Why do people like guns?

[straightmax12]

To release anger, the way it looks, or for sports?

[PavlovsCogk]

Because ejaculating isn't loud enough. ﾠ

[Chazmatazz269]

Hahahaha!!!

[handsomelad70]

Hmmmmmm. Wonder if I'll quite get that one.

[handsomelad70]

Lots of times, I believe guns compensate for a lack of downstairs boy power.

[Anonymous]

There’s a lot of reasons. Most law abiding citizens don’t go out brandishing them, acting stupid. The idiots who have them who do something illegal w them more than likely obtained it illegally. I own numerous guns for various reasons. One of course is to protect my family. Am I saying I’m a complete wuss that I need a gun? No I’m not. I spent 10 years in the military. But when criminals come to do harm they usually don’t come alone, they usually don’t fight fair so you have to level the playing field especially if it’s just you against numerous criminals. If it was one-on-one assuming the criminal didn’t have a gun, sure that would be a fair fight. But most times it doesn’t play out that way. Imagine a single mom who lives in a bad neighborhood. Maybe she has to walk to work at night, even during the day. I have a shotgun, a couple AR-15s, three different pistols, as well as a rifle for long distance. Some people may question why so many. I don’t feel like that’s a lot. But here’s what they’re for. Handguns are more for in home protection. You could use a shotgun if you really had to but a round from a shogun could do a lot of damage to your home including going through the wall into another room, possibly hitting a family member. Sure a pistol round could do the same just as the AR-15 round. But at the same time using a shotgun or AR-15 isn’t tactically sound with a barrel that long a criminal could see you coming around the corner before you see them. So trying to maneuver through the house w something like that, not that great. I also like to target shoot just for fun, that’s why I have the rifle for long distance. The shotgun is just cool to be out on the firing range to see what it can do. Good for duck hunting. The kick of it. Some farmers use rifles to protect their crops when there’s wild boars out there eating up their plants. Yes I believe they’re necessary as well like someone said to protect the citizens from a corrupt government should that ever happen. People tend to say that would never happen. It happened once when colonist launched a successful war against the Kingdom of Great Britain. I’m sure where ever your from just like everyone else they see how corrupt their government is. We do too. So maybe the reason why the government hasn’t tried to run us over is because we have guns to fight back in necessary. Some guns are collectors items. The problem is the news usually never shows how a crime was stopped because of some legally owning citizen carrying a gun. It’s always bad news. It’s designed that way for a reason. Just like all the bad stuff the news reports to make people fight w one another. That way the real criminals who run this world can continue to get away w what they’re doing. I don’t have guns to release anger. If someone has anger issues I don’t think they should own guns.

[CrabCakes11]

Because they think the government or immigrants or trans children or something are going to try to take their rights away, and they have the delusion that their gravy seal selves with at most 0.00005% of the skills necessary to stop whatever crazy event they think is going to happen.

[strateguy632]

did you know? before cops had time to come, citizens with pistol interrupted some crimes including shootings, car attack n more?
but mainstream media hid those. nra' has a list.

[CrabCakes11]

@strateguy632 And would those shootings happen if those people didn’t have guns?

[purplepoppy]

They're compensating for something

[Kingofkings1992]

[purplepoppy]

All those guns and America still isn't safe. Perhaps guns aren't the solution.

[Kingofkings1992]

What is the solution my dear?

[purplepoppy]

Ban guns for everyone who doesn't have a justifiable reason to own one, and that doesn't include self defence or wanting to fight the government. Any crime committed in the procession of gun no matter how small should carry a minimum 10 year sentence.

[Kingofkings1992]

Justifiable reason? Who determines whether it’s a justifiable reason?

[purplepoppy]

The police as determined by the law

[Chazmatazz269]

It’s strange to me how citizens of the UK are completely unaware of the true aftermath of the Dunblane restrictions. Look it up. Focus on the first decade after the fact. I’ll give you a taste. A full decade of crime rates rising year after year, including gun violence and other violent crimes. The ban solved nothing. But don’t take my word for it. Look it up for yourself.

[purplepoppy]

Which have nothing to do with the gun ban.

[Kingofkings1992]

Do you seriously believe a little dick is the reason why people own guns?

[captain_voidwalker]

Always fun watching people agree with hitler and stalin that people shouldn't have guns

[NamerOfStars]

Because they're a method of preventing the rule of physical power, and forcing negotiation, enabling a society based on something other than force. So why, in places where guns are widespread, do we not universally have that? Well...

Picture, please, a copper axe. No, not like that- not a modern axe, but a stone age one; a wooden handle bound with sinews to a blade of metal pounded flat with rocks. Now picture a copper hoe, of the same level of technology and refinement. What's the difference between them? Nothing but the angle of the blade. This is why you never saw large-scale slavery in any society before the discovery of bronze (or an equivalent power distinction in weaponry in places that didn't have either); it's WAY too close to an even fight.

When you don't have overwhelming power, you can't readily force your will onto others. That's why.

[Dargil]

The Second Amendment enforces all the others. Its purpose is to protect citizens from government tyranny and those who infringe on our liberty. Buy guns and ammo. Regardless of its outcome, trouble is coming after (and even before) the next election.

[OtterMan68]

so every country without a 2A has succumbed to a tyrannical government?
MAGA insists weren't in a Biden dictatorship. Did the guns stop that?

[Dargil]

@OtterMan68 Every country without a 2A is vulnerable to a tyrannical government at its whim.

[OtterMan68]

and the US is not? What is enough gun owners support the tyrannical gov?

[CalmUntilAbused]

Oh, that's because police officers don't fit in our pockets. And given the events of the alleged COVID pandemic, even if they did fit, I'm not sure they could be trusted to actually protect us. Basically, people have the right to defend themselves, and firearms sure are helpful in exercising this right properly. Especially against more and more totalitarian governments.

[Juleskik67]

I was a member of the Armed Forces for over 30 years, but don't find guns particularly interesting - However, I find Clay Pigeon (Skeet) shooting is a great hobby - combination of hand/eye coordination and (I admit) seeing the effect when you hit a target

[ManInChains]

Because they like to be alive and want to be able to protect themselves and those they care about from bad people who will always have guns regardless of the law

[strateguy632]

exactly

[NaultD]

They're cool. Same reason people play paintball, pellet guns; every other video game has them.

It's like the first throwing of a rock to hunt, taking it to its logical current development point. The use of tools that made us stand out, creating humanity thus the greater thinking and the ability to understand the universe.

So I get it but people don't respect the responsibility it takes to control that power that upsets me.

[strateguy632]

for criminals and tyrant governments. so you are way off.

the way to release anger is by timed breathing.

guns are not for hunting just som rifles are.

as several actors including steven segal said i also hate guns. me too.

i have kuz sometimes necessary to use against criminals who get guns regardless of any gun laws.

[Sargentcaptain]

Daily reminder that had Kyle Rittenhouse been unarmed on that faithful night during the Summer of Love, he would have been murdered by a pedophile.

[elaphe]

I think you mean "fateful" night. And who was the pedophile who would have murdered him? I don't remember any sexual motivation for any of that mess. I do agree, however, that he appeared to have acted in self-defense. What he was doing there, though. I don't know.

[Sargentcaptain]

Joseph Rosenbaum was the pedo. The motivation wasn't sexual, probably, Rosenbaum was just a good ol' fashioned, non pedo, nutcase in that case.

> What he was doing there, though?

That's completely and utterly irrelevant. Personally, I'd like to know why a convicted pedo was there. Still, the actual answer to that question is - he was there to help his community.

[elaphe]

You can't be convicted of pedophilia any more than one can be convicted of alcoholism. They are both clinical definitions that are independent from actions. A pedophile is attracted to prepubescent children but does not necessarily commit child sexual abuse. Likewise, an alcoholic isn't arrested for being "alcoholic," he is arrested for DUI or drunk and disorderly conduct. Whether the man killed was a sex offender doesn't relate to the case. I have admitted that from the video a saw. Rittenhouse appeared to have acted in self-defense. Still, he wouldn't have had to defend himself if he had not traveled to another state to be in the midst of a riot. It wasn't "his community." He comes across as a juvenile, wanna be tough guy. Again, I am sympathetic to Rittenhouse to a degree, given his youth and the indiscretion that sometimes comes with it, but it still is true that he had not been there, he would not have had to defend himself.

[Sargentcaptain]

> You can't be convicted of pedophilia any more than one...

You and I both know what I mean, get your head out of your ass.

> Whether the man killed was a sex offender doesn't relate to the case.

The point here is that morons think Kyle 'murdered' a bunch of innocent coloreds, when in fact his attackers weren't exactly upstanding citizens.

> Still, he wouldn't have had to defend himself if he had not traveled to another state to be in the midst of a riot.

Ah, the good ol' sHtaTE RyNz shtick. He was a member of that community and he was there in order to defend it. The fact that you're shitting on him for helping his community rather than shitting on the (as you pointed out) rioters, it's quite telling.

> It wasn't "his community."

Lies.

> He comes across as a juvenile, wanna be tough guy.

~ oh no, here comes the juvenile, wanna be tough guy, here's here to... clean up the streets and give people first aid?

> but it still is true that he had not been there, he would not have had to defend himself.

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

[elaphe]

Rosa Parks lived in the community where she refused to give up her buss seat. Rittenhouse lived in Illinois and traveled to Wisconsin looking for trouble. I don't have any response to "sHaTE RyNz" I have absolutely no idea what that means. I do, however, think that since his acquittal, Rittenhouse has not been treated fairly by much of the media or public at large.

[Sargentcaptain]

> Rosa Parks lived in the community where she refused to give up her buss seat.

She shouldn't have been in a place that was not for her, the rules were clear, she broke them intentionally.

> Rittenhouse lived in Illinois and traveled to Wisconsin

Yeah, that great and parlous journey, almost 20 minutes long. Kyle was a member of that community, he had a job there.

> looking for trouble.

Ah yeah, cleaning up the streets and giving people first aid, what a menace to society, someone call RoboCop.

> "sHaTE RyNz" I have absolutely no idea what that means.

state lines

[elaphe]

Rosa Parks violated an unjust law. I'm all about law and order, and I have argued with people that some of the BLM protests got out of hand and devolved into riots, which are absolutely wrong. However, Parks did not harm anyone with her actions, and she did not damage any property. You surely will admit that. Do you believe that blacks should have to give up their seats to whites?

[Sargentcaptain]

> Rosa Parks violated an unjust law.

She did. She intentionally and purposefully violated the law. Rittenhouse was intentionally and purposefully upholding the law. Even if you wanna talk about morality, you'd be hard pressed to call what Kyle was doing in Kenosha immoral, especially before the shooting. It should be really easy to support both Parks and Rittenhouse here, for much of the same reason.

> However, Parks did not harm anyone with her actions, and she did not damage any property.

Rittenhouse was there to protect people and property. You're making a retarded argument. You yourself said he was there facing rioters.

> Do you believe that blacks should have to give up their seats to whites?

Yes that's exactly the argument I'm making. Tell me, you ever heard words 'good', 'faith' and 'argument' close together?

[elaphe]

How, exactly, was Rittenhouse protecting lives and property? He wouldn't have been facing rioters if he hadn't put himself in that position. If a riot happens in my town, I stay home!

[Sargentcaptain]

> How, exactly, was Rittenhouse protecting lives and property?

Oh, apart from the fact it was literally his job? Apart from the fact he was there with a first aid kit? Apart from the fact was trying to clean up the mess the rioters made? He was trying to help his community when a rioter told him he was gonna kill him.

> He wouldn't have been facing rioters if he hadn't put himself in that position.

Oh, yeah, which position did he place himself into then, if he wasn't there to protect lives and property?

Parks wouldn't have faced consequences had she not placed herself in her position. Gandhi wouldn't. Mandela wouldn't. Do you understand why your argument is imbecilic?

> If a riot happens in my town, I stay home!

Precisely, you pussy. You would cower away in your sweet little home while men like Rittenhouse are clearing up the streets, work which is quite thankless thanks to your ilk - the people Rittenhouse was protecting. The comforts you take for granted are fought for by brave men who take action. Take a wild guess, do you think I'd place you in that category?
Genuinely, how do you think riots end? Should the world just bend over and accept the attacks on their communities?

[elaphe]

What precisely was Rittenhouse's job? Was he engaged in an official capacity as law enforcement or emergency services? If not, he shouldn't have been there. And calling me a "pussy" for staying out of trouble belies that you are a low life who has no cogent argument to make. When you start using ad hominens, you have lost the argument. I would stay home because I don't want to add to the difficult job the police have to restore order. Why add another body for the authorities to deal with? I still do not believe that he was there for purely altruistic reasons. He wanted to feel tough.

[Sargentcaptain]

Instead of constantly asking me questions, especially when the answers are public record, I recommend this amazing invention called Google.

> official capacity as law enforcement or emergency services

Can't wait for you to tell every guard, watchman and bouncer they shouldn't do their jobs.

> And calling me a "pussy" for staying out of trouble belies that you are a low life who has no cogent argument to make

I'm just calling a spade a spade. No need to get all dilated. Oh, and again, you can thank the 'low life' people who take action for the things you take for granted.

> When you start using ad hominens, you have lost the argument.

I'm using ad homos and still kicking your ass, boy you really suck at arguing.

> I would stay home because I don't want to add to the difficult job the police have to restore order.

~ your honor, I saw the woman getting gang raped, but I walk away because I wouldn't want to add to the difficult job the police have to restore order.

> Why add another body for the authorities to deal with?

Don't make me copy paste my response.

> I still do not believe that he was there for purely altruistic reasons. He wanted to feel tough.

~ your honor, yeah he had was helping people, yeah it was his job to help, yeah he was cleaning up the mess rioters made, yeah he was there with a first aid kid... but have you considered, he wanted to feel tough?

Anyway, let's get semi-serious. I asked you a question last time, your answer is shit. If you saw the footage from that night in Kenosha, or just footage from any place during the Summer of Love, you'd be able to understand that cops weren't able to do jack shit. Now, cops can't do shit, there's a violent mob outside your door, what do you do? Call the cops ~ please come, I'm scwared and I don't wanna add to your blah blah... Or do you get out and help your community? This is a rhetorical one, we've established what you are.

[elaphe]

We have established what I am- a law-abiding citizen. The police couldn't handle the situation, but a 17-year-old could? Is that your argument?

[Sargentcaptain]

> We have established what I am- a law-abiding citizen.

Insinuating that Rittenhouse and other people who defend their communities aren't and insinuating 'law-abiding' even matters in the first place? How cucked are you exactly?
Let's look at other riots, would you sit back and bitch about people taking action, protecting themselves, or would you support rooftop Koreans?
Would you bend over and bow to the crown, or would you support the likes of Samuel Adams and Paul Revere? Remember, they were (dramatic pause), rebels and revolutionaries.

> The police couldn't handle the situation, but a 17-year-old could? Is that your argument?

The 17 year old had the balls to go out and help his community, you don't.
Dude, legit, look into a mirror and stop embarrassing yourself.

[elaphe]

I have said that I think that the Rittenhouse verdict was correct and from video I saw he had defended himself from imminent threat. That being said, he shouldn't have put himself in the situation. I am not embarrassing myself. I have made cogent arguments that you have a temper tantrum about instead of acting like a grown-up. It is tiresome and I am done with it.

[Sargentcaptain]

> That being said, he shouldn't have put himself in the situation.

Again, job, family, community, desire to aid your fellow man... we're going in circles because you fundamentally do not understand why one would take matters in his own two hands instead of being at mercy of a violent mob.

> you have a temper tantrum

I'm taking the piss. The only thing stopping you from doing the same is the fact that my arguments aren't retarded.

And how nice of you, avoiding to state your opinion on the LA riots and the American revolution. Hey, it's almost as if, if it were up to you, America would be overrun by murderous rioters, that is assuming the US even existed in the first place.

[elaphe]

The fact that you compare the chaos of that night to the American Revolution and Rittenhouse to Revere and Adams makes you sound grandiose. This was nowhere as important.

[Sargentcaptain]

Wait, answer the question, you would be in the streets, fighting for yourself, your family and your community in the context of the American Revolution?
If so, why exactly do you find it so hard to comprehend the reasoning of the likes of Rittenhouse, your goals are aligned?

> This was nowhere as important.

And why exactly does this matter?
What are you even saying here? That Adams had good reasons to go out and fight for his community but Rittenhouse didn't?

[ohsheeT]

It's no different than any other sport how good are you are you just lucky or can you dial that gun in no different than playing darts playing pool shooting basketballs

[exitseven]

A gun is a tool. It can be used for protection.

[BoopBoopBeep]

I like that my elderly mother doesn't have to pretend like her tai chi class has any real world value when confronted with an attacker.

[Chazmatazz269]

Guns are a useful and potent tool, and they’re fun! Only criminals use them in anger, and they are but a minority.

[RingOfFire]

Because the right to self defense is the most basic human right in existence and a fly swatter won't help you much when mutants break into your home with shotguns.

[handsomelad70]

A variety of reasons: Home protection, collecting, hunting, rifle range shooting and others I can't think of presently.

[patois]

To shoot commies like you. Nothing as beautiful as a head like yours in a bright blue helmet.

[OtterMan68]

Because in America, we use guns to settle disputes: neighbor disputes, road rage disputes, night club fights, noisy cars, loud music, cheating...

[strateguy632]

false. why would you lie like that?

[OtterMan68]

@strateguy632 really? So the US doesn't have a high rate of gun violence compmared to other OECD countries?

[dustybiker2]

@strategyy632 in fairness you can't say Americans have never been arrested and tried for those things. So it's hardly false.

[dustybiker2]

@strateguy632 *

[YevBor]

Because many of them are engineering masterpiece. From my POV, at least.

[DrPepper12]

For ammosexuals to have an outlet for their insatiable desire for powerful big black phalluses. That and defense, sport, hunting I guess.

[Twalli]

Apparently they're fun to use. I don't know, since I never fired one.

[stratford]

This is a very good question. Fear? Power? Some sort of right to self determination?

[jahaims]

I like to use them recreationally, for hunting, for collecting, and for protection.

[Kimberly1979]

I think it’s part of Hollywood. Shooting someone is part of American Dream.

[MrDaveAPSI]

They like it because it's their "right" to. Whatever "rights" are

[MrDaveAPSI]

@strateguy632 You do realize trump was the president during covid, right?

Also, biden's not trying to take your gun away

If you think he is, that tells a lot about you

Also, Trump lowered taxes for the rich, you fucking douchebag

That's why you see us struggling, he wasn't going to help people like us

YOU FUCKING INGRATE

[Anonymous]

They're the only interesting left in this boring world

[avery58]

Gun culture is getting cringey

[dustybiker2]

Gives the weak power.

[strateguy632]

power of defense. against strong.

[dreamstar72]

Without guns life would not be what it is today.

[JHNS98]

I ask myself that question too, as a non-American

[strateguy632]

probly in a country where the tyrany forbade you to have a gun?

[Sasquach]

They're fun to use and they sound cool

[gorydetails]

Why do people like anything? Same reasons.

[captain_voidwalker]

It's called a right to self defense.

[Staximus]

I like turtles and shotguns

[Staximus]

I meant rifles hahaha

[Staximus]

I like target shooting, there's not much worth hunting around here. I have a handgun because it's a necessary evil. Criminals don't obey gun laws. I used to carry a gun all the time at my old job because people were setting me up to be robbed. I figured if they are going to shoot me, I might as well be able to shoot back.

[Pohjolan]

Force multiplier, also they are fun.

[John_Cobretti]

It's cool