Guns good or bad

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I own firearms, and I enjoy target shooting. If someone kicks in my door at 4 AM, I will be able to defend myself within seconds, when it may take police 5+ minutes to arrive when called.

I would never go out of my way to harm another living being, but if my life were threatened, I would do everything within my power to protect myself.
 
Failing Leftist rag Wikipedia calls Jews not being allowed to own guns in Germany "counterfactual history" in the lead and then admits that it's true in the body of the article. Sad!

I think that the American society is so saturated with guns that the ban would not change much for the better for at least several decades. I mean, criminals and wackos won't just surrender their guns after they're banned. So it's at least one full generation of very annoyed normal pro-gun people, with barely any changes in homicide rate, in order to achieve a long-term goal. Politicians rarely look so far forward.
"Very annoyed pro-gun people" are scary to politicians for more reasons than short-sightedness. 1776 would and should commence again if the government attempts to take our firearms, that's what it's for.
 
I feel that in a situation where lots of people own guns it's a pretty stupid idea to not have a gun, ya know, just in case. That said ownership of illegal blackmarket guns would be easier to track down if gun ownership was low.
I also think that a background check wouldn't be a bad idea before guns can be sold to a person just so that people who are seriously unhinged or known criminals have a harder time getting their hands on deadly firearms (though it is hard to say how much this would help given how people can see normal before majorly snapping and repeat criminals would have access to other means of acquiring the weapons).

Edit: Just to clarify - Am Australia so don't know much about guns.

Also, if guns were mostly illegal I would suggest that police officers should hold onto their guns so they aren't horribly outmatched by dangerous criminals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that the American society is so saturated with guns that the ban would not change much for the better for at least several decades. I mean, criminals and wackos won't just surrender their guns after they're banned. So it's at least one full generation of very annoyed normal pro-gun people, with barely any changes in homicide rate, in order to achieve a long-term goal. Politicians rarely look so far forward.
I think, in practice, this is what the situation would be if you tried to ban private ownership of guns in the US now.

In an ideal world (which we don't live in), you should be able to own a gun if you actually need it for some activity you do on a regular basis, like hunting or clay pigeon shooting or whatever. Not just because you just like owning lots of guns or are worried that armed burglars might turn up one day.

And not because you think an imaginary future authoritarian government with access to tanks and artillery would be put off from doing what it likes because you and your friends all own pistols.
 
There's no answer to such a general purpose question, but I'll try. Guns are fun as fuck. I love shooting them, I love disassembling them, I love cleaning them, I love collecting them, and I love making libshits upset at the fact that I unapologetically own them.

To me, guns are good for those reasons. It's unfortunate that weapons must exist, but hey, weapons must exist. I'm not going to just curl up and die because of that fact. The universe is a dangerous place and death is a guarantee, so why on Earth should I ever trust anyone other than myself to defend my right to life with the precise level of care and attention that I would, myself, employ? It's ridiculous to put that kind of trust in someone else. That's my responsibility and my right. I live in a rural area, so the "national response time is 10 minutes" meme has no effect on me. If I called the cops right now and told them I was being shot at from outside, they'd probably be at my door in anywhere from 30 minutes, to an hour and a half. By then I'd be dead, my wife raped, children kidnapped, dog shot, and fabrege eggs stolen, with the perp already miles away. That's unacceptable to me.

Even if the police could teleport to my fucking location as soon as I call them, I don't trust them to not accidentally slip and shoot me in the back of the head five times in a fit of confusion. Even setting aside all of the millions of reasons why U.S. cops are shit-tier, police in general are incompetent and inadequately trained. Most of them get range time no more than once or twice a year, and fire no more than 30 rounds when they do. You're telling me I should trust that guy's aim over my own? I have HUNDREDS of hours of range time. I've gone through sardine cans of 7.62x54R on a weekly basis, back when it was affordable to do that. I will not give a monopoly of force over to the fuzz, and especially not when I'm a better shot than they are.

And this isn't to say that there's no use for cops, but they're ineffective at stopping home invasions, entirely outright. They just don't thwart them. They come by after the fact to collect info, and that's great, but I could have stopped the home invasion from happening if I had a gun.
 
Last edited:
Banning guns doesn't really do much, after guns were restricted in Australia, while death through guns laws have decreased, they still happen.
As for my opinion, you should have a right to a rifle or a handgun, but I'm a bit more skeptical of shotguns, sniper rifles and machine guns.
 
Last edited:
I say bring back dueling. If you don't use my preferred pro nouns then I should have the right to a bullet exchange with you at high noon from thirty paces.
 
There's no such thing as an "Assault Weapon". Purely a subjective political buzzword crafted in the 90s to make black finish guns like the AR-15 look scary, when the reality is that there are plenty of other guns that don't fall under that nebulous category, that have identical "deadly potential". The garden variety AR-15 is merely a semi-automatic rifle, like the SKS, or Ruger 10/22, the only difference is that it's scary looking to the naive and feeble, because it has 60 year old modernizations, such as magazines, instead of stripperclips, and some level of modularity.

but I'm a bit more skeptical of shotguns, sniper rifles and machine guns.

Why? Shotguns are used for hunting, have very limited effective range, and most non-magazine-fed ones take forever to reload. Never a good choice for a school shooting.

As for "Sniper Rifle", that is, once again, not a real term. It's a good colloquial for the normies, so they have a name for "gun with a scope on it", but the term you're looking for is Designated Marksman Rifle. At the end of the day, what you're skeptical about is the fact that someone can put optics on a rifle, and you can literally do that to anything. Hell, I once put a 4x Marlin scope on a pistol before, does that make me a sniper now? Again, not a common killing spree weapon, because, surprise, you actually need experience to snipe someone. Most guns that would fall under this category, once again, are extremely common hunting rifles, but with optics. The firing rate is about as fast as you can flip the bolt back and forth. If you wanted to ban "Sniper Rifles", you would have to ban ALL rifles.

And when it comes to machine guns, the only way you can get one in the U.S. is through the ATF tax stamp, which means you have to pay a $200 fee on top of the over $15k you'll be spending on a pre-1986 fully-automatic weapon, which you probably won't be approved for anyway. Even if by some miracle you manage to clear all of the hurdles, you essentially sign away your reasonable right to privacy with the tax stamp, because you're giving the ATF consent to check up on your gun at any time without a warrant. If you own an M249, and someone goes on a killing spree with one in a 50mi radius of you, you will get a knock at your door. Nobody goes through all of that rigmarole just to shoot up a school, when you can just talk to your friendly neighborhood former Soviet, or Vietnam vet, and get something that way, totally under the radar.

I think it's kind of funny that it's a LOT fucking easier to get guns illegally all over the world than it is to get them the right way. Most people don't think that's the case, but it's usually because those people don't try. Five years ago, I knew a guy who had crates of hand grenades for sale.
 
Last edited:
Banning guns doesn't really do much, after guns were restricted in Australia, while death through guns laws have decreased, they still happen.
As for my opinion, you should have a right to a rifle or a firearm, but I'm a bit more skeptical of shotguns, sniper rifles and machine guns.

I definitely disagree on shotguns. They not only have a lot of practical uses, and are nearly necessary to defend a farm from all varieties of varmints, but are an excellent home defense weapon as well. They also present very little threat as "concealed weapons."

Also just the sound of racking a shotgun will drive off most would-be intruders.

I think it's kind of funny that it's a LOT fucking easier to get guns illegally all over the world than it is to get them the right way. Most people don't think that's the case, but it's usually because those people don't try. Five years ago, I knew a guy who had crates of hand grenades for sale.

There's this strange phenomenon, and don't think I'm crazy when I say this, but there are a group of people called "criminals" and they often do things called "crimes."
 
Back
Top Bottom