- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,525
- Likes
- 146,989
- Points
- 115
I can't think of a thing I own that I would kill someone to keep.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Its not about wants, property or things/valuables in a current world definition. It's about needs, which become the most valuable in a situation of anarchy and lawlessness. I have one gallon of water left to survive with and three strips of dried meat. If I don't keep this and intake it to maintain energy to find more food I die. Am I going to let someone come in and raid my shit including my bare essentials? I'm sorry but if someone forcibly enters my property and demands my lifeblood essentials, they either leave or get shot, possibly killed. They made a choice to try to take survival essentials from another instead of scavage for thier own or create a dialogue of trade with others.I can't think of a thing I own that I would kill someone to keep.
I can't think of a thing I own that I would kill someone to keep.
I don't own them, but obviously, my wife or daughters.I can't think of a thing I own that I would kill someone to keep.
Really? How about protecting my self from my neighbor who's trying to steal all my stuff? In any coup there will be a timeframe of near anarchy in the streets. Even if a national coup succeeds, it would take time to get control off all of the cities. In the mean time, its a free for all. And the selfish take and horde form others. Ill take a gun to protect myself and my stuff in that situation please.
There are roughly 1.67 million defensive gun uses per year in the US. Over 14x the number of all gun injuries.Generally when there are times of trouble, people help each other instead of devolving into an every-man-for-himself situation. If it were as you suggest, civilization would have ended long ago.
Your chances of accidentally shooting yourself in the balls is vastly higher than your chance of ever shooting a neighbor trying to steal your stuff because civil society has collapsed.
barfo
There are roughly 1.67 million defensive gun uses per year in the US. Over 14x the number of all gun injuries.
Virtually nobody owns guns with the intent to shoot people.
If someone presents themselves in a way that threatens the life of me or my family (or friend or hell, even random innocent person)…they might get smoked. It's just the way it is. If someone wants to be a violent person that's the territory that behavior comes with.I don't own them, but obviously, my wife or daughters.
I wouldn't think twice.
You can see the link above. It includes any time somebody felt threatened and used a gun to eliminate or alleviate the threat. It certainly could have been just waving it around.I'm curious, what counts as a 'defensive gun use'? I guess waving it around must count, because there's no way that 1.67 million bad guys get shot at per year (especially if you exclude gangbangers shooting at each other)? Is there any attempt to exclude cases where waving a gun around wasn't actually necessary?
I don't think he was saying he wanted to shoot anybody.I was responding to SharpeScooterShooter who was very much saying he wanted guns in order to shoot people. Hell, "shooter" is right there in his name
Are you calling him a virtual nobody?
barfo
You can see the link above.
I don't think he was saying he wanted to shoot anybody.
http://www.sportstwo.com/posts/5621466/How far above? I don't see a link in today's discussion.
Wanting is different than intent, no?
barfo
http://www.sportstwo.com/posts/5621466/
It wasn't today, I guess it's a page back now.
I didn't want to keep spamming the same link.
Maybe. But I don't think his intent is to shoot anybody either.Wanting is different than intent, no?
barfo
Generally when there are times of trouble, people help each other instead of devolving into an every-man-for-himself situation. If it were as you suggest, civilization would have ended long ago.
Your chances of accidentally shooting yourself in the balls is vastly higher than your chance of ever shooting a neighbor trying to steal your stuff because civil society has collapsed.
barfo
Yeah?
history says otherwise for the most part. Power outage riots?
Sure, we come together if someone else attacked us, 911. But when it’s from within and it could be your neighbor supporting the coup?
im not going to apologize for the willingness to end another’s life if they are trying to take my survival essentials, threaten to harm my family or any of the like.
I’m not shooting at someone stealing my car as he pulls out of my driveway.
Survival is a basic instinct. I’m tired of people trying to make some out as evil for being willing to choose survival over death.
When it’s me or them, I’ll chose me. And when so many of them have guns, and if/when it comes down to it, I’m going to be prepared.
Simple.
How much time do you think somebody spends buying a gun? Most people spend far more time trying to prevent heart attacks than they spend on guns, even those who train with guns don't usually spend as much time with with guns as they do working out.Not sure what power outage you are referring to. My power went out for an hour last week, I didn't go on a rampage.
Not trying to suggest any evil on your part, or asking you to apologize.
What do you think the odds are that (a) an event like that happens; (b) you see them coming; and (c) you are able to out-gun them?
I'd guess very very close to zero.
Do you prepare for every vanishingly small possibility? Do you have a bomb shelter? Do you take your own air everywhere in case there is a leak of toxic gas? Test water every time you take a drink to make sure no one has poisoned it?
Just seems weird to me to be obsessed with this one particular long-shot scenario when there are so many more likely ways to meet your maker.
I'd spend more time worrying about heart attacks, car accidents, slipping in the bathtub, etc. But maybe that's just me.
barfo
Not sure what power outage you are referring to. My power went out for an hour last week, I didn't go on a rampage.
Not trying to suggest any evil on your part, or asking you to apologize.
What do you think the odds are that (a) an event like that happens; (b) you see them coming; and (c) you are able to out-gun them?
I'd guess very very close to zero.
Do you prepare for every vanishingly small possibility? Do you have a bomb shelter? Do you take your own air everywhere in case there is a leak of toxic gas? Test water every time you take a drink to make sure no one has poisoned it?
Just seems weird to me to be obsessed with this one particular long-shot scenario when there are so many more likely ways to meet your maker.
I'd spend more time worrying about heart attacks, car accidents, slipping in the bathtub, etc. But maybe that's just me.
barfo
no one ever answers the question when asked.
Ban all guns and only criminals have guns. Is that what you want? Only criminals with guns? because that is what will happen.
Yes, that's what I want.
barfo
Sorry Barfo. I don’t mean to be snarky to you directly per say, but when it is often painted around here by other anti gun advocates that pro gun advocates are okay with mass shootings, etc, it’s hard not to turn and sweep all anti gun advocates in the same manner.
You have not done so that I have read, but some on here have a level of snark to any pro gun member here that they word play as if we want such evil things. Just reread this thread. It’s everywhere.
I find it a bit ironic that some of the same people who do this also do it with republicans or past trump voters.
just a blanket sweep. So forgive me if I’m tired of pointing out the nuances and details involved in the debate and have joined the lower level of communication that has been so prevalent from the other side, for so long…
I’m now of the opinion all anti gun advocates are supporters of crime and criminals. As that will be the end result of the gun banning agenda.
If others can simplify things as such, so can I.![]()
Nobody (in this thread) is advocating for totally unrestricted access to firearms for all people.Being in favor of banning something is equivalent to supporting criminals, since by definition only criminals will do the banned thing.
If we repeal all laws, we will have a crime-free society!
Utopia.
barfo
FTFYBeing in favor of banning something that is considered a right is equivalent to supporting criminals, since by definition only criminals will do the banned thing.
Nobody (in this thread) is advocating for totally unrestricted access to firearms for all people.
However, if we were to re-focus the effort and funds that we put into further restricting guns into universal education, universal healthcare, and/or a world leading social safety net we'd reduce crime far more than any increased restriction (including gun control) possibly could.
FTFY
Excellent, then there is no need to deal in absolutes like some sort of Sith. There will always be guns.Nobody (in this thread) said anyone (in this thread) is advocating for totally unrestricted access to firearms for all people.
o
Gun control efforts are not specifically preventing anything, I agree. But since further gun control has proven to be largely ineffective, efforts to expand gun control are wasting political capital that could be going to other things. Things which aren't hard coded into American law.If we could harness and refocus the sex drive of 17 year old boys, we could probably power the entire electrical grid for free. Let's wave our "magic wands" around and make it so!
In the meantime, though, I guess we'll still need to develop and maintain other energy sources.
As we've discussed before, I don't really buy the argument that gun control advocacy is what's preventing us from having universal healthcare.
barfo