WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Wizard22]

I think it's a big problem that mentally unhinged people want to disarm people who will be victimized by real-life criminals, who heed no Law, and will do what they will while being armed.

In essence, the far-left of the West want to make victimization worse, not better.

In this, I side with the far-right. It's better to be armed against the crazies and criminals, than to be disarmed and face-off the criminals alone.

[Wizard22]

I'm offering solutions....is anyone listening? thought not.

Ok carry on.

I am, but I disagree with your assessment about animals "dying with dignity". Many animals, in nature, are killed, and kill each-other brutally, without mercy, without dignity. It is arguably, only within human civilization, that we gain aspects of such mercy and dignity. Humans are capable of both great good and great evil.

It's a sad fact, but a truth, that humans commit homicide against each-other. Since there is no 'solution' of homicide "once and for all", in the meantime, it is simply a matter of victimization that societies would disarm victims, against armed criminals.


We must side with the Innocent, before the Guilty. We should allow the Choice, to the Citizen (of a Republic), to defend him or herself in the manner they most reasonably conceive. If this means arming Citizen, against criminality (AND tyranny), then so be it, it must be done.

[Wizard22]

A disarmed society, that does not trust its own Citizens in this regard (armed self-defense by threat of life), can NOT be considered a "Free" Society.

It is a Tyranny.

Most European societies are tyrannical, compared to USA. Europeans trust their State-government, more than themselves as individuals. Maybe they 'chose' this path, maybe not.


But the principles are self-evident. A Free Society, the Citizen must be allowed to defend his or her life.

[Skepdick]

A disarmed society, that does not trust its own Citizens in this regard (armed self-defense by threat of life), can NOT be considered a "Free" Society.

None of that shit matters. You are trying to draw a distinction between society and its citizen - there is no such distinction in a representative democracy.

A society that distrusts its own Citizens is a society which distrusts itself.

But like - if you don't trust yourself then who do you trust if the job of protecting you needs doing?

The UK clowns can't even explain to you why a civilian who passes the qualifications outlined for their armed police is still ineligible to own a firearm.
It's not about standards of firearm competence.

[Wizard22]

None of that shit matters. You are trying to draw a distinction between society and its citizen - there is no such distinction in a representative democracy.

A society that distrusts its own Citizens is a society which distrusts itself.

But like - if you don't trust yourself then who do you trust if the job of protecting you needs doing?

That's why I disagree with the Europeans.

They (falsely) believe that their government has their personal, individual interests, in mind. They don't. Or, if they did, then it's only a fraction, a part, of the care a person has for their self.

It's obvious that governments don't really care about their citizens. Or that's it's a fraction of care. So, ultimately, the matter of self-preservation is in the individual's hands, always.

[Dontaskme]

It's better to be armed against the crazies and criminals, than to be disarmed and face-off the criminals alone.

Face off alone unarmed with no gun, as in, what life would be like on a daily basis in the natural world of the non-conceptual animal kingdom?

Just supposing guns had never been invented, and that they never existed at all, just like life is like in the non-conceptual natural world of the animal kingdom. Wouldn't that be a true accurate description of all life on earth who are sentient feeling organisms with a nervous system?

Do you think being a human in a world without guns would be any different, or more evolved than a life lived in the wild non-conceptual world of animals?

So why have guns, what difference is it going to make to our lives? we'd just be swapping our bare knuckle fighting with using an easier method, shoot em dead instead.

[FlashDangerpants]

In this, I side with the far-right.

You were with them on the subject of dastardly Jewish plots to murder slavic people.
And you are making up fake statistics about black people being inclined to commit murder, which a pretty far-right stand to take.
And you are in line with the far right in all that "Globohomo" stuff you wrote about.
And you have a trannie obsession along with everyone else in the far-right it seems.
And you are an accelerationist awaiting a race war, which is very far to the right.

So you line up with the far-right already. You little nazi you.

[Skepdick]

They (falsely) believe that their government has their personal, individual interests, in mind. They don't. Or, if they did, then it's only a fraction, a part, of the care a person has for their self.

It's obvious that governments don't really care about their citizens. Or that's it's a fraction of care. So, ultimately, the matter of self-preservation is in the individual's hands, always.

That's more philosophical nonsense. Members of representative democracies establish governments and government institutions through various means. Society is a self-organizing beast.

If the government didn't have their personal individual interests in mind then they wouldn't incorporate them.
The institutions are clearly useful, which is why politics is about control over them.

Governments are a necessary evil - it's better to have them than to have a power vacuum. If you don't believe me - have a look at all the "prosperous" African nations without effective governments.

[Wizard22]

Face off alone unarmed with no gun, as in, what life would be like on a daily basis in the natural world of the non-conceptual animal kingdom?

Just supposing guns had never been invented, and that they never existed at all, just like life is like in the non-conceptual natural world of the animal kingdom. Wouldn't that be a true accurate description of all life on earth who are sentient feeling organisms with a nervous system?

Do you think being a human in a world without guns would be any different, or more evolved than a life lived in the wild non-conceptual world of animals?

So why have guns, what difference is it going to make to our lives? we'd just be swapping our bare knuckle fighting with using an easier method, shoot em dead instead.

Humans invented weapons, and firearms, because our superiority is our technology.

If animals could use guns, then they would.

The problem is that highly intelligent predators...criminals, are going to use their advantages against you, if you let them. So what is your stance on self-defense?

[Wizard22]

You were with them on the subject of dastardly Jewish plots to murder slavic people.
And you are making up fake statistics about black people being inclined to commit murder, which a pretty far-right stand to take.
And you are in line with the far right in all that "Globohomo" stuff you wrote about.
And you have a trannie obsession along with everyone else in the far-right it seems.
And you are an accelerationist awaiting a race war, which is very far to the right.

So you line up with the far-right already. You little nazi you.

Calm down.
Take your pills.
Breath...breaaath.

Once you're done hyperventilating, try to piece together what you're saying and why.

[Wizard22]

That's more philosophical nonsense. Members of representative democracies establish governments and government institutions through various means. Society is a self-organizing beast.

If the government didn't have their personal individual interests in mind then they wouldn't incorporate them.
The institutions are clearly useful, which is why politics is about control over them.

Governments are a necessary evil - it's better to have them than to have a power vacuum. If you don't believe me - have a look at all the "prosperous" African nations without effective governments.

In the United States, we Citizens are our Government.

This is why we are allowed to protect our lives, and our Rights, with guns.

I don't expect foreigners to understand this. Most governments on Earth prefer the false-sense of security, under Tyranny and Fascism, instead of a Free Society.

[Skepdick]

In the United States, we Citizens are our Government.

This is why we are allowed to protect our lives, and our Rights, with guns.

I don't expect foreigners to understand this. Most governments on Earth prefer the false-sense of security, under Tyranny and Fascism, instead of a Free Society.

That's more psychobabble.

If UK folk decide that they don't trust themselves with guns - who am I to tel them otherwise? So they setup their society in a way that their government protects them.

But... the government is comprised of people. So now you have yourself a doble standard.

[Dontaskme]

It's obvious that governments don't really care about their citizens. Or that's it's a fraction of care. So, ultimately, the matter of self-preservation is in the individual's hands, always.

Self-preservation is why guns are not going to make a safer world, or a blind bit of difference to the quality of life for a human being. As soon as we believe we have to preserve our life, then we will defend that life to the death, no matter what gets in our way.

So even a world with or without guns wouldn't make the slighest bit of difference.

I really do not understand how difficult is to understand that weapons, any weapon, do not make us safer. And that humans are no different to any other animal, humans are savages too. And no gun on earth is ever going to save us from our inner beastly savage.

If guns make us safer, then why are we still fighting, what are we fighting each other for? why are we still going to war?

Doesn't look like a safe world to me. Doesn't look like it ever will be either.

I understand this, do you?

[Skepdick]

It's obvious that governments don't really care about their citizens. Or that's it's a fraction of care. So, ultimately, the matter of self-preservation is in the individual's hands, always.

Self-preservation is why guns are not going to make a safer world, or a blind bit of difference to the quality of life for a human being. As soon as we believe we have to preserve our life, then we will defend that life to the death, no matter what gets in our way.

So even a world with or without guns wouldn't make the slighest bit of difference.

I really do not understand how difficult is to understand that weapons, any weapon, do not make us safer. And that humans are no different to any other animal, humans are savages too. And no gun on earth is ever going to save us from our inner beastly savage.

If guns make us safer, then why are we still fighting, what are we fighting each other for? why are we still going to war?

Doesn't look like a safe world to me. Doesn't look like it ever will be either.

I understand this, do you?

What is it that you "understand" when your entire line of reasoning amounts to the Nirvana fallacy?

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

Do guns make us safer? Yes.
Do they make living risk-free? No.

[Wizard22]

I understand this, do you?

Put your mind into the experience of a young woman:

She was invited out to the clubs by her group of friends. She doesn't like to go out, but reluctantly did so to placate them. Her friends like to get way too drunk and party. The girl leaves the club early and wants to go home. She starts walking down the street because there are taxi cabs parked a couple blocks away. She goes through an alley. There, she is accosted by a rapist.

Should she have a gun to defend herself? Your logic implies, no she should not.



Put your mind into the experience of a young black teenager in the ghetto:

The black boy hears gunshots on almost a nightly basis. His mother dove on top of him before, because their apartment had been caught in crossfire from a drive-by shooting last year. The boy is scared for his life on a consistent basis. He regularly tries to avoid his local neighborhood gang-bangers trying to recruit him and lure him into their gang. He's scared that he'll have no choice in the coming years as he grows into a teenager.

Should this boy have a gun to defend himself? Your logic implies, no he should not.