Topic: American Gun Ownership: The Positive Impacts of Law-Abiding Citizens Owning Guns - page 2. (Read 462 times)

BADEcker: oh, absolutely! let me elaborate your points above:

1. An atom bomb is also private property, and people are not allowed to own one. Same with a brick of cocaine, or heroin, or crystal meth. But let's go back to firearms: a Barrett .50 BMG is also private property, yet people in the US are not allowed to own one. Same with an m-134 mini gun, or an m-61 Vulcan, or a GAU-8. I'd say your "private property" theory is full of bullet holes.

2. Are they? I seem to remember an episode (several, actually, albeit this one was the biggest one), when people rose against the government and were unceremoniously massacred. Google "American Civil War", if you don't know what I'm talking about. or you can also search for "May Day Riots", or the Davidian sect. I don't remember any FBI agents turning against the government then...

Not everybody who owns a gun practices with it. In fact, you'd be surprised to learn how many don't even know how to load one. And no, again, the numbers are a clear indicator of the huge number of gun owners that don't have a clue how to handle them.
In any case, that's beside the point. The argument is about people that are NOT QUALIFIED TO OWN OR BEAR A FIREARM, not about those that don't practice with them.

Again,  your statements only show you don't have a clue what you're talking about. There are a lot of countries in the world in which people have a better quality of life (including a lot more freedom) than the US. In fact, if you take the time to google it, you will see a LOT of statistics about it (most of them originated in the US, curiously), and in NONE OF THEM is the US the best (or even between the top 5) country to live in.
What's painful to see is not the "freedom" owning guns afford you, but the fact (which keeps being carefully ignored by your crowd), that Americans care so little about their countrymen's lives. It's YOUR KIDS that keep being slaughtered, and you don't give a damn.

The point of guns isn't guns. It's two other things, at least in the US:
1. That the people can own private property. And since this property includes guns that are dangerous, the people can own very powerful private property. This = freedom;
2. That the people are the government. When the people rise up righteously with their guns in a big way against the "government," even the military will turn to help them.

People who take the time to practice a little with their guns that they own, absolutely DO understand the risks of being free. They understand the risk that someone might use his gun incorrectly on them. And they understand that this is part of the greater good for remaining free.

The cowards who don't want people to have guns should move out of the USA. They could try China, or maybe Afghanistan. Because it's the guns of freedom of the gun-owners that is giving them the luxury of being free without guns.

In fact, it is the gun freedom of America that is keeping the world free. How? Because governments of the world see freedom in America because of guns, and don't oppress their own people any more than so much... for fear that their people will see American freedom, and revolt with guns. The French people are on the border of doing this in some ways. Just push them a little too hard, and they'll get fed up and find some guns somewhere.

In fact, I do. I'm not a US citizen, but I lived in the US for almost 13 years.
The problem is most criminals and lunatics do not have a criminal record, and no test is performed to ascertain if they're actually qualified to own firearms. In that way, it's A LOT less restrictive than a drivers license.


That's the law in your state. But in most US states it's not like that. And  all tweakers are dangerous, and most of them don't have a record. In any case, I mentioned tweakers as an example of people that should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm, but they're not the only example, by any means.


Not in any country. In Argentina you can buy "hot" firearms from the cops.
The difference you keep carefully avoiding is that those which, for any reason, get a "hot" gun in a country where gun ownership and carry is restricted, are automatically risking to be arrested  because of it, while in the US they wouldn't get a second look. In fact, they even risk getting arrested if they bought their gun legally, and are carrying it without a permit.  


No, I wouldn't. To get a driver's license you need to go through medical exams (which incidentally you don't need to get a gun in the  US), and there are laws against "driving under the influence" or "driving while intoxicated". So while driving you're always assuming the risk to get pulled over, especially if you're driving erratically, while that doesn't happen if you're carrying.

BTW, I'm not anti gun. In fact, I used to own one until not long ago.
What I am is anti BS, and, like you said, anti mindless brainwashing. You (and anybody else) can keep avoiding the data for as long as you want, but that doesn't change the facts that have already been stated to death in this thread.
What is upsetting is that non Americans, and people living outside the US actually care more about the lives of your own people than you do.

It's much easier to kill a bunch of people with a car, but it isn't so easy to assassinate just one person covertly and get away with it. For that you need a gun.

How many 25-year sleepers are in Trump's group, but are complete Dems? How about in Biden's, who are Reps? How many of these sleepers have access to guns and their leader at the same time.?

Sounds like you don't know much about the U.S. or it's gun laws.  I'm a U.S. citizen with a dozen guns as is common in my area of rural West coast.  Just like everyone else I've had to pass background checks to buy the guns I have other than some old rifles I got from deceased family members.  If one has a criminal record, it comes up on the background check and the seller won't sell.  In this way it is more restricted then a driver's license.

In my U.S. state, and many others, it is a constitutional right to own a gun if one has no criminal record (and only a tiny fraction of 'dangerous tweakers' are in this category) and carry it, but it is NOT a right to conceal.  Therefore you do see people doing open carry, but it's not very common except during hunting season.  One has to jump through more hoops to conceal.  I actually think it would be good policy to ensure that a person buying a gun understands the conditions under which it can be used via a checklist or something, but it's not really that big a problem.

If I had a criminal record and wanted a gun, I'd to what criminals in any country do: buy one on the street.  Where I'm at now it is fairly easy to get homemade guns, though I've got the money to buy real ones.  Again, here in a non-US country there is no problem getting a gun if one has a clean record, and if there is some reason, a concealed carry is not problem.  What is great about my current English speaking SE Asian locale is that if someone has hopped over your fence in the middle of the night and they get shot, they are definitely in the wrong and things don't even go to court.  They can be killed or crippled at one's discretion whereas in the U.S. with their idiotic policies of coddling the criminals it's probably less hassle to shoot to kill.

BTW, would you say that 'any tweaker can drive around in a car, and the law itself protects him, right until the moment right up until he decides to tip the steering wheel a few degrees and kill someone'?  It's a lot more common and a lot easier to kill someone with a car than it is with a gun.  Seems to me that there is something deeper going on with guns than most anti-gun people want to talk about.  For many it's probably mindless brainwashing and political tribalism, but for others who are sophisticated enough to have an agenda that they understand, it seems to go deeper.

Oh, I do understand that concept very well. I also understand a few other concepts as well:

1. There's a big difference between "having" a gun, and "using" a gun.
2. In a country where almost anybody can "own and bear arms", so do most criminals, or criminal wannabes.
3. In a country that forbids guns, anybody who owns a gun is automatically a criminal. In the best of cases, that puts guns off the hands of the most violent members of society, or at least gives the police more tools to do their job.
4. There are over 180 countries in the world (yeah, big surprise: the US is not the only one) in which guns are either forbidden or otherwise regulated, and the US keep ranking higher in homicides and other crimes than most of them. Like it or not, numbers don't lie.

Now you're making drama. No country in the world (that I know of) denies its citizens the right to self protection. The difference is that in the US any tweaker can walk around armed to the teeth, and the law itself protects him, right until the moment he starts killing people.
Then again, nobody is talking about banning guns. Even most US states today only allow for concealed carry (which shows a lot more concern about "form" than "substance"). What some people are asking is that gun ownership be allowed for qualified individuals, pretty much the same as car driving. So far, despite all the drama and the cheap rhetoric, I haven't seen one valid argument against that.

The dude said 'has a chance'.  I guess you don't really understand the concept of 'a chance', not to mention how there is a difference between having a means of self-protection vs. having the right to have a means of self-protection.

With no right to self-protection it will be open-season on people who are suddenly known for sure to be victimizable.  Blood-bath.  But for a significant fraction of the people who want gun control, a blood-bath is not a bug; it's a feature.  It's a means of 'transfer of wealth', and helps with the problem of too many people who are hurting the earth.  Mainly the gun control people are state who understand (correctly) that without self-protection, the peeps will be driven into the waiting arms of the state for protection.

Of course. That's why in the US there are NO CASES of rape, muggings or homicides, especially of girls and the elderly.
Sorry, you can use all the rhetoric you want, but reality doesn't help you.

The agenda of the one-worlders is to get rid of guns so that people can be controlled easier. So, they provoke gun deaths in countries that have lots of gun freedom, just to make it look bad for them regarding their guns.


A 250-pound muscle-man can easily mug, rape, and murder a 90-pound teen or granny. But if the 90-pounder has a gun, she has a chance... even if the 250-pounder has a gun as well.

Oh, no! Not at all. You should, however, obediently trust all the BS the NRA and breitbart choose to feed you, god forbid anybody would actually think you may have a brain, after all.
But, BTW, is that the best you can do? there are about 180 countries in the world, and all you can do is come up with 3 totalitarian countries (2 of them lead by fanatics) to prove your point?
Here. I'll provide you a list of countries where guns are forbidden or otherwise regulated. Take your pick: Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Germany, Finland, UK, Poland, Czech Republic, Japan, Greenland, Ireland, France, Spain, Greece, Italy, Canada, Mexico, Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Portugal, Uruguay, Turkey, Ecuador, Argentina, and a LOOOOONG list of countries. You're welcome.



Sorry, I don't do conspiracy BS. If you have any proof whatsoever to substantiate your claims, show it. Otherwise, be as responsible as you claim to be, and stay silent.
In any case, it doesn't make a difference who provided the rifle. The fact that the law ALLOWED a lunatic to possess a rifle provided by anybody is the real problem here. Following your same line of thought, if a cop sees somebody carrying a rifle in one of the countries where they're regulated, it'd be his prerogative, and in fact HIS DUTY, to inquire about the legality of his situation, and eventually make an arrest. Meaning, in case you keep choosing to ignore reality, that Kennedy would probably have SURVIVED that day (your "deep state" BS notwithstanding).
By the way, YOUR PRESIDENT was killed in a country where everybody is "allowed to defend themselves". What happened? Didn't he have a right to "own and bear arms"? Why couldn't he "defend himself"?



Again, is that the best you can do? Show us ONE country, out of the list I provided above, that's being run by a tyrant. Just one.

Here's a bit of a statistic for you: Today, out of about 180 countries in the planet, there are TWO (Yemen and the US) that allow unrestricted access to firearms to their citizens. Yemen is in the middle of a civil war, and the US has the HIGHEST RATES OF FIREARM RELATED MURDERS OF ANY DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, by more than 3 times (in the case of homicides) and almost twice (in the case of suicides), to Finland, that's in second place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

By the way, my source is Wikipedia. Not as reliable as breitbart, I know, but I do what I can...

This is a silly argument. You are allowed to have a mullet and wear skinny jeans in the US. Mullets and jeans are your only protection, they are the only things keeping the government from your door...
because in North Korea people CAN'T HAVE A MULLET OR WEAR SKINNY JEANS.

Wow I didn't know that I should just obediently trust that the government and all big corporations will be benevolent to me always and everything will be ok just like it is presently in North Korea, China and Afghanistan where people also CAN'T OWN GUNS .

The rifle by the way was provided by the US deep state operatives that wanted JFK dead and it wasn't some irate citizen as the guy who supposedly shot him hit the dust before they could fully question him. The deep state wanted JFK dead because he wouldn't play ball with them.

Here is a very modern example of when a government takes guns from their people:

Taliban in Afghan capital Kabul start collecting weapons from civilians

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taliban-afghan-capital-kabul-start-collecting-weapons-civilians-2021-08-16/

What will happen next is that the Taliban will simple continue the tradition of tyrants that have taken weapons and commit genocide to their enemies just like Hitler did with the Jews and other dissidents, the Bolsheviks and Stalin did with anyone loyal to the Czar, and Mao did to those with those aligned with Chiang Kai-shek. They killed them and these people had no means to defend themselves.

Solidifying my prior point about criminals still obtaining military grade arms regardless of them being illegal:

VIDEO: Mexican Soldiers Allegedly Sold Weapons to Drug Cartel

https://www.breitbart.com/border/2021/11/28/video-mexican-soldiers-allegedly-sold-weapons-to-drug-cartel/

We need our guns to block the threat of tyranny when we lose our first amendment rights to speak out.

It's a well known fact that criminals are everywhere, and they have no respect for the law. That's why they're criminals.
The difference is in a country that forbids its citizens to carry, ANYBODY packing is automatically breaking the law, which makes the cops' job a lot easier. In most of the US, they become criminals once they start shooting. THAT's my theory. YOUR OWN PRESIDENT (JFK) was slaughtered by an otherwise law  abiding citizen who "just happened" to be carrying a rifle nearby. Yet you guys don't learn.
Then again, AFAIK, nobody has ever talked about banning guns in the US. All that's being proposed is to run background checks on future gun owners, to decide if they're qualified to own a firearm. The US is the only country in the world that defends lunatics' right to kill its people.  

What about other countries outside of the US that have banned guns altogether and yet the criminals still get their hands on said guns or even grenades? What is your theory on that? Here is my own the criminals will get their guns through other means anyway regardless if the guns/weapons are banned or not. So it is better to have an armed populace that can defend itself rather than one that has to wait on the response time of the police to hopefully save them. In the latter case things usually don't end too well for the victim.

A non Gun control in the US is a risky policy that the US president should really look into, allowing citizens to move around with an unlicensed guns may result into an outlaw state where guns are used by criminals to harm others and can be traced.

Yep, that's nothing.
Then, of course, when you realize the US population is over 300 million people, those 3.5 people per 100000 become more than 10500, or over  3 times the people that died in 9/11/2001. That kinda makes it a problem, doesn't it?

Probably had nothing to do with this thread, but 'my family' got three more guns today so we have a selection in each of our house sites (or 'compounds' as they tend to be known here.)

I've had great luck getting women interested in guns by letting them fondle a tiny concealed carry piece like a Glock P42 (in this instance.)  Even hard-core Liberals like my family back in the U.S..  Fact of the matter is that women (rightly) feel somewhat more vulnerable than a large guy and they usually harbor a hidden desire to level the playing field a bit.  Everyone has undergone a ton of intensive government sponsored brainwashing geared toward demonizing firearms, but once she gets over the relatively small bump of being on the 'other side' it is relatively easy to just have a sensible attitude about them.  I find practicing a terrible bore, but it's kind of fun for people who don't have background experience with firearms and some women really get into it and become enthusiast.  Thankfully there is a range not far from us.  It's been on my to-do list to for the wife, kids, house help, etc, to make some trips down to the range and practice up.  When the new Glocks and shotgun comes in we'll do that.

A funny little aside about where I am at: concealed carry permits are temporarily revoked around election time.  I'd have to think that there are variances given for bodyguards and stuff, but I don't know because I try to stay out of politics.

Unless that someone has a gun, which they are very likely to have, and shoots or otherwise disables you first, which they're are more likely to do if they think you can have a gun.


I've been robbed at gunpoint. If I had a gun and tried to use it, I'd be likely dead or severely injured. Most people have no chance to succeed in self-defense against well-prepared attackers. Not something a gun/ammo seller would tell you though.

That's true, and it's the same concept. Don't imagine tyrannical government will do full scale (civil) war against its own citizen. But more of removing individual freedom and thus gaining more power over time. Gun is for protection, to protect life and property. If guns are removed, people then delegate the job to the government (aka police) thus more power for the government. The idea of a free state is limited power of government, hence carved on the constitution.

If we see from the history, the power grab occurs gradually. After removing rights to protect themselves, the government can just remove more rights, including rights to go outside, opt-out from vaccine, socialize, etc. For instance, I don't think what happened in Australia can happen in Texas.

This is a valid point. I can understand why someone living in a remote area with no prospect of immediate assistance might want to protect themselves.
We just don't have that in my cramped little country, where everyone is geographically close to everyone else. I travelled coast-to-coast across the US some years ago, and to someone from the UK, the sheer space is unbelievable.




I'd argue that if a gun makes it easier, then it also makes it more likely. If your options are A) pull a trigger, or B) jump off a high building, then I'd suggest that if you remove the gun, there are people who might decide against the whole thing if the jump is the only choice.
Data (albeit from 2002) do suggest a strong correlation by state between suicide and gun prevalence. Appreciate there are many complicating factors though, and this isn't clear-cut.