Hey look, the exception that makes the “pretty much no one” part right! All the people in the American northern territories (Alaska, Yukon, NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik) don’t represent one million in population out of 372 millions for the US + Canada, that’s less than 0.26% of the population or “pretty much no one” and not all of them need one (my uncle used to live in Nunavik, never owned a gun in his life), not all of them are legally allowed to own them and not all of them want one either… Wow, that % is getting smaller and smaller now, isn’t it?
Spend some time in class to learn reading comprehension and maths before making comments like this.
By your very own logic basically no that owns a gun commits a crime with them. Fewer than 500,000 reported gun related crimes against over 100 million gun owners in the us. For a .05% gun offense rate by gun owners, and that percentage gets smaller when you consider how many of those are repeat offenders and people illegally owning a fire arm.
Seems like the math is saying its not guns, but maybe something else these criminal offenders have in common that +99.95% don’t share with them…
Me: Pretty much no one need guns in rich countries
You: Go to Alaska! They need guns!
Me: Yeah, they might need them, they’re covered by the “pretty much no one” in my first message
You: Rambling about gun crime stats like it proves something about people needing guns
I could have the same argument with someone saying they need a pickup truck or a 5000 sq ft house in the city. There’s a very big difference between wanting and needing and pretty much no one in rich countries need guns today.
I never brought up crime because that’s irrelevant to what I said and you doing it just proves how irrational you’ve become when it comes to this subject. You’re so used to just typing a bunch of stuff on your keyboard whenever someone says they don’t like guns that now that you see someone mentioning that it’s not a need (never mentioning my personal stance on the subject) you’re unable to make the difference, to you it’s just an anti gun message because anything that doesn’t go “yay guns!” is anti guns in your mind and you just can’t help it, you try and pull the discussion in the direction you know and talk about crime and homicide rates.
Again, it’s a discussion about needs and it wasn’t started by me, I just added that it doesn’t just apply to boomers.
How do you define “need” in this context? I’ve “needed” a gun before, when a dude pulled a knife on me in a walmart parking lot I moved my shirt and grabbed the grip, didn’t even draw it, and with that action he decided to turn and calmly walk away instead of stab me and my then-gf. Had I not had it he could have taken my shit, sliced my belly open (which if you’ve never seen that, gruesome, happened to a bartender I dished for one night when he tried to break up a bar fight), or forced my girlfriend at the time into his car for god knows what, instead, he decided “maybe the next one,” and I have a hard time believing that had nothing to do with me grabbing the grip. Did I “need” it because he was clearly threatening our lives? Did I not because I wasn’t stabbed yet? How do you define “need?”
Oh and just to be clear in case you (like me) neglect to read usernames sometimes: I am a different person.
You’re making assumptions about what would have happened after you had emptied your wallet/your girlfriend’s purse so let’s ignore that.
The same kind of crimes happen in countries where guns aren’t prevalent and, if anything, in lower proportions with less victims of physical violence and that person might as well just have jumped on you to not give you the time to pull out your gun vs ran away with your money as soon as you gave it to them. At close range they had the advantage with their knife.
The need here isn’t guns but social programs to help the people who might resort to those means to live.
You’re making asumptions about why he was threatening our lives. He didn’t say give me your wallet, he could’ve wanted to kidnap and brutally rape then murder my ex. Fact of the matter is we have no way of knowing. It was a white dude in a trump shirt, does that change your mind? In any case, I suppose we’re ignoring all the assumptions and going with just the facts, yes? So in that case all we know is that he threatened our lives with a deadly weapon, what we don’t know is “why.” Turns out, when people threaten you with a deadly weapon, having one of your own greatly increases the liklihood of putting up a meaningful resistance regardless of the level of attempted victimization.
See, here you’re saying that other countries are less violent. That’s great, and it may be true, BUT, and here’s the kicker: I don’t live there, I live here. Here, where the rates of violence are higher, that is supposed to make me willing to be victimized at the hands of those without morals? Actually quite the opposite, I have morals, I can trust me. Know what I can’t trust? Other people or my government to keep me safe. Not only do criminals typically choose a time when the police aren’t visible to attack you, thus making them effective more as insurance agents who come after the problem, even if they are there they have no responsibility to defend you (Warren V DC, Castle Rock V Gonzales). So it is left upon me to either A) Change the entire country singlehandedly or B) Protect my own goddamn ass. Guess which one is remotely possible.
At close range they have the advantage with the knife IF* I don’t move. The Tueller principle (what you didn’t know you just quoted,) states that an attacker armed with a knife can get you within 21tf before you draw if you stand still. The drill is taught to teach you to move laterally as you draw, not to say guns are useless lmao. Fun fact you can shoot a guy who is within contact distance too.
The need is both. When those social programs work we won’t even need gun control, if they don’t, I need the guns to protect me against those it didn’t work on.
The discussion has never been about what you need to do, the discussion has been about if guns are a necessity, the answer is no and you keep proving that it’s mental healthcare that is a necessity. If you only want a gun so you can protect yourself then it’s not a necessity, not having to protect yourself is the necessity.
Except that the only thing that kept me from getting a possible fatal wound was the presence of a firearm OR his will. Neither of us know how that would’ve played out, but I know what I’d bet on and it is me defending my goddamn self like I did. You can make assumptions as well as I can, but neither of us know. The discussion on guns being a necessity? The answer is yes. Now we’re at an impass. Protecting yourself is a necessity depending on locale and also “not being a victim.”
Again, no, you didn’t prove that guns are a necessity.
Eating is a necessity, clothings are a necessity, people in your own country don’t have a gun and make it through life and die of natural causes, that’s all the proof you need to know that no, guns aren’t a necessity, they’re a desire that you and others have.
To make it so you don’t desire them what is needed is a solution to the social issues that make you want a gun.
Another proof that guns aren’t necessary for that is that there’s already more guns in the USA than people and it didn’t stop that person from trying to attack you even though odds were that you would be carrying. Increasing the number of people who own or carry a gun won’t improve things, there’s already more than in any other rich country and the issue is still worse.
We’re not even talking about the statistical improbability of the situation you’re basing your opinion on, if you go by that logic you should be arguing in favor of getting rid of all guns because of the odds that you’ll get murdered with one and you should never take a car ever again because of the odds that you’ll get into an accident and you shouldn’t have a kid because of the odds that your girlfriend will die in labor or your kid will die at a young age (especially in your country in both cases) and the list goes on and on…
Now now, don’t go bringing math like “banning ARs would be ineffective because all rifles only account for 500/60,000 gun deaths/yr for a rate of 0.2% of our gun deaths” or “Harvard, in an attempt to debunk Kleck and Lott’s estimates at defensive gun use /yr and ‘disprove the good guy with a gun theory,’ have put forth ‘a more realistic estimate of 100,000 dgu/yr,’ which is still 40,000 more than our gun deaths/yr including suicide and 88,000 more than intentional firearm homicides/yr” into this.
Hey look, the exception that makes the “pretty much no one” part right! All the people in the American northern territories (Alaska, Yukon, NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik) don’t represent one million in population out of 372 millions for the US + Canada, that’s less than 0.26% of the population or “pretty much no one” and not all of them need one (my uncle used to live in Nunavik, never owned a gun in his life), not all of them are legally allowed to own them and not all of them want one either… Wow, that % is getting smaller and smaller now, isn’t it?
Spend some time in class to learn reading comprehension and maths before making comments like this.
By your very own logic basically no that owns a gun commits a crime with them. Fewer than 500,000 reported gun related crimes against over 100 million gun owners in the us. For a .05% gun offense rate by gun owners, and that percentage gets smaller when you consider how many of those are repeat offenders and people illegally owning a fire arm.
Seems like the math is saying its not guns, but maybe something else these criminal offenders have in common that +99.95% don’t share with them…
That’s… Totally unrelated to what I said.
OP: Boomers don’t need guns
Me: Pretty much no one need guns in rich countries
You: Go to Alaska! They need guns!
Me: Yeah, they might need them, they’re covered by the “pretty much no one” in my first message
You: Rambling about gun crime stats like it proves something about people needing guns
I could have the same argument with someone saying they need a pickup truck or a 5000 sq ft house in the city. There’s a very big difference between wanting and needing and pretty much no one in rich countries need guns today.
I never brought up crime because that’s irrelevant to what I said and you doing it just proves how irrational you’ve become when it comes to this subject. You’re so used to just typing a bunch of stuff on your keyboard whenever someone says they don’t like guns that now that you see someone mentioning that it’s not a need (never mentioning my personal stance on the subject) you’re unable to make the difference, to you it’s just an anti gun message because anything that doesn’t go “yay guns!” is anti guns in your mind and you just can’t help it, you try and pull the discussion in the direction you know and talk about crime and homicide rates.
Again, it’s a discussion about needs and it wasn’t started by me, I just added that it doesn’t just apply to boomers.
How do you define “need” in this context? I’ve “needed” a gun before, when a dude pulled a knife on me in a walmart parking lot I moved my shirt and grabbed the grip, didn’t even draw it, and with that action he decided to turn and calmly walk away instead of stab me and my then-gf. Had I not had it he could have taken my shit, sliced my belly open (which if you’ve never seen that, gruesome, happened to a bartender I dished for one night when he tried to break up a bar fight), or forced my girlfriend at the time into his car for god knows what, instead, he decided “maybe the next one,” and I have a hard time believing that had nothing to do with me grabbing the grip. Did I “need” it because he was clearly threatening our lives? Did I not because I wasn’t stabbed yet? How do you define “need?”
Oh and just to be clear in case you (like me) neglect to read usernames sometimes: I am a different person.
You’re making assumptions about what would have happened after you had emptied your wallet/your girlfriend’s purse so let’s ignore that.
The same kind of crimes happen in countries where guns aren’t prevalent and, if anything, in lower proportions with less victims of physical violence and that person might as well just have jumped on you to not give you the time to pull out your gun vs ran away with your money as soon as you gave it to them. At close range they had the advantage with their knife.
The need here isn’t guns but social programs to help the people who might resort to those means to live.
You’re making asumptions about why he was threatening our lives. He didn’t say give me your wallet, he could’ve wanted to kidnap and brutally rape then murder my ex. Fact of the matter is we have no way of knowing. It was a white dude in a trump shirt, does that change your mind? In any case, I suppose we’re ignoring all the assumptions and going with just the facts, yes? So in that case all we know is that he threatened our lives with a deadly weapon, what we don’t know is “why.” Turns out, when people threaten you with a deadly weapon, having one of your own greatly increases the liklihood of putting up a meaningful resistance regardless of the level of attempted victimization.
See, here you’re saying that other countries are less violent. That’s great, and it may be true, BUT, and here’s the kicker: I don’t live there, I live here. Here, where the rates of violence are higher, that is supposed to make me willing to be victimized at the hands of those without morals? Actually quite the opposite, I have morals, I can trust me. Know what I can’t trust? Other people or my government to keep me safe. Not only do criminals typically choose a time when the police aren’t visible to attack you, thus making them effective more as insurance agents who come after the problem, even if they are there they have no responsibility to defend you (Warren V DC, Castle Rock V Gonzales). So it is left upon me to either A) Change the entire country singlehandedly or B) Protect my own goddamn ass. Guess which one is remotely possible.
At close range they have the advantage with the knife IF* I don’t move. The Tueller principle (what you didn’t know you just quoted,) states that an attacker armed with a knife can get you within 21tf before you draw if you stand still. The drill is taught to teach you to move laterally as you draw, not to say guns are useless lmao. Fun fact you can shoot a guy who is within contact distance too.
The need is both. When those social programs work we won’t even need gun control, if they don’t, I need the guns to protect me against those it didn’t work on.
The discussion has never been about what you need to do, the discussion has been about if guns are a necessity, the answer is no and you keep proving that it’s mental healthcare that is a necessity. If you only want a gun so you can protect yourself then it’s not a necessity, not having to protect yourself is the necessity.
Except that the only thing that kept me from getting a possible fatal wound was the presence of a firearm OR his will. Neither of us know how that would’ve played out, but I know what I’d bet on and it is me defending my goddamn self like I did. You can make assumptions as well as I can, but neither of us know. The discussion on guns being a necessity? The answer is yes. Now we’re at an impass. Protecting yourself is a necessity depending on locale and also “not being a victim.”
I sure hope one day you don’t accidentally kill a family member. I hope no kid gets hold of your gun and shoots up their school with it.
These things happen, but pretty much only in America. How much do you need mass shootings?
Edit: Before you post some stats about gun crimes in other countries as a response that ignores my point, note that I said “pretty much”.
Again, no, you didn’t prove that guns are a necessity.
Eating is a necessity, clothings are a necessity, people in your own country don’t have a gun and make it through life and die of natural causes, that’s all the proof you need to know that no, guns aren’t a necessity, they’re a desire that you and others have.
To make it so you don’t desire them what is needed is a solution to the social issues that make you want a gun.
Another proof that guns aren’t necessary for that is that there’s already more guns in the USA than people and it didn’t stop that person from trying to attack you even though odds were that you would be carrying. Increasing the number of people who own or carry a gun won’t improve things, there’s already more than in any other rich country and the issue is still worse.
We’re not even talking about the statistical improbability of the situation you’re basing your opinion on, if you go by that logic you should be arguing in favor of getting rid of all guns because of the odds that you’ll get murdered with one and you should never take a car ever again because of the odds that you’ll get into an accident and you shouldn’t have a kid because of the odds that your girlfriend will die in labor or your kid will die at a young age (especially in your country in both cases) and the list goes on and on…
Now now, don’t go bringing math like “banning ARs would be ineffective because all rifles only account for 500/60,000 gun deaths/yr for a rate of 0.2% of our gun deaths” or “Harvard, in an attempt to debunk Kleck and Lott’s estimates at defensive gun use /yr and ‘disprove the good guy with a gun theory,’ have put forth ‘a more realistic estimate of 100,000 dgu/yr,’ which is still 40,000 more than our gun deaths/yr including suicide and 88,000 more than intentional firearm homicides/yr” into this.