Message from @I AM ERROR
Discord ID: 415490238748557312
So I don't find the argument that guns are the issue especially convincing
@I AM ERROR not to pick a fight I swear, but is your take that matter a legal argument, or a protectionist argument?
First half is based on principal, second half is pragmatic.
If the bad guy does not have access to a gun, all the good guy needs to defend himself is a butter knife. Or a pencil š.
(Please note that i see it through the lense of coming from a country where at most 2% of the population owns guns)
"If the bad guy does not have access to a gun"
But this doesn't happen. The black market for guns is HUGE. If you can still get guns into France, Germany et al, you're never not going to be able to get them into murricah
Hell, like I said before, you could just buy a garand here, sneak down south and go nuts if you had dual citizenship, or you could buy from down south. There are more AK's than people at this point, so what stops someone from finding one? Pricing sure isn't the issue
@I AM ERROR "If the bad guy does not have access to a gun, all the good guy needs to defend himself is a butter knife. Or a pencil" Am I not reading the sarcasm here?
If the bad guy doesn't have a gun he can still break into your house and overpower or intimidate your family and loved ones. Your lovely little mother would be able to defend herself better from a 6ft 5 brute if she had a gun. Guns are the great equalisers.
There is no sarcasm. Iād rather be robbed then killed. There is insurance for the first one.
Like i said: unpopular opinion š
@Beeman like i said... the US is past the point where it was even an option to try and get rid of the guns. And you would have to get rid of almost all of them to not create bigger problems than the one you are trying to solve.
Or to rephrase my initial statement: the gun regulation debate in politics is stupid and useless, even to someone who thinks that guns in the hands of civilians do more harm than good.
@I AM ERROR I was referring to my direct quote from you, not your opinion in general. Do you honestly believe anyone can sufficiently defend themselves from any intruder, without a gun?
"Iād rather be robbed then killed" and if someone breaks in *to kill you* would you be safer with or without a gun?
no i dont believe anyone can defend themselves. with or without gun.
do you disagree with the statement "People are *more capable* of defending themselves in their home with a gun than without"?
not necessarily... do you disagree with the statement "It's easier to defend yourself from someone without a gun than from someone with one"?
of course not, I agree with that statement completely
see... thats where i'm coming from...
so are you arguing that guns create more potential harm in the hands of attackers than they create good in the hands of defenders?
they make it harder to defend yourself because they are more likely to be in the hands of the attacker than the defender
i'm more likely to win i a fight in my home without guns involved than with - and the likelyhood of serious injury is also decreased by not involving guns.
if i could make sure that ONLY defenders have guns... sure... might be an argument... since that is not possible i'd rather not have them involved at all.
I'm not sure about your claim *"they are more likely to be in the hands of the attacker than the defender"* but let's give it to you in my ignorance. However I think you have a perspective problem, specifically when you say "**i'm** *more likely to win i a fight in my home without guns involved than with"* But we are not talking about you as an individual, we are talking about the average citizen. Do you contest that an 80 year old grandmother is *more likely to win a fight with guns* than without? (ofc this is a random example, but I am using this to show your claim isn't always true. Nor do I think it is true for the general public)
in that example... yes i would contest that... they can't even drive anymore š
š
how about this: are they more likely to win a gun fight or a knife fight?
neither
they will lose both
they can be rather unlikely to win both, but I'm just asking which is more likely
even if it's 10% compared to 5%
from the setup of my question you already know I will say the gun fight. They just need one good shot on the burglar. They will *almost never* win a physical fight against an intruder.
depends on the circumstance... in my home the knife fight, at my parents the gun fight
how are those circumstances different? (I am not you :P)
layout of the house, visibility
if someone tries to break in at my home they lose an eye the moment they have opened the door š
you believe an 80 year old woman would be more likely to win a knife fight than a gun fight in your home because of the layout of the house...? š¤
I would assume she just stays put and waits, tbh
i would assume she would rather move out than go up the stairs all the time š
regardless, ofc there are always more circumstances to consider that can change the conclusion. For the purposes of this conversation, do you see my general point? People who are very very unlikely (to impossible) to win a physical altercation will usually have a much higher chance at winning a gun fight. That is my point, and is something Matt has said in the past.
the general point, sure... i just see the downsides of allowing gun ownership outweighing the upsides. (and again: the assumption that you could get guns out of the hands of criminals in the US is just absurd which makes the conversation purely hypothetical anyway)
ofc, I never thought you were saying "let's take all the guns away". S'all good.