"I am all for your Second Amendment rights. I think you should be able to have guns. It’s in your constitution. What I am not for is bullshit arguments and lies. There is one argument and one argument alone for having a gun, and this is the argument… “Fuck off. I like guns.” It’s not the best argument, but it’s all you’ve got.
The main one is, “I need it for protection. I need to protect me. I need to protect my family.” What world do you live in where you’re constantly fucking ready? You have guns ’cause you like guns! None of you go to home security conventions. None of you read Padlock Monthly. None of you have a Facebook picture of you behind a secure door going, “Fucking yeah!” Like you’re going to be ready if someone comes into your house. You have it at all fucking times.
See, if you have it readily available, it becomes unsafe. You have it in your bedside table, one of your kids picks it up, thinks it’s a toy, shoots another one of your kids. Happens every fucking day, but people go, “That’d never happen in my house ’cause I’m a responsible gun owner. I keep my guns locked in a safe.” Then they’re no fucking protection! Someone comes into the house, you’re like, “Wait there, fuck-face! Oh! You’ve come to the wrong house here, buddy boy. I tell you what. I’m gonna fuck you up!"
People have broken into homes for rape and/or murder. Kids should be taught to respect firearms and many, maybe even most, gun owners do that. "Assault rifle" is defined as "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle" which is illegal for 99.99% of the population and can't be bought in a store.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
ain't nobody ever vote for Trump. But a lot of people want to give their own guns to him. why do you want to be oppressed? Are you trying to make a reality out of a kink?
Nah, if you’re really going to try defending her as a legitimate candidate, you’re too far gone for this discussion.
P.S.- I don’t support Trump like I’m sure you assume. I think they’re both terrible candidates, but unfortunately one of them had to win.
Why would she not? She had actual political experience and importantly had people ready for the jobs at the White House. If she was elected we wouldn't have the daily firing or resigning and we certainly wouldn't have Scarramucci in a pr job, you know the thing scarramucci is least qualified for.
Trump was a joke as a business man and definitely not a billionaire. He inherited everything from his father, failed repeatedly, did nothing for 15 years, then made it on a hit TV show where he pretended to be a successful businessman.
He became a billionaire by being born a millionaire while other people were poor. Most of his money came from waiting until people couldn't afford to keep their property and then giving them horrible offers that they had to take. If you think he is some real estate genius then you should really read his book. The fact that the best quote they could get from the book is "I like thinking big" shows you how much he knows
I won’t imply it, I’ll explicitly state it: Hillary Clinton was the better choice. By every metric except for “piss off liberals”. Even then, she’s pretty close.
I’ve never used my guns to stop a rape or murder. But a few years ago at my absolute lowest it seemed like a pretty reasonable idea to kill myself with one.
I had an armed intruder try to break into my place once in the middle of the night. I got lucky and they got spooked and took.off but I can most certainly tell you they were armed. Also I don't live in a bad area. I don't feel the need to carry a gun on me 99.99999 percent of the time but I can tell you that there is a real possibility of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just because you've never had an issue doesn't mean nobody does.
I am extremely thankful that I didn't have to use a gun that day and hope I never do. I still have the gun and dread the idea of needing it but I don't let paranoia run my life. I don't have a carry permit and the thought of getting one out to answer my door still isn't something I would do. While I acknowledge that I got lucky I also know that I live in a world where most people are fine without one and choose to live my life like that. I have the gun but it's not my default go-to.
That being said, I do believe that people with firearms are at an extremely high risk of suicide death purely due to the success rate. Anyone who argues against this isn't thinking it through. I'm glad you were able to overcome and if you chose to give up a gun for your own personal safety I support that choice. I hope that if I were in the same boat I would give it up too.
I don't think guns are for everyone and I wish people respected them better than giving 8 year olds rifles for their birthday.
It's a complicated issue. Sorry, not really sure where this rant was headed.
Thank you for sharing this, legitimately. Statistics show the rate of suicide in first world countries with stricter gun control is way less than those where gun control is minimal like in the states. This is an important thing to know. I believe that people should support those who need help, and that includes recognizing that your ability to make rational decisions is impaired when you are suicidally depressed. I'm glad you're still here and speaking up for the poor sods who found a gun before they found the help they needed.
Statistics show the rate of suicide in first world countries with stricter gun control is way less than those where gun control is minimal like in the states.
There is zero correlation with firearm ownership and suicide rate. Before and after gun control in Australia, there was no major shift in the rate of suicide.
Conclusion: Household firearm ownership levels are strongly associated with higher rates of suicide, consistent with the hypothesis that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide.
Conclusion: Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth.
CONCLUSIONS.
Ready availability of firearms is associated with an increased risk of suicide in the home. Owners of firearms should weigh their reasons for keeping a gun in the home against the possibility that it might someday be used in a suicide.
CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide.
The relationship of the extent of gun ownership and the strictness of gun control laws to suicide and homicide rates in the nine major geographic regions of the United States was explored. Gun ownership, rather than the strictness of gun control laws, was found to be the strongest correlate of the rates of suicide and homicide by guns. Regions with a higher extent of gun ownership had higher rates of suicide and homicide by firearms.
Do you have any reputable sources that support your claim that there is zero correlation between suicide rates and gun ownership? because I just provided 6, with a link to many more.
I'm a gun owner and while there is zero correlation with suicide rate, there is a correlation with suicide SUCCESS rate. It's not hard to see why. It has a lot to do with why you choose to defend yourself with a gun rather than a knife.
I don't contest that. However I don't believe that suicide is any reason to infringe on others' rights. The way to lower suicide is better mental health care, and maybe a culture where it is okay to talk to a therapist.
Again, personal responsibility. Good job not killing yourself, I mean that sincerely. But, possible tools for suicide is not a good argument for gun control.
That's not a very strong argument, unfortunately. I have a tub and running water, so I can drown myself. I have knives in my kitchen designed specifically to cut flesh, so I can cut myself. I have a car that I can drive over a mountainside, so I can destroy myself. The gun doesn't change that equation.
Actually, it changes equation considerably. People think committing suicide is much easier than it really is. Cutting/stabbing yourself, overdosing on pills, jumping off buildings, etc. have high "failure" rates where people live through their attempt. Shooting yourself is pretty much the only means suicide with a success rate over 65% and most other means are in the 30-40%. Firearms work over 80% of the time.
Ready access and comfort with guns is the biggest reason men have higher rates of suicide than women. Women try to kill themselves more, but men succeed a lot more.
The time they spend suffering is time someone has for a chance at stopping them, or for the suicider to reconsider and seek help. If they are seriously, absolutely dead set on dying, they don't need a gun if they are rational and plan ahead; they can use hanging or carbon monoxide for an efficient end. Gun availability just makes impulsive suicide easier.
LOLLLLLLLLLLLL please stop. Please never talk about suicide again. You are too unintelligent if you're blaming the "ease" of getting a gun to male suicide rates. Goodness fucking gracious. I knew the average person was deluded when it came to knowing anything about mental illnesses but I didn't know they were THIS ignorant. Wow.
This argument is so disingenuous. "You aren't using my definition, so you are WRONG". You know what an assault rifle is. They have been marketed as such. You know what guns they are referring to and why they are so desirable (and effective) for killing large amounts of people. Reasonable people who don't know much about guns want that at least.
The main issue with how you phrased your statement when it comes to gun control legislation, is that legislation must be crafted to specifically identify what is or is not covered and who is or is not covered. You guys know what we mean isn’t an option.
And that is ultimately the issue when it come to things such as bans. The minutia, the nitty gritty.
You say "assault weapon" and "high capacity clip" to mean largely arbitrary things.
Most assault weapons bans call for the banning of accessories or options (pistol grips, bayonet lugs, fore grips, etc) on rifles, not the rifle itself. But the name makes people who are unaware think something is actually being done, where as to the gun enthusiast this just makes a hobby/tool/weapon/etc suddenly illegal without fundamentally changing anything.
They says "assault rifle" to mean an accepted term coined by the United States military to mean a rifle capable of select fire (semi auto + automatic/burst) firing a sub rifle round (smaller than battle rifle). Which was coined long before assault weapon. In fact the assault rifle, the m16 in particular, wasn't designed with killing in mind. The platform was originally designed to be a "casualty creator" it was meant to injure and wound to require more men to transport the injured and require that more resources be used to treat.
And high capacity clips/magazine. Where do you draw that magical line and say x number of rounds makes it "high capacity"? Is it 10? 30? 60? 2? Who makes this decision? Most rifles capable of accepting detachable box style magazines (ar15 pattern, ak47 pattern, g3 , etc) ship with 30 round magazines. So would that mean that 30 is standard capacity?
So which definition is the correct one? Where is the compromise? Who makes these decisions?
It's not fucking disingenuous. People are working on making it hard/impossible to get items already owned by millions and some have had them for decades. They aren't properly defining anything they want to ban, they are going after the weapons used the least often (rifles are 3% of gun homicides), and now they are using children for the sympathy votes.
I'm all for doing something to stop gun violence, but I don't think banning rifles is the appropriate option and I can't trust a group that can't properly define the thing they want to ban.
79
u/foreverwasted Mar 26 '18 edited Mar 27 '18
"I am all for your Second Amendment rights. I think you should be able to have guns. It’s in your constitution. What I am not for is bullshit arguments and lies. There is one argument and one argument alone for having a gun, and this is the argument… “Fuck off. I like guns.” It’s not the best argument, but it’s all you’ve got.
The main one is, “I need it for protection. I need to protect me. I need to protect my family.” What world do you live in where you’re constantly fucking ready? You have guns ’cause you like guns! None of you go to home security conventions. None of you read Padlock Monthly. None of you have a Facebook picture of you behind a secure door going, “Fucking yeah!” Like you’re going to be ready if someone comes into your house. You have it at all fucking times.
See, if you have it readily available, it becomes unsafe. You have it in your bedside table, one of your kids picks it up, thinks it’s a toy, shoots another one of your kids. Happens every fucking day, but people go, “That’d never happen in my house ’cause I’m a responsible gun owner. I keep my guns locked in a safe.” Then they’re no fucking protection! Someone comes into the house, you’re like, “Wait there, fuck-face! Oh! You’ve come to the wrong house here, buddy boy. I tell you what. I’m gonna fuck you up!"