Self defense not a valid reason to own a firearm

Guns aren't the only means of self-defense. However, if you looked into the laws of these countries banning guns for protection, I'm willing to bet that most of them have strict laws against the use of any self-defense tactics.

I bet it's illegal to use hand to hand techniques, improvised weapons, body armor, booby traps, and any thing you can think of that can be self defensive in such countries. We citizens aren't responsible, intelligent or capable enough to defend ourselves properly and would be infringing on the rights of criminals you assault while they are trying to rape and kill you or take your property by force.

I haven't looked, but I'm sure I'm right about this.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

The US is way to big with way to much insecure entry points to apply that principle. Most of the gun violence here is suicides anyway. We still sell rope. Does anyone in their right mind think illegalizing guns will get rid of them? There are caches of guns everywhere. Many hidden. If they're illegal and you wanted one, you could easily get one.

Also the largest school massacre in the US was done by explosives. Not including hostages. At least it was.

Your fears are not a valid reason to revoke my rights.

We wouldn’t let an arachnophobe to write policy on garden spiders, why allow it for guns?

a reply to: AaarghZombies


Not really going to engage with myopic viewpoints today.

Is this like in the USA where some political organization think that a certain part of the population isnt smart enough to obtain an identification card? So it's unfair?


Like if a certain group of people showed up to a gun fight with a knife, because they weren't smart enough to obtain a weapon of equal power?


Is it like that?

a reply to: 19Bones79
Sorry you guys don't have limits on your government, like a constitution and bill of rights.
Good luck.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: AaarghZombies


Not really going to engage with myopic viewpoints today.

That's enough about you, now let's talk about you.

I am an American, I will keep my guns. You sir may do as you wish.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: 19Bones79

Countries that prevent you from owning a gun for self defense also have some of the lowest firearm related murder rates. Japan and the UK for example forbid the ownership of any kind of firearm for self defense, and consequently it's exceedingly difficult for anybody to get their hands on one to use in a murder ether.

A lot of the "gun crime" committed in these countries is done with reproduction weapons that simply look real or with agricultural firearms like shotguns that have very low ammunition capacity and a low fire rate. Making it difficult for people to kill more than one person before they are stopped.

Japan, for example, hasn't had a single school shooting in the last 100 years, while Britain hasn't had a school shooting since they outlawed handgun ownership.

How does adding Switzerland into your analogy work? Do they have many school shootings? A quick 1 minute search found that Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001. And they have high gun ownership numbers.

Kind of ruins your analogy, doesn't it? So what does your analogy really prove? That a person can cherry pick numbers to back anything they want to say.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: 19Bones79
Sorry you guys don't have limits on your government, like a constitution and bill of rights.
Good luck.

😂😂😂😂😂😂because they work so well for us😂😂😂😂

Last I checked, in the list of the most countries per capita for murder, the US is in third place.

Now, if we take a handful of cities out of those numbers, the US drops to 189th.
Chicago.
Detroit.
DC.
St. Louis.
New Orleans.

What do all five of those cities have in common?

Hint: super strict laws making it VERY difficult to legally own a firearm. A lot like South Africa.

What else do all five of those cities have in common?

Answer: A whole lot of people getting shot. A lot like South Africa will be very soon.

Why is it any time a country bans firearms, they inevitably fall into dictatorship rule within a few years.... and why is it the whole world looks to the USA and says... hey, you CAN ban guns! see, it turned out fine!

Good luck with your dictatorship, have fun watching your friends and family get disappeared every time they dare speak out against it.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 19Bones79

Surely, by extension, nuclear weapons are even more protective.

Why would anyone want to limit the access of the general public to nuclear weapons?

These 'nuke grabbers' must be fascists who want to take away everyone's right to freedom and self defense.

No one should have nukes…including governments.

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 19Bones79

Surely, by extension, nuclear weapons are even more protective.

Why would anyone want to limit the access of the general public to nuclear weapons?

These 'nuke grabbers' must be fascists who want to take away everyone's right to freedom and self defense.

First of all, there was that high school kid who built a homemade nuke.

Do you have a link for this claim? I think you probably misunderstood what he built.

A year ago the idea of getting my concealed carry permit was germinating in my mind, as I watched the country practically burned down.

Now as I look back on it, going through that process was the best decision I've made in a long time.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 19Bones79

Surely, by extension, nuclear weapons are even more protective.

Why would anyone want to limit the access of the general public to nuclear weapons?

These 'nuke grabbers' must be fascists who want to take away everyone's right to freedom and self defense.

First of all, there was that high school kid who built a homemade nuke.

Do you have a link for this claim? I think you probably misunderstood what he built.

worldnewsdailyreport.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

I agree, weapons are wrong. This should extend to knives which need to be banned. I think the human body is also a weapon, and any and all fighting back is use of this weapon and should result in serious jail time. It will surely end nearly all crime.

Rocks and clubs come after that? Where do you stop?

originally posted by: promisedland
a reply to: 19Bones79

I don't know man...

Most of the countries in this overview are yellow (Allowed with permit – good reason (like sport shooting license or proving danger to life) required)

On the right side is possession of handguns by country. You'll notice only the loopy parts of this world are in green and blue. (blue= no permit / green= permit without reason).

I take it that the "proving danger to life" makes sense for self defense against wildlife not other people...

Peace

It's interesting to see the murder rate vs the gun possession rate in some of these countries.



It almost appears overall that the tighter the gun control, the more murders are committed. Of course in the red zones, murders committed without guns.

Fight or flight is as built into all life as is gravity built into matter that has mass. That alone is enough to not inhibit self-defense weaponry. The true reason for the 2nd amendment is when (not if) those officials of the govt. become fascistic that the citizens are REQUIRED to rise up in an armed rebellion and take them out. I am not implying that is now with these goofy clowns. The US is a very long way from that needing to happen (why all the armed forces haven't stepped in yet) VERY long way away.

a reply to: MrNeo

The mafia runs Chicago. Half or more of the cops are dirty. They have the strictest gun laws in the country. Not only do the cops not protect but law abiding citizens can't even buy handguns to protect themselves. They also have one of the highest gun murder rates with the strictest laws. Those people need guns.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 19Bones79

Surely, by extension, nuclear weapons are even more protective.

Why would anyone want to limit the access of the general public to nuclear weapons?

These 'nuke grabbers' must be fascists who want to take away everyone's right to freedom and self defense.

Maybe we can apply some proportional common sense to our arguments in the future. It makes for better discussion; otherwise all we are doing is quaking at each other like ducks.

Nuclear weapons are clearly meant to protect a whole society due to their size and destructive power. To evoke their use in a discussion regarding the self defense of individuals is just a childish argument.

Firearms are clearly meant for individual protection (as well as other uses) due to their size and destructive power. If you can't frame your argument on that scale than you have already failed to provide a persuasive argument.

So on the proper scale why should firearms be prohibited for individual protection?

Do they cause more accidental deaths than they provide protection? Or maybe they cause more intentional deaths perpetrated by those who obtain them legally than they provide protection?

Does the individual have an obligation to society to forgo the protection to their person that a firearm provides in order to safeguard other individuals from those accidental and/or intentional deaths?

Does the governing and wealthy classes have a greater right to individual protection then the common individual through the use of firearms cared by hired professionals?

If the governing and wealthy classes have a greater right to individual protection then do the common individual; what other greater rights do these classes have over the common individual?

What happens when a common individual or group of common individuals come to believe that the governing and wealthy classes should not be afforded more rights in society and that everyone in society should be treated equally? Can the governing and wealthy classes use their hired professionals with firearms to protect themselves from the threats posed by these common individuals who feel they should have equal rights?

All very interesting questions to answer that go to the heart of the issue with out the need to evoke silly arguments about nuclear weapons.