What's your opinion of gun control?

[TheButterZone]

There IS a place where "cops" can reach you in the seconds required to stop a criminal attack - it's called prison, not a "country".

And the people that live there are not allowed to have guns.

Everyone that believes the world will be a warm fuzzy blanket of happy feelings if there are no guns should move there!

And then get shot, because it's not too difficult to build or smuggle guns in prisons that don't torture prisoners in solitary confinement every single second of their lives (including bringing medical equipment and staff to their cells or letting them suffer/die). If non-torture prisons can't even manage 24/7/365*infinity zero gun status, nowhere else can either.

[BADecker]

You need to demonstrate that you have solid control of your gun in order to get a license to carry, so, having good control of your gun is an important skill to learn.

Since open and concealed carry requires no registration in Arizona and a couple other states...

I don't hear of anyone accidentally shooting themselves in the hip or foot or armpit.

[valta4065]

Used to be indifferent about guns and having them. Recently after having my first child my viewpoint is firm now.
Even though I live in a nice area I always sleep with my pistol in a quick release safe under my bed.

The AKs and other guns stay in the big safe for other reasons.

Think that people that can own guns should get the knowledge about owning one and get one.

Cool. It means your kid can find your gun if you ever leave it unwatched.

I just hope he won't be one of the hundred yearly kids who kill themselves with a gun.

maybe you missed the word SAFE

Part of the responsibility of being a gun owner is making sure it is properly stored. maybe you would feel better if the government made sure I did.

Point being...
I would rather have the means to defend myself and my family if something were to ever happen. Rather than call 911 and wait 20min for cops to show up LOL

If cops take 20min to reach you then it means you're in a shitty country.

I have known some women who started carrying AFTER having been assaulted or raped.  Argue with their point of view will do you no good, ever.  They are hard core committed to protection, and they are not going to hope some cops might reach them.  THey're not even going to argue with you.  They just laugh and walk away. 

Can't get around it by saying something like "you're in a shitty country."

Maybe that's true, so what?  Few will move from where their families, relatives and friends are.

Well if you're in a shitty country it's another point.

Do whatever you want, if cops take 20 min to reach you after you call them it's not exactly normal.
Most police intervention are done under 10 min where I live. Hard to be faster than that.

[valta4065]

Funny how whatever is said here you still don't explain why your so protected states such as Texas have still this huge number of rapes and violent crimes. Higher than in less protected states.

I thought guns were here to protect you?

[yugo23]

I have known some women who started carrying AFTER having been assaulted or raped.  Argue with their point of view will do you no good, ever.  They are hard core committed to protection, and they are not going to hope some cops might reach them.  THey're not even going to argue with you.  They just laugh and walk away. 

Can't get around it by saying something like "you're in a shitty country."

Maybe that's true, so what?  Few will move from where their families, relatives and friends are.

Oh so now because a few have this opinion it should be made a law?

I can say the same thing you know?
I have known some people who started destroying guns AFTER one of their family members have been hurt or killed by another dumb citizen who was drunk and had a gun.  Argue with their point of view will do you no good, ever.  They are hard core committed to protection, and they are not going to hope citizens will always be careful and cautious with their weapons.  THey're not even going to argue with you.  They just laugh and walk away.

[Spendulus]

Funny how whatever is said here you still don't explain why your so protected states such as Texas have still this huge number of rapes and violent crimes. Higher than in less protected states.

I thought guns were here to protect you?

I did explain your attempt to insist correlation equals causation.  It's all caused by pet tigers.

[yugo23]

Funny how whatever is said here you still don't explain why your so protected states such as Texas have still this huge number of rapes and violent crimes. Higher than in less protected states.

I thought guns were here to protect you?

I did explain your attempt to insist correlation equals causation.  It's all caused by pet tigers.

Hmm... You're the ones arguing that guns help to diminish crimes...

If correlation can't be used then there is NOTHING that can prove anything about gun control debate.

Thank you for admitting you got no proof that guns help society in any way.

[valta4065]

Funny how whatever is said here you still don't explain why your so protected states such as Texas have still this huge number of rapes and violent crimes. Higher than in less protected states.

I thought guns were here to protect you?

I did explain your attempt to insist correlation equals causation.  It's all caused by pet tigers.

Oh thanks professor Spendulus. So even if we're actually looking at how guns can help fight crimes, correlation between gun accessibility and crimes rates are not relevant?

Do you do everything like this in your life too?
Does that mean that when you say "I love this watch" to your wife while shopping and she buys it to you on your birthday you spit on her and yell at her that "correlation isn't equal to causation! It's not because I said that I loved it that I actually wanted it!". 

Correlation has to be handled cautiously, and if you give me parameters that can play a role here I'll gladly revise my judgement. But considering my claim is: more guns doesn't imply a better security, I'd say that correlation between number of guns and crime rates is a FUCKING GOOD ARGUMENT!

[Spendulus]

Funny how whatever is said here you still don't explain why your so protected states such as Texas have still this huge number of rapes and violent crimes. Higher than in less protected states.

I thought guns were here to protect you?

I did explain your attempt to insist correlation equals causation.  It's all caused by pet tigers.

Oh thanks professor Spendulus. So even if we're actually looking at how guns can help fight crimes, correlation between gun accessibility and crimes rates are not relevant?

Do you do everything like this in your life too?
Does that mean that when you say "I love this watch" to your wife while shopping and she buys it to you on your birthday you spit on her and yell at her that "correlation isn't equal to causation! It's not because I said that I loved it that I actually wanted it!". 

Correlation has to be handled cautiously, and if you give me parameters that can play a role here I'll gladly revise my judgement. But considering my claim is: more guns doesn't imply a better security, I'd say that correlation between number of guns and crime rates is a FUCKING GOOD ARGUMENT!

Your words negate your argument.  You are only saying "I'd Like" the correlation to be causation.  You have not proved it or even tried to.

Therefore, my "pet tigers" argument is equally good.

I don't get the impression you even know how to equate correlation to causation. 

Hint:  It's NOT DONE by stating an opinion....

[BADecker]

Funny how whatever is said here you still don't explain why your so protected states such as Texas have still this huge number of rapes and violent crimes. Higher than in less protected states.

I thought guns were here to protect you?

I did explain your attempt to insist correlation equals causation.  It's all caused by pet tigers.

Oh thanks professor Spendulus. So even if we're actually looking at how guns can help fight crimes, correlation between gun accessibility and crimes rates are not relevant?

Do you do everything like this in your life too?
Does that mean that when you say "I love this watch" to your wife while shopping and she buys it to you on your birthday you spit on her and yell at her that "correlation isn't equal to causation! It's not because I said that I loved it that I actually wanted it!". 

Correlation has to be handled cautiously, and if you give me parameters that can play a role here I'll gladly revise my judgement. But considering my claim is: more guns doesn't imply a better security, I'd say that correlation between number of guns and crime rates is a FUCKING GOOD ARGUMENT!

Your words negate your argument.  You are only saying "I'd Like" the correlation to be causation.  You have not proved it or even tried to.

Therefore, my "pet tigers" argument is equally good.

I don't get the impression you even know how to equate correlation to causation. 

Hint:  It's NOT DONE by stating an opinion....

That's what I like about you... seriously. You recognize the importance of cause and effect. These other jokers are too busy being infatuated by themselves and each other to even look at it.

[valta4065]

Funny how whatever is said here you still don't explain why your so protected states such as Texas have still this huge number of rapes and violent crimes. Higher than in less protected states.

I thought guns were here to protect you?

I did explain your attempt to insist correlation equals causation.  It's all caused by pet tigers.

Oh thanks professor Spendulus. So even if we're actually looking at how guns can help fight crimes, correlation between gun accessibility and crimes rates are not relevant?

Do you do everything like this in your life too?
Does that mean that when you say "I love this watch" to your wife while shopping and she buys it to you on your birthday you spit on her and yell at her that "correlation isn't equal to causation! It's not because I said that I loved it that I actually wanted it!". 

Correlation has to be handled cautiously, and if you give me parameters that can play a role here I'll gladly revise my judgement. But considering my claim is: more guns doesn't imply a better security, I'd say that correlation between number of guns and crime rates is a FUCKING GOOD ARGUMENT!

Your words negate your argument.  You are only saying "I'd Like" the correlation to be causation.  You have not proved it or even tried to.

Therefore, my "pet tigers" argument is equally good.

I don't get the impression you even know how to equate correlation to causation. 

Hint:  It's NOT DONE by stating an opinion....

So there is no link between gun accessibility and crime rates for you? That's what you're implying by denying the correlation I raised between those two factors?

[Spendulus]

Funny how whatever is said here you still don't explain why your so protected states such as Texas have still this huge number of rapes and violent crimes. Higher than in less protected states.

I thought guns were here to protect you?

I did explain your attempt to insist correlation equals causation.  It's all caused by pet tigers.

Oh thanks professor Spendulus. So even if we're actually looking at how guns can help fight crimes, correlation between gun accessibility and crimes rates are not relevant?

Do you do everything like this in your life too?
Does that mean that when you say "I love this watch" to your wife while shopping and she buys it to you on your birthday you spit on her and yell at her that "correlation isn't equal to causation! It's not because I said that I loved it that I actually wanted it!". 

Correlation has to be handled cautiously, and if you give me parameters that can play a role here I'll gladly revise my judgement. But considering my claim is: more guns doesn't imply a better security, I'd say that correlation between number of guns and crime rates is a FUCKING GOOD ARGUMENT!

Your words negate your argument.  You are only saying "I'd Like" the correlation to be causation.  You have not proved it or even tried to.

Therefore, my "pet tigers" argument is equally good.

I don't get the impression you even know how to equate correlation to causation. 

Hint:  It's NOT DONE by stating an opinion....

So there is no link between gun accessibility and crime rates for you? That's what you're implying by denying the correlation I raised between those two factors?

You didn't and have not raised any correlation.

If you want, go ahead and compute the variance and show the correlation.  Be my guest.

[craked5]

You didn't and have not raised any correlation.

If you want, go ahead and compute the variance and show the correlation.  Be my guest.

Ahah xD
Usual Spendulus bad faith.

Well no need to try convincing you any further I'd say, you're far too brainwashed.
That being said, I'm sure you're a good little American! Heil Trump!

But from what I saw at least no one was able to prove that gun freedom is a good thing. They just ignore all the evidences showing it's a really bad thing.

[Spendulus]

You didn't and have not raised any correlation.

If you want, go ahead and compute the variance and show the correlation.  Be my guest.

Ahah xD
Usual Spendulus bad faith.

Well no need to try convincing you any further I'd say, you're far too brainwashed.
That being said, I'm sure you're a good little American! Heil Trump!

But from what I saw at least no one was able to prove that gun freedom is a good thing. They just ignore all the evidences showing it's a really bad thing.

I've invited you to show the correlation.  That means I am open to objective evidence.

If you used to words loosely, though, and did not mean actual scientific correlation, just say so.

I am happy to debate the topic on opinions and principles.  Because you and I just don't need guns, you know.  All of the problems encountered during the day, they are solved with hammers or keyboards or gadgets or whatever.  See?  So we don't need guns.

Until, you know.  Until we do need them.

[valta4065]

I've invited you to show the correlation.  That means I am open to objective evidence.

If you used to words loosely, though, and did not mean actual scientific correlation, just say so.

I am happy to debate the topic on opinions and principles.  Because you and I just don't need guns, you know.  All of the problems encountered during the day, they are solved with hammers or keyboards or gadgets or whatever.  See?  So we don't need guns.

Until, you know.  Until we do need them.

I understand your point of view. But with such argument you can justify anything.

"Why did you kill your neighboor?
Well of course he was a really pleasant dude and everything went smooth! But you never know. Maybe one day he would have threatened me."

[BADecker]

I've invited you to show the correlation.  That means I am open to objective evidence.

If you used to words loosely, though, and did not mean actual scientific correlation, just say so.

I am happy to debate the topic on opinions and principles.  Because you and I just don't need guns, you know.  All of the problems encountered during the day, they are solved with hammers or keyboards or gadgets or whatever.  See?  So we don't need guns.

Until, you know.  Until we do need them.

I understand your point of view. But with such argument you can justify anything.

"Why did you kill your neighboor?
Well of course he was a really pleasant dude and everything went smooth! But you never know. Maybe one day he would have threatened me."

That's why you get to know your neighbors. You have clam-bakes, and potlucks with them. You all learn to be friends. Then, when you need gun help against somebody from the outside, your neighbors are there to back you with their guns.

[xslugx]

I've invited you to show the correlation.  That means I am open to objective evidence.

If you used to words loosely, though, and did not mean actual scientific correlation, just say so.

I am happy to debate the topic on opinions and principles.  Because you and I just don't need guns, you know.  All of the problems encountered during the day, they are solved with hammers or keyboards or gadgets or whatever.  See?  So we don't need guns.

Until, you know.  Until we do need them.

I understand your point of view. But with such argument you can justify anything.

"Why did you kill your neighboor?
Well of course he was a really pleasant dude and everything went smooth! But you never know. Maybe one day he would have threatened me."

That's why you get to know your neighbors. You have clam-bakes, and potlucks with them. You all learn to be friends. Then, when you need gun help against somebody from the outside, your neighbors are there to back you with their guns.

And then you become a fucking closed community unnable to evolve because of the global consanguinity.

Welcome to Texas!

[BADecker]

I've invited you to show the correlation.  That means I am open to objective evidence.

If you used to words loosely, though, and did not mean actual scientific correlation, just say so.

I am happy to debate the topic on opinions and principles.  Because you and I just don't need guns, you know.  All of the problems encountered during the day, they are solved with hammers or keyboards or gadgets or whatever.  See?  So we don't need guns.

Until, you know.  Until we do need them.

I understand your point of view. But with such argument you can justify anything.

"Why did you kill your neighboor?
Well of course he was a really pleasant dude and everything went smooth! But you never know. Maybe one day he would have threatened me."

That's why you get to know your neighbors. You have clam-bakes, and potlucks with them. You all learn to be friends. Then, when you need gun help against somebody from the outside, your neighbors are there to back you with their guns.

And then you become a fucking closed community unnable to evolve because of the global consanguinity.

Welcome to Texas!

This might be true if the population of your town is 500. But if it is 100,000, the people at the edge of your group have neighbors who are not in your group. They form their own group, and are part of two groups. As the groups get to know each other, they unite... until the whole town of (did I say 100,000?) 10,000,000 get to know each other and are on the same wavelength.

China's million man army doesn't stand a chance against your guns.

[tvbcof]

This might be true if the population of your town is 500. But if it is 100,000, the people at the edge of your group have neighbors who are not in your group. They form their own group, and are part of two groups. As the groups get to know each other, they unite... until the whole town of (did I say 100,000?) 10,000,000 get to know each other and are on the same wavelength.

China's million man army doesn't stand a chance against your guns.

There are a couple of wildcards in such a scenerio (assumed to be China's million man army vs. armed American citizens defending their turf'.)

  1) The U.S. govt could provide very valuable inteligence support (at least) to the foreign attackers.  Especially with the help of the Israelis who have played a strong role in U.S. internal intelligence gathering for quite a while now.

  2) Both the Chinese and more recently the U.S. governments conceive of the biggest threats to their position being their own internal populations and there are just to many of us for their tastes in both countries.  Especially since as technology moves forward, there is less need for flesh-bots to run the equipment.  Such a framing will be even more the case under a 'one world government' leadership and is probably the main driver behind the 'SCN'.  A mutual destruction of all combatants would be 'not a bug but a feature.'

[BADecker]

Back in the beginning times of the USA, everyone had guns. The people were the militia, and the military was taken from the militia.

If government wanted us to have protection, they would make a law that said that we all had to own guns and wear them when we were off our private residence.

If this were done, there would be no million-man Chinese army that would ever attack us. Terrorists would be in terror of us. We wouldn't even need police, because the people would be their own police.

Now, I am not saying to implement such a law in 5 minutes. Rather implement it over 5 years, so that the people can get used to what it is like to have self-respect, and to respect other people.

The fact is, that since government doesn't implement some law like this, but rather would take away our guns, it is turning out that government is the terrorist organization, and the enemy of the people. At least it is some of the major players in government.