WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Age]

This philosophy depends on the assumption that a laws on paper and police officers on speed dial are better alternatives to gun ownership.

How about you stop pretending it's an OR and not an AND?

I wat the laws AND I want the police AND I want a gun.

That gives me the best protection possible.

If the situation is really as bad you say, then I suppose it is understandable why a law abiding citizen would feel the need to have a gun, but then I would find it hard to understand why the streets of your cities are not constantly full of law abiding citizens demonstrating their disatisfaction with the government and police for their incapability to establish a much safer environment. That's their job, and they are obviously failing miserably at it, and it is baffling why so many are more interested in keeping their guns than they are in that problem being addressed.

I agree, but the problem is most likely money.

BUT, just like it is said, 'guns, themselves, do not kill people', 'money, itself, also does not cause problems'. And, just like, 'guns, themselves, can not help people', 'money, itself, can not fix problems'.

It might require an officer on every city block and at every 100 yards throughout the US to provide safety for the law abiding citizens.

But, remember, the human being walking around the streets in that country called "united states of america" WITH 'guns' IS a 'law abiding citizen'.

So, if people want the police to provide protection and/or safety FOR 'the law abiding citizen', then those people have to EXPECT the police TO PROVIDE the 'safety and protection' OF that one walking the streets of the "united states of america" UNTIL 'that one' ACTUALLY DOES START SHOOTING "others" DEAD.

SEE, 'that one' might be just walking around the streets, WITH guns, or into the school 'it' attends, BECAUSE 'that one' wants to PROTECT "themself" from "those others" who CARRY guns, and who MIGHT WANT to SHOOT "others" DEAD.

Citizens want police protection but they don’t want their taxes raised to pay for it.

EVERY adult WANTS "others" to DO 'things', which 'they', "themselves", do NOT want to do. Like, for example, adults just WISH and WANT "others" to STOP walking around WITH weapons, just STOP CARRYING and/or PRODUCING MORE weapons, or just STOP fighting and killing "each other", but 'they', "themselves" do NOT WANT TO STOP DOING 'these things'. Another example is EVERY adult just WISHES and DESIRES "others" would just START being PEACEFUL, but these SAME adults do NOT "themselves".

[Harbal]

So, an innocent person, one who has done no wrong, has to give up his property becuz you feel his ownership of that property makes you unsafe?

I have to admit that the word, "property", does sound more innocent than the word, "gun".

[commonsense]

So, to protect B from A, Z, who has done no wrong, is penalized, yes?

CA064187-8C8C-45EE-8F07-5D3F192E5625.png

Yes, as a matter of public safety Z will have to surrender guns.

So, an innocent person, one who has done no wrong, has to give up his property becuz you feel his ownership of that property makes you unsafe?

Actually it’s because gun ownership makes everyone unsafe.

[Age]

I see your point—guns are tools. But are you claiming that there are people intent on murder who choose a gun as their m.o. over some other weapon on a whim? Say, for mass murder?

Nothing like that.

I am saying the category "gun death" signifies what tool was used.
This confuses people who think it signifies a causal relationship; and an implication that if the gun wasn't there the murder wouldn't have happened.

Are you here in ANY way 'TRYING TO' imply that if there were NO guns in that country called "united states of america", then there would STILL be the SAME DEATH COUNT, which IS CONTINUALLY BEING COUNTED hitherto, in the days that this is being written, FROM guns?

That may be true for some edge/corner cases but it's not true in general. Since in 80%+ of murders the attacker and victim know each other what actually happens is that the gun murders become knife murders.

Oh well that is ALL RIGHT then, right?

The murder rate doesn't decrease, but the zealots are patting themselves on the back for having reduced "gun muders".

And the 'knife makers' are patting "themselves" on their backs for having continually making more products, and thus MORE PROFITS, right?

Also, are you REALLY EXPECTING "others" here to BELIEVE if let us say we took ALL of the guns out of that country, culture, and society known as the "united states of america", then the DEATH count would be more or less the EXACTLY SAME?

If no, then okay.

But if yes, then also okay.

[Age]

I see. Are the knife murders only so if there’s no gun available?

In crimes of passion the murderer uses whatever's on hand.

Most murders in South Africa are committed by drunk people with sharp objects. And a large portion of those "sharp objects" are broken beer bottles.

Is this BECAUSE guns are NOT as prevalent as say, 'sharp objects' ARE?

Also, how MANY 'murders' happen in that country called "south africa" per the population of 'that country', say compared with that country called "united states of america"?

So now in certain establishments the only way to get a beer is in a plastic cup.

Well if this DECREASES DEATH, and thus SAVES MORE LIVES, then is this NOT a GOOD 'thing'?

After does NOT EVERY one HAVE a 'right' 'to life'?

[henry quirk]

So, an innocent person, one who has done no wrong, has to give up his property becuz you feel his ownership of that property makes you unsafe?

I have to admit that the word, "property", does sound more innocent than the word, "gun".

My shotgun is my property, yes?

Do you want to classify my shotgun as sumthin' other than property? If so, explain your thinkin'.

[henry quirk]

Yes, as a matter of public safety Z will have to surrender guns.

So, an innocent person, one who has done no wrong, has to give up his property becuz you feel his ownership of that property makes you unsafe?

Actually it’s because gun ownership makes everyone unsafe.

Explain how my owning a shotgun makes you unsafe.

[Dontaskme]

But you have absolutely no control over being safe anywhere.

Oh, I don't know - I think there are reasonable steps I can take to alter my risk profile.

Exercise.
Don't eat crap food.
Wear my seatbelt.
Don't drink and drive.
Don't invest in pyramid schemes.
Carry a gun.

Anyone can do all that precautionary stuff, while often silently a malignant brain tumor is growing inside your skull that will eventually kill you painfully, and slowly, or if you are lucky, quickly. Cancer does not care how much care you take to protect yourself.

Life is a risk, no person has any control as to whether they will live another day.

No gun, or seatbelt, or good healthy food, or exercise can guarantee anyone a safe passage in life.

[Age]

True, you could kill someone with almost anything, but it's much easier when the thing you are killing with is designed specifically for the job.

Of course! And that ease-of-use is an incredibly useful property for self-defence!

WHEN will 'you', human beings, come-to-SEE the ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY of CREATING WEAPONS FOR "yourselves" to PROTECT "yourselves" FROM "yourselves".

The continual CREATION of MORE and MORE, BIGGER and BIGGER, or BETTER and BETTER WEAPONS to "PROTECT" "yourselves", FROM "yourselves", could NOT be MORE IDIOTIC and MORE STUPID, even if 'you', human beings, WANTED TO BE.

How difficult do you think it should be for my wife to defend herself from three men trying to rape her?

WHY WOULD three men even WANT to rape the 'woman' 'you' are married TO?

Or, do 'you' REALLY BELIEVE that 'that woman' is 'YOURS'?

[Skepdick]

Anyone can do all that precautionary stuff, while often silently a malignant brain tumor is growing inside your skull that will eventually kill you painfully, and slowly, or if you are lucky, quickly. Cancer does not care how much care you take to protect yourself.

Life is a risk, no person has any control as to whether they will live another day.

No gun, or seatbelt, or good healthy food, or exercise can guarantee anyone a safe passage in life.

*yawn*

The whole nirvana fallacy dance is boring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

[Harbal]

So, an innocent person, one who has done no wrong, has to give up his property becuz you feel his ownership of that property makes you unsafe?

I have to admit that the word, "property", does sound more innocent than the word, "gun".

My shotgun is my property, yes?

Do you want to classify my shotgun as sumthin' other than property? If so, explain your thinkin'.

Other than for the purpose of insuring it, I see no reason to classify it as anything other than a gun.

[Age]

So, an innocent person, one who has done no wrong, has to give up his property becuz you feel his ownership of that property makes you unsafe?

Actually it’s because gun ownership makes everyone unsafe.

Explain how my owning a shotgun makes you unsafe.

BECAUSE if I came to the door of that building material in which you reside, you might decide to SHOOT me DEAD, even though I may have just come to seek help, or to inform you that you had won the lottery, for example.

Or, I might just be coming to claim 'my property' back from you, which you took, but you might just DISAGREE here and decide to SHOOT me DEAD, and you WILL BELIEVE that you had the RIGHT TO because you just THOUGHT or BELIEVED that I was coming to just 'touch' 'your so-called property'.

That is HOW 'you' OWNING a shotgun, and HAVE particular set of THOUGHTS and BELIEFS can make absolutely ANY one unsafe around 'you', "henry quirk".

[commonsense]

So, an innocent person, one who has done no wrong, has to give up his property becuz you feel his ownership of that property makes you unsafe?

Actually it’s because gun ownership makes everyone unsafe.

Explain how my owning a shotgun makes you unsafe.

If you don’t own one, it cannot be stolen by someone who commits armed robbery and kills an innocent. It cannot be used by you to kill innocent people in the future, should you become inclined to do so.

[Age]

Anyone can do all that precautionary stuff, while often silently a malignant brain tumor is growing inside your skull that will eventually kill you painfully, and slowly, or if you are lucky, quickly. Cancer does not care how much care you take to protect yourself.

Life is a risk, no person has any control as to whether they will live another day.

No gun, or seatbelt, or good healthy food, or exercise can guarantee anyone a safe passage in life.

*yawn*

The whole nirvana fallacy dance is boring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

LOL "skepdick", there was NOT one unrealistic solution NOR unrealistic scenario there in what "dontaskme" wrote.

Do 'you' ACTUALLY READ some of the links that you provide here?

you CERTAINLY ADD them in as though they give your CLAIMS some weight, but like in this one you provided just here sometimes the link just FURTHER DISCREDITS YOUR OWN CLAIMS. EXACTLY like what just happened here.

"dontaskme" JUST POINTED OUT ACTUAL Facts, which you OBVIOUSLY could NEVER REFUTE ANY OF.

[Age]

Actually it’s because gun ownership makes everyone unsafe.

Explain how my owning a shotgun makes you unsafe.

If you don’t own one, it cannot be stolen by someone who commits armed robbery and kills an innocent. It cannot be used by you to kill innocent people in the future, should you become inclined to do so.

OR accidently.