WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Skepdick]

If that kind of scenario is prevalent enough in your country to be treated as a significant possibility, it is truly tragic.

Can you explain to me the difference between "significant" and "insignificant" possibilities?

The possibility of being murdered in the UK is more significant than the possibility of being murdered in Switzerland.

Switzerland has no meltdowns about gun ownership.
The UK does.

[Skepdick]

So you wouldn't defend that which you love? Even if protecting your loved ones requires taking a life?

My loved ones can protect themselves...

So every person for themselves? Nice society you got there.

Do your loved ones also know how to represent themselves in court? Heal their sicknesses? Grow their own food? Produce their own electricity?

Such autonomous people you are!

[Age]

Cars and aeroplanes were part of the real, adult world, whereas we knew that guns were just part of the fantasy world of cowboys and indians, and the war films we watched. I suppose those who hadn't got guns out of their systems by the time they grew up were the ones who joined the army.

Actually, the more you say about guns, the more suspicious I am becoming that you are mostly talk, with not much behind it. I'm starting to wonder if you are a bit of a fantasist, yourself.

Looks like you received a sloppy education. Cars, aeroplanes, guns - all human inventions.

OF COURSE, one does NOT have to go through a so-called 'education system' to REALIZE this completely OFF TOPIC Fact and REMARK here.

All part of the "real adult world". Used by regular people as part of every-day life without any specific proffessional interest in the instrument; or the sub-cultures forming around it.

Seeming as you haven't gotten cars and aeroplanes "out of your system" - did you become a race car driver; or a pilot?

This kind of DESPERATELY STRIVING TO DEFLECT is a SURE SIGN that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that 'that one' has to STAND ON in regards to 'its' BELIEFS and CLAIMS.

Cars and planes were CREATED and are USED FOR transport, which EVERY one WANTS, for "themselves".

Whereas, guns were CREATED and are USED to KILL and MAIM people, which absolutely NO one WANTS, for "themselves".

[Skepdick]

There is NO need to so-call 'outgrow' cars and airplanes as these 'things' are used for transport. Whereas, there is NO real USE for guns or weapons OTHER THAN to just KILL or MAIM "one another".

Good thing I don't use my gun for killing then. I use it to stop attacks other people.

The side-effect of that may be death, but hey - that's not my problem.

[Skepdick]

Cars and planes were CREATED and are USED FOR transport, which EVERY one WANTS, for "themselves".

Whereas, guns were CREATED and are USED to KILL and MAIM people, which absolutely NO one WANTS, for "themselves".

POSIWID

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpo ... at_it_does

The term is widely used by systems theorists, and is generally invoked to counter the notion that the purpose of a system can be read from the intentions of those who design, operate, or promote it. When a system's side effects or unintended consequences reveal that its behavior is poorly understood, then the POSIWID perspective can balance political understandings of system behavior with a more straightforwardly descriptive view.

What my guns do is protect life. With the potential side-effect of making the threat to life dead. Oh no!

Anyway. What's for breakfast?

[Harbal]

If that kind of scenario is prevalent enough in your country to be treated as a significant possibility, it is truly tragic.

Can you explain to me the difference between "significant" and "insignificant" possibilities?

I have no reason to think it would be beyond my capabilities.

The possibility of being murdered in the UK is more significant than the possibility of being murdered in Switzerland.

But just going from very unlikely to be murdered to extremely unlikely doesn't seem to make it worth the bother of uprooting and going to live there. I mean, they speak in all sorts of foreign languages over there.

Switzerland has no meltdowns about gun ownership.
The UK does.

I don't know what the general attitude here is towards gun ownership, but I've never seen anyone "melt down" over the issue.

[Dontaskme]

So every person for themselves? Nice society you got there.

Yes it is a nice society where I live, where grown ups are not shy in taking responsibilty for their own self by understanding is it wrong to be hostile to another person, or make another kid an orphan in favor of their own kids chance of survival, and that it's just plain wrong to kill other people. They simply don't need some thing called a ''gun'' to protect them from the big bad evil world of do unto others what they intend for you before they get in first. They know how to cooperate with other people in a civilised way without resorting to violence and mass killing sprees.

[Skepdick]

I don't know what the general attitude here is towards gun ownership, but I've never seen anyone "melt down" over the issue.

So you don't consider your pejoratives and metaphors as comparing gun ownership to "childish play"; the casual dismissal of the idea; or in general the sort of behaviour that stigmatises guns and gun ownership and makes the topic a social taboo as a meltdown? The sort of virtue signaling that equates civility with passivity?

I do.

[Age]

And it is this kind of completely and utterly STUPID thinking WHY some societies ARE SO completely BEHIND, AND going BACKWARDS.

It's true. Some societies are trying to go back to the 13th century. Back to a world without guns.

Are you PURPOSELY just 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT AGAIN here?

Or, did you MISS that it IS your OWN kind of thinking here "skepdick" that causes societies like the so-called "united states of america" TO BE SO FAR BEHIND, and CONTINUALLY GOING BACKWARDS?

What's worse is that those regressive idiots think they are being progressive.

WHY?

How about you START ACTUALLY EXPLAINING WHY your thinking could be JUSTIFIED here?

I will gladly live in a society where I don't need a gun.
I refuse to live in a society where I am not allowed to own one.

HOW COULD you REFUSE IF you were born IN 'that society'?

Oh, and by the way, if you were born in and lived in 'that society', then you would now just thinking and assuming or BELIEVING that it is just PERFECTLY NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE, just like you now think and BELIEVE that it is PERFECTLY NORMAL and PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to OWN guns.

[Skepdick]

So every person for themselves? Nice society you got there.

Yes it is a nice society where I live, where grown ups are not shy in taking responsibilty for their own self by understanding is it wrong to be hostile to another person, or make another kid an orphan in favor of their own kids chance of survival, and that it's just plain wrong to kill other people. They simply don't need some thing called a ''gun'' to protect them from the big bad evil world of do unto others what they intend for you before they get in first. They know how to cooperate with other people in a civilised way without resorting to violence and mass killing sprees.

Great! So if the members of your society are so civil and reasonable, and they embrace social cohesion then why do you need any laws against gun ownership?

Do you think guns have some magical mind-control powers that turn civil/reasonable people into violent zombies that can unwind the very fabric of your society?

[Agent Smith]

So, today morning was the usual - dad (me) and muh 15 year old fighting ... half the way from home ta school - and just before all that was what's important. Car here, honk! From the mountains over there, a honk! Honk here and honk there! I should've screamed "Iiiii .... looooove .... yoooou!" Honk! Onk! Honk! Onk!

[Sculptor]

Guns, God, Freedom.

Hell yeah brotha, say no more!

U S A !
U S A !
U S A !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntkozjHPsvY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntkozjHPsvY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntkozjHPsvY

[Age]

So protecting your loved ones with claws and teeth is love, but protecting your loved ones with guns isn't?

Now don't go putting word in my mouth again. I never implied the act of self-defence is my idea of love.

It's not what I would call love if I had to fight another person to the death, just so I would survive.

My definition of love is to not fear other people to the point that I have to kill them to ensure my own survival in the first place, surely if we are going to fear each other then that fear can only incite more hatred, not love. Hating on others is not my kind of love...but you are welcome to have your own version of love of course, that's your prerogative..

So you wouldn't defend those whom you love if other people were trying to harm them? Even if protecting your loved ones requires the sad and unfortunate taking of another person's life?

This is how SMALL, NARROW, and LIMITED these people's 'world' WAS, back in those 'OLDEN DAYS'.

'They' ACTUALLY ONLY loves SOME and NOT ALL.

AND it was IMPOSSIBLE TO QUESTION 'them' and GET AN ACTUAL ANSWER BECAUSE 'they' just could NOT fathom what was being QUESTIONED, and ASKED.

For example, How, EXACTLY, could I defend those whom I love if "others" were trying to harm them, when it is EVERY one that I love EQUALLY?

[Wizard22]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntkozjHPsvY

Nice, haven't seen this before

[Sculptor]

If that kind of scenario is prevalent enough in your country to be treated as a significant possibility, it is truly tragic.

Can you explain to me the difference between "significant" and "insignificant" possibilities?

I have no reason to think it would be beyond my capabilities.

The possibility of being murdered in the UK is more significant than the possibility of being murdered in Switzerland.

But just going from very unlikely to be murdered to extremely unlikely doesn't seem to make it worth the bother of uprooting and going to live there. I mean, they speak in all sorts of foreign languages over there.

Switzerland has no meltdowns about gun ownership.
The UK does.

I don't know what the general attitude here is towards gun ownership, but I've never seen anyone "melt down" over the issue.

The swiss have restrictive gun laws.
Switzerland is often quoted as high ownership. But they are EXACTLY a well regulated militia, since every male citizen is required by law to do military service and get gun TRAINING.
Swiss federal gun laws entitle citizens to acquire, own, and carry most types of weapons. But, they bar certain types of weapons and require a person to obtain a permit to acquire a gun from a dealer, although not from a private party. A gun owner must have a permit to carry a gun in public for purposes other than hunting or military training.