Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A crazy man/idiot/drunk kills with a car, they blame the person. Same thing with a gun and they blame the gun.
Bingo. They focus on the tool and not the criminal, and bolster their argument with the false notion that "nobody needs weapons of war/assault rifles/<insert negative media term of the week here>"

Except they never want to ban these tools outright. There is ALWAYS an exemption carved out for law enforcement and military.

"But their job requires these tools!"

What job is that? Mowing down crowds of innocent people? Since that is what you insist is the only thing these tools are good for. If law enforcement and military have a legitimate need for them, so do We The People.

Its no different than banning anyone who isn't a professional tradesperson from buying/owning angle grinders and reciprocating saws, with the expectation that it will reduce or eliminate theft of things like catalytic converters. That notion is just as ridiculous as banning non-military/LE from owning modern small arms.
 
If Freedom is not worth the cost. Why,
I agree, and support the examples, no bottle of whiskey ever poured itself, no firearm ever discharged itself. This is where I’ll take some flak, though- I think the minimum age to buy an AR-15 should be 30.
I have a Better idea Why don't we make a law that No one under 21 can buy a handgun?
 
Ukraine.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

starnbar:
The first known murder victims in what we call Britain died about 6,000 years ago.

In what was a very rushed burial (tribal warfare?) for the family of four, they excavated the father and mother (in their late 20's), while both murdered children , a boy and girl, were about 10-12 iirc.

I can't remember which of my books describe it, but it is their first Cold Case. The father's skeleton still had an arrowhead lodged in the ribs.

Actually, no. First there is the issue of legality. Whether the family was killed as part of a murder or a societal mandated execution (legal) is unknown. If warfare, then quite likely very legal.

However, if the criteria is that the people were killed intentionally, then we can push this back another 424,000 years for the first alleged murder.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...-case-earliest-known-murder-victim-180955409/
https://www.livescience.com/50991-oldest-murder-victim-found.html
 
Decriminalizing crime, releasing hardened criminals, defunding the police, inciting hatred and violence toward "the others," all following decades of hell-bent effort to destroy the family (starting in earnest with the Great Society program designed to do just that to a certain group) and erase ethics and morals... what would a sane person expect? Intellectually dishonest people want to conveniently blame it on the most convenient tool that lazy evil scum have at their disposal, the SAME tool that allows law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. And the SAME tool that the evil scum knows MIGHT meet him behind the door that he otherwise might kick in to rape and pillage, the fear of which no doubt prevents hundreds of thousands of other crimes annually. If we as a law-abiding citizens are ever stupid or weak enough to allow this deterrent to be taken from us, God help us.


“The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.

Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a car load of drunken guys with baseball bats.

The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill,
USMC (Ret.)
 
Last edited:
I agree, and support the examples, no bottle of whiskey ever poured itself, no firearm ever discharged itself. This is where I’ll take some flak, though- I think the minimum age to buy an AR-15 should be 30.
30 - I'd support that...whether that means anything to anyone.
 
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Man has been killing and maiming each other since man became man. Nothing about human nature has changed in all those years. Melt down every existing firearm on earth and man will just continue on maiming and killing each other just as he always has done. The above quote is the main reason why we should never give up our rights to own firearms.

It is people that are at fault, not the tools they use to do this. A gun is no different than a hammer. Lay either down and each will stay right where they were placed until they turn into iron oxide from the element's action on them.
 
Last edited:
I agree, and support the examples, no bottle of whiskey ever poured itself, no firearm ever discharged itself. This is where I’ll take some flak, though- I think the minimum age to buy an AR-15 should be 30.

I agree, but ONLY if the age of majority is raised to match (30 instead of 18). You're either an adult, or you aren't. If you can't be trusted with an AR-15, why should you be trusted with any other adult responsibilities?

If you're old enough to buy a car and drive on public roads, you should be old enough to purchase ANY legal firearm and peaceably carry it.
 
A crazy man/idiot/drunk kills with a car, they blame the person. Same thing with a gun and they blame the gun.

49B53EF6-EBEE-45BB-83D1-48D45558BA73.jpeg

Seriously, this is an important topic to understand. The first thing I do before I will discuss the topic with others, uneducated on the subject, is to unwind the propaganda that has been beat into peoples heads.
 
Seems to me. If we would just stop this ridiculous demo/repub hog wash. If we would just stop voting for these "politicians" that care nothing but for power and the riches it brings. If we would just stop voting for these "politicians " that work solely for the "groups " that donate the most $ to their campaign and not the People of this country. If we stopped voting for the politicians that hold the interest of the party over the welfare of the people. If we stopped voting for these politicians that hold the rights of the little $ groups Over the rights of the People As A Whole.
It's been demo this / repub that for so long. Down party lines for so long. LOOK where we are headed. Just another 3rd world country.
It's not the gov. has failed the people.
It's the People Have Failed The Country.
It's Not we can't do anything about it.
It's we won't.
 
Double Nought Spy:

The article is very interesting. The case I mentioned might be the first they found in the UK.

OP: If the CDC had not recently been persuaded— by an Anti-Sec. Amendment group— to suppress statistics on “justifiable self-defense” with firearms, the discussion would be more complete.

I cant find a source for this recent news topic.
…?…Somebody else might have some info on this ? :scrutiny:
 
Last edited:
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
You lost me here.
Doesn't anyone think it odd that the CDC does gun stats? None of the dozen or so doctors and medical professionals I know give the CDC any credence. It is looked at as a left wing political organization.

(In before the lock)
 
IF you remove organized crime, which I do understand is a big if, then prohibition essentially did work
Sorry, but wrong. My grandfather, 1892 to 1956, a policeman, a member of the Red Arrow Division in WWI. Made his own wine during Prohibition. So here is a cop, who defies Prohibition? Pabst Brewing, stayed in business for that time by making malt as in malted milk shakes. They advertised it as tasting good and healthy for young kids. But they also put a warning on the label. "Danger, malt beverage may ferment." If you don't know, malt will 'up' the alcohol content in beer. My Apple Jack (I follow in the granddad's foot steps) is far more potent than beer. Joseph Kennedy, President Kennedy's father distributed Canadian liquor to South America. And on every trip he just happened sail along on the east coast and stop home to drop off some local "presents". But I digress.
We talk about the people who die from guns...what about the people that survive? John Locke, Chicago University, & Florida State, Dept. of Criminology have both study violent crime. And they have found guns stop crime in this country up to 2.5 million times a year. And it is interesting that most of the time all one has to do is point a gun and the crime stops. It's around 1% that a gun is fired and it's a fraction of that a person is hit or killed.
 
I will back up another come t I made on a different thread here. There are many things lacking from public school education. Among those are vitally important life lessons far more pressing than some of the trash that the kids are forced to learn which serve zero consequence upon their lives once the grades are turned in. Among those are the basics of many things in life… such as the dangers of alcohol and substance abuse. Yes there is a program in school for substance abuse, but having been through it I can say that it did absolutely nothing to deter me from doing the things I wanted to do. Luckily I’m not one who gets addicted quickly or easily. The missing piece of the puzzle that is firearm related is the basics of making a gun safe. That’s not difficult to educate somebody on about 98% of the guns out there. That will prevent a lot of accidents. There really isn’t much of a way to prevent the intentional acts because people make choices to do things to harm others, and guns are nothing more than the tool that they choose. A gun in a safe is harder for a teenager to get, and a found gun doesn’t hurt anybody if it is made safe.
 
Sorry, but wrong. My grandfather, 1892 to 1956, a policeman, a member of the Red Arrow Division in WWI. Made his own wine during Prohibition. So here is a cop, who defies Prohibition? Pabst Brewing, stayed in business for that time by making malt as in malted milk shakes. They advertised it as tasting good and healthy for young kids. But they also put a warning on the label. "Danger, malt beverage may ferment." If you don't know, malt will 'up' the alcohol content in beer. My Apple Jack (I follow in the granddad's foot steps) is far more potent than beer. Joseph Kennedy, President Kennedy's father distributed Canadian liquor to South America. And on every trip he just happened sail along on the east coast and stop home to drop off some local "presents". But I digress….
The point I’m trying (perhaps not effectively) to make is that those people experienced less crime. Now people in organized crime saw massive increases, and the amount of people involved in organized crime also increased massively.
I just wouldn’t use it as a progun argument, it’s not apples to apples imo. There are better arguments.
 
It's not the gov. has failed the people.
It's absolutely the politicians who have failed to vote the will of the people, although since some of us keep voting the worst offenders back in, we are enablers no doubt.
 
None of our rights are absolute. There are, and always have been limitations. The 2nd amendment doesn't preclude that. I have the right to do pretty much anything I want to do right up to the point that my rights are infringing on the rights of my neighbors. That is why we have laws and at times me and my neighbors need to find a compromise. Some people's view of their rights and freedoms are actually anarchy.

I'm not sure 18 is old enough to be responsible with a firearm. Yes, they can serve in the military at 18, but even their firearms are severely restricted. Most in the military will never touch a firearm after basic training. And they are only issues firearms and ammo as needed and under strict supervision. I have far easier access to guns and ammo than almost everyone in the military.

Nothing new about that. The Marines thought they had Iwo Jima secure and required the troops to turn in all of their ammo the night before they left the island. Even the USMC in 1945 didn't trust battle proven Marines with ammo aboard ship. Unfortunately, there were about 250 Japanese soldiers hiding in caves who launched an attack that night against unarmed Marines. They were repelled by Army Air Corpsmen who were not leaving and did not have to turn in their ammo. But we lost a lot of men that night.

I do think it is time to look at WHO can possess firearms. There are a lot of people who have proven they cannot use their rights responsibly. And as a responsible gun owner I'm tired of irresponsible people making me look bad. At the same time, I'm very much opposed to gun bans. Either someone is responsible enough to own a gun or not. If they can be trusted with a gun, then they should be able to buy anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top