. This artificialy deflates the UK's numbers. How the hell do you manage to survive? Do you want me to get the quote? Here: "Homicide Index data are based on the year when the offence was recorded as a crime, not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court. While in the vast majority of cases the offence will be recorded in the same year as it took place, this is not always so. Caution is therefore needed when looking at longer-term homicide trends. For example:

the 96 deaths that occurred at Hillsborough in 1989 were recorded as manslaughters in the year ending March 2017 following the verdict of the Hillsborough Inquest in April 2016

the 173 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman3 as a result of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry took place over a long period of time but were all recorded by the police during the year ending March 2003

Furthermore, where several people are killed by the same suspect, the number of homicides counted is the total number of victims killed rather than the number of incidents. For example, the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing in May 2017 are counted as 22 individual homicides.

For the purposes of the Homicide Index, a suspect in a homicide case is defined as either:

a person who has been charged with a homicide offence, including those who were subsequently convicted and those awaiting trial

a person who is suspected by the police of having committed the offence but is known to have died or committed suicide.

Where there are multiple suspects, they are categorised in the Homicide Index as either the principal or a secondary suspect. There is only ever one principal suspect per homicide victim."

Reply
goaded

1 y
@hellionthesagereborn Once again, you prove you can't read.

"the offence was recorded as a crime, not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court. While in the vast majority of cases the offence will be recorded in the same year as it took place"
When you find a murdered body, it's recorded as a murder, and you record the offence when you find the body, that's all. That's nothing to do with when the murderer is convicted. Some, rare, times, it takes a long time to establish whether people died by natural causes or were killed (e. g. Hillsborough). Unless you can prove three quarters of murders go undetected in the UK (and none in the US), the murder rate is clearly four times as high in the US.

Reply
hellionthesagereborn

1 y
@goaded Wow your stupid. You literally quoted it and then ignored it. Insane. It doesn't get recorded in official records until a conviction occurs, it states it and you just ignored it entirely, I will never understand how some one can be that fucking insane.

Reply
goaded

1 y
@hellionthesagereborn You misunderstand the difference between recording a crime and conviction for a crime. If someone steals your wallet and you report it to the police, that will be recorded as a crime, even if nobody is ever caught for it; same with murder.

The US murder rate is 4 times the UK rate.

Reply
hellionthesagereborn

1 y
@goaded You should probably read that again. It literally states that it isn't recorded as a murder when it happens or when the trial occurs but when their is a conviction, otherwise it is not labeled a murder (not saying thye don't note it, only that by their own words they do not record it as a murder unless they have a conviction which is why by their own words, the year to year data is not accurate as these things overlap and the crime happens in one year and the conviction happens in another). I'm sorry that your confused by what is clearly stated, perhaps you should reread it several times so you can understand it better (I did, just to make sure I was reading it correctly because it sounds like a pretty stupid system).

Reply
goaded

1 y
@hellionthesagereborn Show me some variant on the word "conviction" in what you quoted (where it's talking about counting murders, not defining suspects in the case of multiple murders).

The point still stands that, with both police and Home Office figures, the number is consistently close to 1 (0.8 - 1.8) case per million people, even if there is sometimes a extra peak (like 2003's 1.8, due entirely to multiple murderer Harold Shipman). The US figure is closer to 5.

(One link does say that police figures include killings that are sometimes later recorded as manslaughter in court, but also that the "term “homicide” covers the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide", so that evens out.) The figures would have to be out by a factor of four to make your fantasy that the UK has more murders per capita than the US, let alone a factor of 20, to match your original simple claim of "more murders".

Reply

Answer 14

Tyrael

Truth.

Answer 15

007kingifrit

no other western country will survive

Answer 16

WindAtMyBack

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. You just make shit up without having any real knowledge.

Answer 17

Rangers

That must be why an estimated 500,000-3,000,000 lives are saved every year through the defensive use of firearms. https://youtu.be/2iFo1TrYMq4
The only people peeing their pants are criminals when they encounter an armed civilian, and for good reason, we know how to use our guns and they don't.

Answer 18

Not_Average

If you live in an area of low crime, sure. But not everyone is so privileged to live in an area in which a home invasion or violent altercation is such a rare occurrence.

Answer 19

goaded

@Not_Average Aren't you better off if the person you're having a violent altercation with, or invading your home, doesn't have a gun?

Answer 20

Not_Average

@goaded Sure, if all attackers had guns. In my two life circumstances, they did not have guns. Brandishing my firearm got them to back off. One had a knife and one of those heavy construction rods. If the criminal towers above you, then they can hurt you without another gun

Answer 21

Not_Average

Most criminals obtain firearms illegally since they don’t meet the criteria to legally purchase one. So by banning firearms, you’re only stripping law abiding citizens

Answer 22

goaded

@Not_Average That's not so. You're also making it much harder to obtain firearms illegally, making it less likely that criminals will carry a firearm while committing crimes that don't need one (you'll get a longer sentence, and could be arrested for possession before you even commit the crime).

Answer 23

Lιʅʅყ

Pro gun owner by the way but look at Australia for a model to follow

Answer 24

Not_Average

@goaded My experience from working in law enforcement showed me that most guns have the serial numbers scratched off and stolen. Sure it might be harder for the criminals to steal them, but that’s not right to the law abiding citizens who own them. A much better solution to is teach gun owners how to lock away and store their weapons.

Most democrats think that gun owners like me literally live and breath guns. I own some. I keep them in a safe. I don’t talk about them. Nobody really knows I have them. I never really pull them out unless I want to go to the range which is even a rare occurrence. My guns don’t consume my identity. This stereotype isn’t accurate.

Answer 25

Fuentes

Im just here to give the wanna be American another dislike

Answer 26

KrakenAttackin

@purplepoppy. You have shown a complete lack of understanding of Americans and American culture.

by the way, the fucking British are who started our obsession with guns.

Answer 27

purplepoppy

@goaded has it spot on. A guns a tool to do a job and should be kept in one locked cabinet and the ammo in a separate locked cabinet. We all have bad days, get pissed off and ready to snap. Having a loaded gun on you is just asking for trouble.

Answer 28

KrakenAttackin

@Lιʅʅყ Australia, no thanks..

The people should have access to any weapons the police do.

Answer 29

goaded

@KrakenAttackin Why? The police are outnumbered by the people thousands to one. If there's a real reason for overthrowing the government, sheer weight of numbers should do it. Of course, if you want a small minority of fanatics to be able to take over the government, that's the way to achieve it.

Under His Eye.

Answer 30

WindAtMyBack

@goaded
"Aren't you better off if the person you're having a violent altercation with, or invading your home, doesn't have a gun?"

Yes, but the problem with so many anti-gun arguments is that they are one sided. First of all, very few home invaders will have a gun on them. Second, homeowners with guns not only stop large numbers of crimes, but they also act as a huge deterrent. Convicted criminals have consistently said over many years that homeowners with guns are a much bigger deterrent than cops.

A homeowner with a gun has an advantage over a home invader with a gun. Without either having a gun, that advantage significantly decreases and may even give the advantage to the invader.

It's intuitive that more guns will translate to more gun crimes. But people ignore the other side of the equation. They look at one side, not the net effect. They don't look at the crimes being stopped. And they don't look at the deterrent effects.

Aside from what's intuitive, the empirical evidence strongly suggests that guns are NOT the cause of increased violent crimes. The empirical evidence shows that something else is the major cause.

As long as people keep focusing on guns, they are avoiding looking for the real cause. Guns make an easy scapegoat. It's easier to point fingers at guns than to look for more complex and deeper social issues.

Answer 31

goaded

@WindAtMyBack Much like it's the love of money that's the root of all evil, not the money itself?

A violent society with fewer guns is safer than a violent society with more guns. Does fear-mongering about people taking away your guns make a society more or less violent, do you think?

By the way, I realise that the situation in the US is probably beyond redemption, but some regulation is popular and practical; the problem is people like the Republican party and the modern NRA (it started out quite reasonable, aiui). Stopping people convicted of violent crime from possessing firearms seems quite reasonable, for example. Temporarily stopping people accused of the same is also reasonable (part of a restraining order, for example). Both of those would be fought tooth-and-nail (ironically) as being a slippery slope to taking away all the gunz. People in, say, the UK, have guns - they just have to have a good reason.

Answer 32

purplepoppy

Most invaders don't carry weapons because they know it massively increases the sentence they'll get if caught. This means that you can't claim self defence if you kill a burglars. You simply can't argue you were in danger from an unarmed man at distance. No judge can sentence you to death for theft yet every gun enthusiast believes he has the right to execute the most minor of criminals.

Answer 33

supercutebutt

purplepoppy is correct. A gun in the home is way more likely to end up injuring or killing yourself or a family member than warding off an intruder. I am all for self defense but I would rather have my trusty softball bat handy than live with a gun. And good luck unlocking your gun cabinet and getting things all loaded up properly in time to use that gun for protection. If someone dares to break into my house while I'm there, I will be swinging for the fences. And I swing HARD. :)

Answer 34

purplepoppy

Guns are more common in the UK than most people realize. But unless you want one for a legitimate reason such as hunting/sport or pest control then it's viewed by the public that you shouldn't have one. Guns must be kept locked up and cabinets are inspected by the police. One positive thing about gun licences in the uk is you must not have a criminal record and that fact is often enough to keep people on the straight and narrow because they don't want to lose their licence.

Answer 35

Rangers

Where did you hear that nonsense, CNN? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, there's over a million home invasions while the owner is present every year in the US and the number of negligent discharges (all of which the user is at fault) is less than 100 and the number of defensive uses of firearms every year is over a million. Ok, then you use a soft ball bat against two assailants, one of which has a gun, which is the statistical norm for deadly force encounters. And that's exactly why I keep guns ready for use and closeby. You can't be for self defense and against guns at the same time as a firearm is the only viable form of self defense. And that last claim is another entirely baseless claim and doesn't even pass the sniff test. 70% of deadly force encounters where the victim had a gun end without a problem once their firearm is drawn and the perpetrator gives up or runs away. There are zero documented cases where a legally armed civilian shot a criminal for a petty crime or any crime that wasn't a violent felony in which their life was at immediate risk from them. But by all means live in your fairytale land and know that no matter what laws pass regarding guns, I won't comply and the police in my area won't enforce them because I back the blue, and the blue backs me.

Answer 36

supercutebutt

@Rangers Fuckwad, I can list about a half dozen instances among friends and family alone where a gun led to the death or near death of an unintended victim. I cannot list a single instance where a gun stopped an intruder. And I guarantee if I hear you rustling outside my house, trying to gain access to my wicked hot ass, I will exit out the opposite door you attempt to enter, calmly saunter outside and around to the door your sorry ass broke into, see your ugly, shadowy self, raise up my bat from behind you, and send you directly home to Jesus. And I will feel zero remorse. In fact, I may even desecrate your corpse, just for shits and giggles. Stay off my property, dicklick. And kindly go fuck yourself. And I hope CNN shows the pics of your corpse, with my bat sticking out of your asshole, to send a warning to Trumptarded insurrectionists all over this once great land. :)

Answer 37

KrakenAttackin

@supercutebutt You are LYING. Stop with the stupid, brainwashed, left wing, liberal, gibberish. You are a 20 year old female. The only thing on which you are an authority is getting fucked.

You want our guns? "Come and take them".

Answer 38

gotc147

And every other western nation is constantly teetering between fascism and communism.

By the way, the "your gun will be used against you" argument is invalid as most, if not all, the studies that claim that never actually say it's *your* gun that gets used against you, just that you're more likely to get shot if using a gun against someone.

Like pretty much everything else I see you post on here, your arguments have no basis in reality.

Answer 39

KrakenAttackin

@gotc147 Well said.

Answer 40

Tyrael

@gotc147 you sure you want to have a go at other countries "teetering" while you've got home grown terrorists storming the capitol and trying to overturn the results a democratic election?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Answer 41

gotc147

@Tyrael The homegrown terrorists you speak of are BLM and Antifa who have committed terroristic acts over the last four years.

There was nothing terroristic about the Capitol riot. There was no organization, no goal, and very little violence on the part of the rioters.

Answer 42

goaded

@gotc147 Just five people dead in a matter of hours among thousands of "protesters". No, not that violent.

Answer 43

gotc147

@goaded One died because she was unjustifiably shot in the neck by Secret Service and three others died of medical episodes. Compared to dozens murdered, hundreds injured and billions of dollars in damage from Antifa and BLM.

You would have been outraged had a leftist protestor been killed like that during say, a hypothetical defense of Minneapolis 3rd Precinct.

Answer 44

Tyrael

@gotc147 since when was being beaten to death with a fire extinguisher called a "medical episode" gtfo here with your dumbass attempts at justifications.

Answer 45

gotc147

@Tyrael Would love to know where you get your fantasies from.

Answer 46

supercutebutt

@gotc147 Trump encouraged the violence. Biden never encouraged violence. Your logic is fucked.

Answer 47

Fuentes

You guys should all know that @Supercutebutt is not a females its a crazy Male SJW who doesn't believe im gender labels

Answer 48

goaded

@gotc147 She was shot climbing through a window over a barricade with representatives on the other side and a mob behind her, it was totally justified.

Answer 49

Fuentes

@supercutebutt yes this is Trumps America not Biden he stole it and its 2A all day at least im not a crazy leftist rainbow supporter and support 8 years old being mutilated so they "transition" lime you did

Answer 50

goaded

@Fuentes No, he didn't steal it, that's why Biden's president.

Answer 51

supercutebutt

@Fuentes Trump lost the electoral college 306-232. Trump lost the popular vote by over 7 million. Anybody who refuses to believe this is either stupid or mentally ill. You need to step into reality or else your life will be a complete waste. :) Also, I am a moderate not a "leftist." Meanwhile, you are an unemployed, QAnon, extremist weirdo.

Answer 52

gotc147

@goaded You see this is why I don't debate you, you make up fantasies to try to justify your positions.

Answer 53

gotc147

@supercutebutt You have that exactly backwards.

Answer 54

goaded

@gotc147 You have that exactly backwards.

Answer 55

Rangers

https://youtu.be/ISFU5ehObC0
Spoiler alert: You'll try to come to my house with a bat and I'll shoot you through your heart and you'll fall down and take the floor temperature challenge. The memes about you trying to kill me with a bat will surface immediately

Answer 56

Rangers

Plus, I guarantee you can't even lift a bat and I'd never invade someone's home because I'm not a criminal, unlike you.

Answer 57

Fuentes

@supercutebutt i think you're self projecting and you're unemployed and want free stuff from the government you're just making up excuses your a clear democrat if you wanted BIDEN to win and nope you're crazy and insane if you think BIDEN had more VOTES then OBAMA and the fact that when Biden does things nobody shows uo but when Trump does things everyone shows up thats a clear sign the election was a lie and in California the voter booths didn't even ID the voters for some odd reason and some immigrants said they were even able to vote this year and that's cpewr voter fraud thr election is a SHAM

Answer 58

Fuentes

@supercutebutt so Obama ran against Mcain and Romey and ge still didn't have as many votes as Biden why? Especially in the black community who racist Joe Biden said you not black for voting for me a big ass joke also Trump has hella supporters your speaking like everyone in the US hated him ur wrong just look at all his events lol look at the capitol no way Biden won

Answer 59

Rangers

Reread the hilarous threat you made to me and then tell someone else that they're crazy for calling it how it is that you're completely uninformed and out of your mind. And apparently you didn't learn about trying to target people with guns after what happened in Kenosha when three sex offenders, one of which had a gun tried to attack Kyle Rittenhouse and two of them took the asphalt temperature challenge and the other had most of his arm blown off.

Answer 60

supercutebutt

@Rangers If you break into my house, I will send you directly to Jesus. That isn't a threat. That is my legal right. I can end you if you try to rape and murder me. Don't you want to meet Jesus?

Answer 61

Rangers

I'm not gay, nor a monster, so I'd never rape you or anyone. Good to see you finally acknowledge a right to self defense exists, too bad you think it only exists for you and still think a bat is a viable weapon for self defense and you haven't mentioned how exactly you plan on being able to conceal and quickly deploy that bat when you're in public and some shitbird tries to kidnap you? Sooner or later you'll have to come to terms with the reality that firearms are the only viable means of self defense, you can acknowledge it now and get a gun, or wait until you're tied up and in a cartels truck wishing you'd had a gun on you when they snatched you. Think about that and acknowledge that I never want to see that happen to anyone including you, despite how idiotic and delusional you are. Threatening people who have guns when you admit that you don't have one is pretty stupid and if you do it to the wrong person, say a cartel member, that's how you get killed. They kill and dismember people every day for no reason at all, so don't put a target on your back without at least having a way to give them a reason why they should go back where they came from when they meet you.

Answer 62

supercutebutt

@Rangers What is this cartel business? I live in Michigan. I am not worried about cartels. Where do you live?

Answer 63

Rangers

Texas, somewhat close to the border. But I've been threatened by cartels for a long time because I started fucking with their online crime scamming "business" when I was in Connecticut and they've been threatening me ever since. I didn't have guns until I came to Texas and God knows what they would've done to me if they'd known i had no gun up there. Those members literally have nothing better to do, if you were to make them mad, they'll travel to Michigan, it's best not to take that chance and make yourself a target by acting hard and making your anti gun stance known at the same time. Cartel members are weak, pathetic losers and they know it, too, that's why they're so barbaric and do such unthinkable things to random people, to make themselves feel powerful and scare others. Even if there's 10 of them, they'll scatter away as soon as one of them goes down because they want victims, not fighters. A bat won't do it, a firearm will. I've never seen a cartel continue to engage a civilian after the civilan fired back, that's if there's any cartel members left at that point.

Answer 64

purplepoppy

Cartels are armed to the teeth and kill each other for fun. If they wanted you dead you'd be dead by now. Being armed doesn't prevent a shot in the back of your head or your car being bombed. I think you live in a fantasy world.

Answer 65

Rangers

They don't go after me because they know I'm armed and willing to fight back, cartels are unintelligent and unsophisticated, hence why they don't mess with explosives because they'll just end up blowing themselves up. I'm constantly aware of my surroundings and everyone around me and wear concealed body armor wherever I go. Cartel members can't hit the broadside of a barn and I train every single day my emotional and spiritual fitness as well as my shooting skills. If they decide to roll up, I'll make them wish they hadn't. They know that, which is the only reason they haven't tried anything with me yet. I do look forward to it in a way because I'll have the honor of taking at least one of them off of the streets. You're a spoiled British girl who's never worked a day in her life and concerns herself with how an objectively superior country runs themselves and thinks anyone here cares. You live in a fairytale land, which is why people fled your country to the colonies in the first place.

Answer 66

supercutebutt

@Rangers It is possible that you are a paranoid schizophrenic. Your concerns don't sound rational to me.

Answer 67

Rangers

crazyshit.com/.../75562-mother-of-hell-the-most-brutal-video-of-2020-is-here
You don't even know what a paranoid schizophrenic means, and I simply acknowledge that evil exists in this world. Cartel members have shot out windows at my workplace 3 times and sent me messages asking me if I liked the "redecorating" they did. There's no denying that they're after me, but they lack the balls to roll up on me because they know they have no chance of survival if they do and I'll be just fine. If you think that video is bad, you should see the videos they've been sending me for years

Answer 68

Meldrum

@Tyrael I'll leave you folks that love the idea of having a gun in your possession when you've never been attacked, invaded in your home, or threatened with gun violence. Good luck with that and I'll see you at the morgue.

Answer 69

Rangers

So just wait until it happens so you can be totally unprepared for it? Great plan, I'm sure that'll workout great for you and evil definitely won't come your way knowing that you have absolutely no means of resisting it when it arrives👍

Answer 70

007kingifrit

@gotc147 arguing with goaded? blocked him last week. he just ran out of real arguments to make

Answer 71

Rangers

www.heritage.org/.../

Answer 72

Tyrael

@Meldrum I honestly have no idea what you're on about.

Answer 73

Fuentes

@supercutebutt your a MALE thats jealous and insecure about what im packing and im comfortable in my skin and your not lol

Answer 74

Fuentes

@purplepoppy lol you live in the true fantasy world you talk as if you live here and keep talking about the US in third person like your actually here and trying to tell Americans how it is when you never even lives in America all you do is watcg the fake NEWs and you think you seen it all in your safe uk enviorement where your cops get beat upand over powered and rape is super sky high WHY because y'all choose to not have weapons and the immigrants come to your country and wreck havoc but see here in the almighty USA bodies drop if you get outta line and that's our countries right thats why you lobster backs got sent packing home so mind your business and kee your delusional fantasies and vicariously livings to yourself

Answer 75

Fuentes

@supercutebutt you admitted you were from Michigan it all makes sense now no wonder your a confused SJW, you're clearly poor and see America in a false view because you live in crap everyday but if you did something to change your situation and lived in a better enviorement you would no longer think you deserve free stuff nor would u be a confused male sjw no longer

Answer 76

supercutebutt

@Fuentes I am wealthy (stock genius) and I live in the richest county in the state. Good try, though.

Answer 77

Fuentes

@supercutebutt yeah their is nothing rich about michigan it's a 3rd world state bad unemployment rates, dirty brown water, ghost town cities & broke people even the governor is being sued for his ignorance in that state, you're clearly struggling lol

Answer 78

supercutebutt

@Fuentes The governor who was sued is the old Republican governor who mishandled the Flint water crisis. I don't live near Flint. I live in the wealthiest county, as I stated earlier.

Answer 79

Fuentes

@supercutebutt Michigan is a third world state their is nothing wealthy about it stop lying lol you Defenitley live in LALA LAND.

Answer 80

Abtraction

@supercutebutt BS, guns don't just get up and shoot, just like a knife in the cutting block doesn't get up and stab someone. If it's in a safe, it's useless.

Answer 81

Abtraction

@KrakenAttackin lol, so true

Answer 82

Abtraction

At least we die trying, maybe take a few of them with us...

Answer 83

KrakenAttackin

@supercutebutt You and your bat would be quickly separated, you would be raped and/or killed. Damn, so many liberal women like you are so fucking delusional, you think you are "invincible" when in fact you are totally vulnerable.

The hell of it is you would IMPOSE your vulnerability on the rest of us, and frankly I will not tolerate it.

Answer 84

hellionthesagereborn

Yeah, and they are shittier then the US. I mean the UK has more murders per year then the US does (well, as long as we actually define a murder as an intentionally killing as we do in the US unlike in the UK where you define it as a murder only if a conviction occurs). We also have fewer assaults then the UK does. And fewer knife attacks. And fewer acid attacks. In fact if we look at the US we have in general, a decrease in crime in all the areas that have concealed carry. Its almost as if people don't want to fuck with you if they know you can defend yourself, weird right? Probably why the UK put so much effort to prevent all of their subjects and colonies from having guns, like Ireland, India, and the US (tried and failed to limit our access to weapons), you know for our own good and not to make sure we couldn't fight against them when they fucked us over.

Answer 85

Tyrael

@hellionthesagereborn so the UK has more murders so long as you fiddle with how you count the stats? Convenient lol. It's not a proven murder if they're not convicted of murder.

The reason we have more assaults and less murders is precisely because we're not all armed with deadly weapons. And a knife attack is significantly less dangerous than a gun attack, doesn't matter how you try and spin it.

And yes limiting access to firearms for your enemies is a good way not to have them used against you. Kind of like what we've done here in the UK and Australia for example. Not had a single mass shooting for years as a result. You fail to make a valid point.

Answer 86

goaded

@hellionthesagereborn Wrong. The UK counts dead bodies, same as everywhere else. The only difference is that when there is a conviction, the murder is recorded in that year, not the year it took place. That makes things look bad when there's a mass murder, (Shipman 173 over decases, recorded in 2003, Hillsborough 96, from 1989, in 2017), but generally evens out.

In 2018, the UK murder rate was 1.20 murders per million population. US had 4.96.

"In the year ending March 2019, there were 662 separate homicide incidents" in England and Wales, population nearly 60 million.

www.ons.gov.uk/.../yearendingmarch2019
en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Answer 87

hellionthesagereborn

@goaded www.ons.gov.uk/.../yearendingmarch2019

Answer 88

goaded

@hellionthesagereborn Why are you giving me the same link I just gave you that backs up what I said? Quote the part you think proves me wrong.

Answer 89

hellionthesagereborn

@goaded Because it doesn't state what you claim it does. It literally states that they do not count a murder until their is a conviction while in the US any death that is not deemed natural or suicide is in fact deemed a murder. This artificialy deflates the UK's numbers. How the hell do you manage to survive? Do you want me to get the quote? Here: "Homicide Index data are based on the year when the offence was recorded as a crime, not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court. While in the vast majority of cases the offence will be recorded in the same year as it took place, this is not always so. Caution is therefore needed when looking at longer-term homicide trends. For example:

the 96 deaths that occurred at Hillsborough in 1989 were recorded as manslaughters in the year ending March 2017 following the verdict of the Hillsborough Inquest in April 2016

the 173 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman3 as a result of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry took place over a long period of time but were all recorded by the police during the year ending March 2003

Furthermore, where several people are killed by the same suspect, the number of homicides counted is the total number of victims killed rather than the number of incidents. For example, the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing in May 2017 are counted as 22 individual homicides.

For the purposes of the Homicide Index, a suspect in a homicide case is defined as either:

a person who has been charged with a homicide offence, including those who were subsequently convicted and those awaiting trial

a person who is suspected by the police of having committed the offence but is known to have died or committed suicide.

Where there are multiple suspects, they are categorised in the Homicide Index as either the principal or a secondary suspect. There is only ever one principal suspect per homicide victim."

Answer 90

goaded

@hellionthesagereborn Once again, you prove you can't read.

"the offence was recorded as a crime, not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court. While in the vast majority of cases the offence will be recorded in the same year as it took place"
When you find a murdered body, it's recorded as a murder, and you record the offence when you find the body, that's all. That's nothing to do with when the murderer is convicted. Some, rare, times, it takes a long time to establish whether people died by natural causes or were killed (e. g. Hillsborough). Unless you can prove three quarters of murders go undetected in the UK (and none in the US), the murder rate is clearly four times as high in the US.

Answer 91

hellionthesagereborn

@goaded Wow your stupid. You literally quoted it and then ignored it. Insane. It doesn't get recorded in official records until a conviction occurs, it states it and you just ignored it entirely, I will never understand how some one can be that fucking insane.

Answer 92

goaded

@hellionthesagereborn You misunderstand the difference between recording a crime and conviction for a crime. If someone steals your wallet and you report it to the police, that will be recorded as a crime, even if nobody is ever caught for it; same with murder.

The US murder rate is 4 times the UK rate.

Answer 93

hellionthesagereborn

@goaded You should probably read that again. It literally states that it isn't recorded as a murder when it happens or when the trial occurs but when their is a conviction, otherwise it is not labeled a murder (not saying thye don't note it, only that by their own words they do not record it as a murder unless they have a conviction which is why by their own words, the year to year data is not accurate as these things overlap and the crime happens in one year and the conviction happens in another). I'm sorry that your confused by what is clearly stated, perhaps you should reread it several times so you can understand it better (I did, just to make sure I was reading it correctly because it sounds like a pretty stupid system).

Answer 94

goaded

@hellionthesagereborn Show me some variant on the word "conviction" in what you quoted (where it's talking about counting murders, not defining suspects in the case of multiple murders).

The point still stands that, with both police and Home Office figures, the number is consistently close to 1 (0.8 - 1.8) case per million people, even if there is sometimes a extra peak (like 2003's 1.8, due entirely to multiple murderer Harold Shipman). The US figure is closer to 5.

(One link does say that police figures include killings that are sometimes later recorded as manslaughter in court, but also that the "term “homicide” covers the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide", so that evens out.) The figures would have to be out by a factor of four to make your fantasy that the UK has more murders per capita than the US, let alone a factor of 20, to match your original simple claim of "more murders".

Answer 95

OlderAndWiser | 7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Influencer

What is there about owning a gun that makes a person a coward?

React

3 People

Answer 96

Lliam | 2.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

That's funny. The people who are afraid of guns calling those who want to retain the right to own them cowards.
A person can support the self-evident, unalienable right as a sovereign human being to own guns if they choose to, even if they choose not to own a gun.

Those who want to outlaw gun rights think government should have the right to dictate every aspect of their lives. They want to force others to comply with their beliefs. They love increasingly restrictive laws, which require brute force by police. They want to live under rulers and don't understand the concept of government "of the people, for the people and by the people." They want to be treated as children by a government that consider to be wise, benevolent and god-like. They fear and distrust their neighbors and other human beings. They are the ultimate cowards who would rather live in safe cages than be free. The problem is, in order to make themselves feel safer, they would force everyone to live in cages.

Fear, fear, fear. There are endless examples of fear being used to manipulate people in to surrendering their rights and enslaving their neighbors.

Lastly, I continually wonder why non-Americans are so concerned about the rights of Americans. I guess it's a result of constant propaganda/brainwashing by mainstream media. The purpose being to make those people feel good about their own lack of liberty.

React

2 People

Answer 97

Meldrum

Xper 7

This is a topic that I have been quite vocal about for years. The person that buys a gun, pistol or rifle, or even shotgun, with no training whatsoever, will either kill themselves or be responsible for the death of someone else. They have no clue how to store a gun and keep it locked away from children.

Without proper training on how to clean and store a gun, actually firing the gun to get the feel of it, in a controlled environment, such as a shooting range, you are a danger to yourself and others. It's one thing, however, to shoot at paper targets and actually shooting another human being. THAT is, after all, the purpose of buying a weapon.

As a trained sniper for the Marine Corps, when I was sent to Vietnam, I assure you, it's no easy thing to take a life. Aside from the claims of others, it doesn't get easier if you have to kill more than one. I joined the Coast Guard to save lives, but my dad taught me to shoot, both rifle and shotgun. With a 22 caliber, I was able to shoot the cap off a Clorox bottle from 50 yards. When my instructors saw me shoot at the range they sent me to Camp LeJune for combat training.

You had better be damn sure you are willing to kill someone that is so desperate they want to steal your belongings. The only reason I can think of for carrying a weapon, either in the open or concealed, would be to protect your life, but by the time you are accosted and understand what's happening, they have killed you and taken the weapon. It is then another illegal firearm in the hands of a criminal.

Think long and hard before you buy a gun.

React

2 People

Answer 98

blmoore6108289942

Xper 1

Not necessarily. I live in a rural area in which firearms are upmost important... my closest neighbor is about 6 miles out either way. Unfortunately between, poachers, trespassers, addicts, and thieves owning firearms is our only way of guaranteed protection of our family and property. It takes responders about 15-30 minutes to arrive regarding any call. Not to mention during rough winter months it’s our link to source of food. So for us, no it’s not cowardice behavior. And before you pull the automatic/semi-automatic debate, I’ll address that too: group of crackheads on bath salts in your backyard (that’s happened) and packs of coyotes stalking you in the woods. There’s nothing wrong with owning any type of fire farms as long as you’re educated in use as well as mentally capable. 👌 sorry but it’s our way of life here in the south.

React

5 People

Totkopf

1 y
I thought michigan was rural but legitimately relying on hunting to eat sounds crazy to me, I didn't think the south was that rural, I love countryside over brick&mortar but I also enjoy being pampered with fast food and such

Reply

Answer 99

Totkopf

I thought michigan was rural but legitimately relying on hunting to eat sounds crazy to me, I didn't think the south was that rural, I love countryside over brick&mortar but I also enjoy being pampered with fast food and such

Answer 100

Bratsondanielle | 658 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

Well for me personally, I can say I live way way way out in the country and I don't think the cop could even find it, not to mention it would take him forever to get here.

I don't think most robbers and thieves will choose my place thou, because of that exact reason, but if they do, I will fire upon them, no question about it.

I don't think that's because I'm a coward, I just don't really care to deal with some dumbass who wants to steal my stuff and tie me up and leave (or whatever) so it's just easier to be able to kill them fast and easy.

Mostly I use my firearms for protection from predators thou. I have chickens and in my area we have stuff like bobcats and stuff. If I let my birdies run free (when I'm home) I always stay outside with a rifle.

Oh and besides... 2and amendment... but guess that's a given...

Take care

React

3 People

Answer 101

JackSmy

Guru

Cowards, in what way?
Like YOU, COWARD, asking as "anonymous"? WHY? If you are so sure of your belief, man up, and post, so people can comment, and debate, if you are a real man, and not a coward!
What happened to debate, and disagreeing, agreeably, and discussing things?
Many collect, and restore old rifles. Some like to hunt, and others like to target shoot. HUNDREDS of MILLIONS, YES, LITERALLY, guns, owned by Law-Abiding citizens, that have NEVER committed a Crime, ever! Some, don't even have PARKING TICKETS!!
Why ask this, in such an offensive way? Are you just some "anti-gun" Douche-bag that just thinks everyone should believe what you do, and don't bother to try to understand what you are asking?

React

3 People

Answer 102

abc3643 | 3.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Not at all.

America is a big place and, in rural parts of the country, a gun may be necessary for survival or even be a tool.

Where I live in rural Missouri, there are meth heads and other criminals because people are poor or strung out on drugs. Good luck on the cops appearing in less than 20 minutes.

We have to worry about potentially lethal animals...
... or hunt for meat if we can't afford to eat decently.

Finally, on a farm, it may be necessary to put down a sick animal that is suffering - a quick shot to the head is a euthanasia that alleviates the animal from suffering an otherwise miserable prolonged dying process.

React

2 People

007kingifrit

1 y
all true, we of course might also need to execute government officials without trial someday

Reply

Answer 103

007kingifrit

all true, we of course might also need to execute government officials without trial someday

Answer 104

soleil2000

Xper 1

You can argue that owning a weapon makes you a) more prone to using lethal force it provides, b) automatically involved in a conflict, since you have (or even carry) one - and you certainly do feel different about the world because of it.

You could also say it is wise to be armed as a civilian, in case some foreign groups got the idea of staging a coup d'etat and replacing Americans with their (ever increasing through immigration and 5-6 children per two parents, so growing exponentially) populations.

React

Answer 105

MCheetah | 3.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Literally only an ignorant person/idiot would think this, ESPECIALLY after the last three months. The Founding Fathers were a hell of a lot smarter and courageous than some flowery progressive pussy who thinks people should just be at the mercy of tyrannical governments, including the United States government right now. Guerrilla warfare goes a long way, and an entire nation (not counting the coasts) of armed and angry Americans does a lot to keep totalitarianism at bay... Unless you can indoctrinate them with neo-liberal bullshit.

React

1 Person

Answer 106

hellionthesagereborn | 3.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Why would that make them cowards? Is it cowardly to have a first aid kit? Insurance? An Umbrella? Are other nations cowards for having police and military? Are they cowards for relying entirely on them because they don't want to risk getting their hands dirty?

Being prepared for a situation doesn't make you a coward and how any one would come to that conclusion is beyond me. One would have a better argument stating that any one who doesn't want a gun is a fool because they think that reality will some how stop being reality i. e. bad people do bad things and some times good people need to step up and defend themselves or others.

React

1 Person

Answer 107

courtney06 | 225 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

I think it can go both ways. I think of definition of a coward, which is a person who lacks the courage to do or endure unpleasant or dangerous things. Someone who uses a gun is brave enough to use one as it is quite dangerous, but could be using it out of self-defense - and sometimes self-defense comes with fear. I can understand how owning a gun would help one feel protected so they are less fearful. I don’t think it totally eliminates fear. (This does not apply to those who use guns for hunting)

I wish people didn’t have to resort to using guns or any kind of weapon at all, but this ain’t utopia.

React

1 Person

Answer 108

WindAtMyBack | 1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

For normal people, pulling a gun on someone is probably one of the scariest things they'd ever do. It's hardly for wimps.

But then most people don't own a gun with the intention of pulling it on someone. There are all kinds of reasons for owning a gun.

Would you ask the same question about all the other countries that have as high or higher gun ownership rates as the US? I doubt it. Are Canadians cowards because they have a similar gun ownership rate? What about the Swiss or Finns who have a very significantly higher gun ownership rate?

Realistically, for the vast majority of people, gun ownership has nothing to do with being a coward. It's like owning a wrench or saw or screwdriver. They don't think anything of it. It's all the anti-gun people who are scared and have an irrational fear and stigma about guns.

I'm more concerned about a 30 year old driving a car than a 15 year old owning a gun.

React

1 Person

Answer 109

Underworld158

Xper 5

I am not American but I respect America’s decision to keep guns available. Its so dumb to leave people totally vulnerable. We need to remember we came from the jungle. And some people cannot act civilized. You cannot deal with such people by calling the police and wait for them to save your ass while you are being killed. The fact that some dumbass misuses a gun. doesn't mean now we need to live our life accordingly. As a victim of violence myself. If i hand a gun then I would have saved my best friend’s life. But we needed to wait in a civilized manner while my friend is departing.

React

1 Person

Answer 110

CrazyGirl2 | 289 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

No, because the “children” who think that about Americans, don’t ever have to worry about guns! The USA has more guns than people! Lawful concealed carry saves up to 500, 000 lives per year according to the centers for disease control! So Is someone a coward for owning a firearm? I don’t know, are cops cowards, are soldiers, or marines? They carry fir the same reason... the bad guys have them!

React

7 People

Alexandrubaschet08

1 y
But what is the numbers of crimes or victims made by the weapons?

Reply
CrazyGirl2

1 y
@Alexandrubaschet08 about 30k per year, if you remove suicides (b/c a person determined to kill themselves doesn’t need a gun) that drops to under 15k. So upwards of 500k lives saved, and 15k murders!

Reply
Alexandrubaschet08

1 y
yes you in clud olso the suicide because it can be whit the gun as well. And olso includ thous 500k of crimes did by the gun owners because they are criminal.
What if my son don't tell me nothing and i don't have an idea what he is doing (make something ilegal) and you kill him, how i'm supose to deal whit that? The guns kill lifes, don't save them. How many of thous criminals have legal guns? A lot. Why do people need to have guns when they can go crazy in this life afther and kill others?
BAN THE GUNS AMERICA!

Reply
Show All Show Less
CrazyGirl2

1 y
@Alexandrubaschet08
Okay, there seems to be a problem with the interface between your seat, and your keyboard, almost every single word is misspelled! It’s almost impossible to read your reply. It’s definitely impossible to take you seriously when you cannot spell words like “with,” “those”, “Illegal”, or “could”. It’s also full of double negatives, and BOTH tense agreement, and subject-verb agreement errors! Yet you actually want me to take you seriously? Just about the only pseudo-legible part was where you claimed, that “SELF DEFENSE” is a crime? Just WOW!

Reply
Alexandrubaschet08

1 y
i don't give a F about English just take it like that and deal whit it, you don't talk my language so shut the F up

Reply
CrazyGirl2

1 y
@Alexandrubaschet08 Wait... Did you just ask someone who didn’t say a word, but instead TYPED her answer, to “shut-up”? Ahhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha 😆🤣😂😆

Reply
Vencam

1 y
Don't underestimate the importance of the choice of weapons in suicide. I think it's really superficial to say "if one wants to kill himself, he doesn't need a gun"... Have you even imagined how different it is, trying to kill yourself with a knife rather then a gun? The bigger the expected suffering, the harder the choice.

Reply
Alexandrubaschet08

1 y
yes loser

Reply
CrazyGirl2

1 y
@Vencam Yes! Actually I have! After my uncle raped me on my 13th birthday, all I wanted to do was die! There is NO WAY that I would have used a gun! if you did even a modicum of research, you would find that suicide with guns is mostly men, women tend to overdose or cut our wrists. Also, to a lesser extent, hanging! I lost a friend to suicide, and she cut her wrists! It’s just something girls seem to do! Also there were 5,691 suicides in England in 2019, 421 In Ireland, 833 in Scotland. And the suicide rate for females has increased 93.8% since 2012... and NO guns! People determined to kill themselves, will find a way, they don’t need guns. When ALL you want to do is die, you don’t give a shit about the short term pain... you’re already in tremendous pain mentally, you just want it to end! The gun is just a tool!

Reply
Vencam

1 y
That is a great explanation. Seems I was the superficial one this time, thanks for explaining this so clearly

Reply
CrazyGirl2

1 y
@Vencam No problem, and your welcome.

Reply

Answer 111

Alexandrubaschet08

But what is the numbers of crimes or victims made by the weapons?

Answer 112

CrazyGirl2

@Alexandrubaschet08 about 30k per year, if you remove suicides (b/c a person determined to kill themselves doesn’t need a gun) that drops to under 15k. So upwards of 500k lives saved, and 15k murders!

Answer 113

Alexandrubaschet08

yes you in clud olso the suicide because it can be whit the gun as well. And olso includ thous 500k of crimes did by the gun owners because they are criminal.
What if my son don't tell me nothing and i don't have an idea what he is doing (make something ilegal) and you kill him, how i'm supose to deal whit that? The guns kill lifes, don't save them. How many of thous criminals have legal guns? A lot. Why do people need to have guns when they can go crazy in this life afther and kill others?
BAN THE GUNS AMERICA!

Answer 114

CrazyGirl2

@Alexandrubaschet08
Okay, there seems to be a problem with the interface between your seat, and your keyboard, almost every single word is misspelled! It’s almost impossible to read your reply. It’s definitely impossible to take you seriously when you cannot spell words like “with,” “those”, “Illegal”, or “could”. It’s also full of double negatives, and BOTH tense agreement, and subject-verb agreement errors! Yet you actually want me to take you seriously? Just about the only pseudo-legible part was where you claimed, that “SELF DEFENSE” is a crime? Just WOW!

Answer 115

Alexandrubaschet08

i don't give a F about English just take it like that and deal whit it, you don't talk my language so shut the F up

Answer 116

CrazyGirl2

@Alexandrubaschet08 Wait... Did you just ask someone who didn’t say a word, but instead TYPED her answer, to “shut-up”? Ahhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha 😆🤣😂😆

Answer 117

Vencam

Don't underestimate the importance of the choice of weapons in suicide. I think it's really superficial to say "if one wants to kill himself, he doesn't need a gun"... Have you even imagined how different it is, trying to kill yourself with a knife rather then a gun? The bigger the expected suffering, the harder the choice.

Answer 118

Alexandrubaschet08

yes loser

Answer 119

CrazyGirl2

@Vencam Yes! Actually I have! After my uncle raped me on my 13th birthday, all I wanted to do was die! There is NO WAY that I would have used a gun! if you did even a modicum of research, you would find that suicide with guns is mostly men, women tend to overdose or cut our wrists. Also, to a lesser extent, hanging! I lost a friend to suicide, and she cut her wrists! It’s just something girls seem to do! Also there were 5,691 suicides in England in 2019, 421 In Ireland, 833 in Scotland. And the suicide rate for females has increased 93.8% since 2012... and NO guns! People determined to kill themselves, will find a way, they don’t need guns. When ALL you want to do is die, you don’t give a shit about the short term pain... you’re already in tremendous pain mentally, you just want it to end! The gun is just a tool!

Answer 120

Vencam

That is a great explanation. Seems I was the superficial one this time, thanks for explaining this so clearly

Answer 121

CrazyGirl2

@Vencam No problem, and your welcome.

Answer 122

Hypnos0929 | 251 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Explorer

Coward is a bad word, I'd say overly cautious and aggressive.
Many Americans legitimately believe there is an ongoing arms race between themselves, or their in-group, and gangs/the government. In the case of gangs/criminals they think the "black market" is a real place where anything is possible for anyone but it also can't be tracked or found unless you decide to be a criminal, in which case it is around every corner. In the case of government they think the government is still unable to kill them even if they wanted to, because they're as smart as Custer.

React

Answer 123

TheSonOf-Zeus

Xper 5

Some bishops kill people they do not know, raid schools, and this will continue. It is not true that automatic weapons are so common. they can also protect themselves with the pistol, if it's about protecting themselves. There are incidents with guns here, too, but no one will kill someone they don't know, it's very, very little possibility. They wanted to change the gun law in the USA, but they could not succeed. The police should ensure the safety of the people. I think people living in the United States should stop paying weapons companies to live in peace and security!

React

Answer 124

dawsonnata

Xper 5

Coward? What does... look jerkoff, if someone comes in my house in the middle of the night, I want to be able to drop them fast and easy. That has nothing to do with coward in my mind

React

11 People

Erik-7

1 y
I think you’ve been watching too much Rambo, America’s infatuation with guns has very little to do with self protection but their obsession with the “good guy with a gun” BS

Reply
dawsonnata

1 y
@Erik-7 for me personally it is self defense and possible protection of others. End of story. Goodbye

Reply
Erik-7

1 y
That gun is more likely to kills than to protect you or anyone from any danger you may perceive yourself to be in

Reply
Show All Show Less
dawsonnata

1 y
@Erik-7 ok. Well that's your opinion. You're entitled to it obviously

Reply
Alexandrubaschet08

1 y
Get a better door, get a window sealing system like most Germans have.
Get an electro-shock gun, spray with pepper.
And if weapons were restricted, then the number of crimes and vandalism would decrease. This will ensure you more protection.

Reply
dawsonnata

1 y
@Alexandrubaschet08 that doesn't solve the problem of the guy in my house in the middle of the night now does it?

I don't want no tasergun or pepper spray aerosol bottle. I love my guns. I don't want to do without my guns.

Besides I can get attacked outside the house too. What do you suggest there? If the assailant has a gun what good will a pepper spray do me?

No thanks. I'll choose my bullets over anything less. Besides our 2nd amendment secure rights for me to do so.

God bless America and the constitution

Reply
007kingifrit

1 y
@Erik-7 actually 150,000 to 4 million felonies are prevented per year by armed citizens in america

Reply
dawsonnata

1 y
@007kingifrit yeah bro. MURICA 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

LAND OF THE FREE... HOME OF THE BRAVE

Reply

Answer 125

Erik-7

I think you’ve been watching too much Rambo, America’s infatuation with guns has very little to do with self protection but their obsession with the “good guy with a gun” BS

Answer 126

dawsonnata

@Erik-7 for me personally it is self defense and possible protection of others. End of story. Goodbye

Answer 127

Erik-7

That gun is more likely to kills than to protect you or anyone from any danger you may perceive yourself to be in

Answer 128

dawsonnata

@Erik-7 ok. Well that's your opinion. You're entitled to it obviously

Answer 129

Alexandrubaschet08

Get a better door, get a window sealing system like most Germans have.
Get an electro-shock gun, spray with pepper.
And if weapons were restricted, then the number of crimes and vandalism would decrease. This will ensure you more protection.

Answer 130

dawsonnata

@Alexandrubaschet08 that doesn't solve the problem of the guy in my house in the middle of the night now does it?

I don't want no tasergun or pepper spray aerosol bottle. I love my guns. I don't want to do without my guns.

Besides I can get attacked outside the house too. What do you suggest there? If the assailant has a gun what good will a pepper spray do me?

No thanks. I'll choose my bullets over anything less. Besides our 2nd amendment secure rights for me to do so.

God bless America and the constitution

Answer 131

007kingifrit

@Erik-7 actually 150,000 to 4 million felonies are prevented per year by armed citizens in america

Answer 132

dawsonnata

@007kingifrit yeah bro. MURICA 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

LAND OF THE FREE... HOME OF THE BRAVE

Answer 133

wmasters

Xper 4

No. Unarmed societies are more susceptible to tyrannical shifts. From a moral standpoint, I think that it should be a natural born right for everyone of us to have the means to protect ourselves from all potential threats to our freedom and wellbeing.

React

2 People

Totkopf

1 y
I agree this is a good response

Reply

Answer 134

Totkopf

I agree this is a good response

Answer 135

John_Doesnt | 4.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Americans suffer from an entitlement problem. Because Americans are raised with the idea that they should have the freedom to do anything, they have no concept of personal responsibility. They have the mindset "I have the right to be an irresponsible asshole because of freedom".

React

Answer 136

Not_Average

Yoda

What kind of backwards twisted logic is this lol. I’ve said it on here, and I’ll say it again. A gun has saved my life twice, and I’d literally be dead having not carried one in those moments. I treat my firearms the same way I treat my fire extinguisher. Likely hood that I ever need to use it is small, but it could save your life in an emergency. Don’t show them off. Don’t talk about them often. They’re just there.

React

3 People

Are Americans cowards for wanting guns?

AI Bot Choice

Most Helpful Guy

Most Helpful Girls

What Girls & Guys Said