Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1
Comrade Texada Wolf
Suicidesoldier#1

You forget about the IRA in Britain don't you?

You guys just want that to go away; nope, they never had guns, couldn't possibly get them into Britain.


They did not build the Guns

they "imported" them from the US and Libya.


They primarily came from China and Russia.

The U.S. does not produce fully automatic Ak-47's, for instance.


Also fully automatic AR-18's were being produced in Japan and South America.

The few for testing in the U.S. were hand made and the company shut down and the design was taken by Eugine Stoner to other parts of the world.
They manly used ar15 semi auto. They were cheaper and easier to get old of. Also they used home made explosive like jar bombs. But they would use anything they could get. And they were good at it fighting like they did.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

theothermanoverthere
Suicidesoldier#1
Comrade Texada Wolf
Suicidesoldier#1

You forget about the IRA in Britain don't you?

You guys just want that to go away; nope, they never had guns, couldn't possibly get them into Britain.


They did not build the Guns

they "imported" them from the US and Libya.


They primarily came from China and Russia.

The U.S. does not produce fully automatic Ak-47's, for instance.


Also fully automatic AR-18's were being produced in Japan and South America.

The few for testing in the U.S. were hand made and the company shut down and the design was taken by Eugine Stoner to other parts of the world.
They manly used ar15 semi auto. They were cheaper and easier to get old of. Also they used home made explosive like jar bombs. But they would use anything they could get. And they were good at it fighting like they did.


The IRA made the AR-18 Infamous, as it was one of their most widely used weapons.

They Christened it the "widowmaker".
Suicidesoldier#1
theothermanoverthere
Suicidesoldier#1
Comrade Texada Wolf
Suicidesoldier#1

You forget about the IRA in Britain don't you?

You guys just want that to go away; nope, they never had guns, couldn't possibly get them into Britain.


They did not build the Guns

they "imported" them from the US and Libya.


They primarily came from China and Russia.

The U.S. does not produce fully automatic Ak-47's, for instance.


Also fully automatic AR-18's were being produced in Japan and South America.

The few for testing in the U.S. were hand made and the company shut down and the design was taken by Eugine Stoner to other parts of the world.
They manly used ar15 semi auto. They were cheaper and easier to get old of. Also they used home made explosive like jar bombs. But they would use anything they could get. And they were good at it fighting like they did.


The IRA made the AR-18 Infamous, as it was one of their most widely used weapons.

They Christened it the "widowmaker".
Nvm you're right. Lol I was thinking of something else.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

theothermanoverthere
Suicidesoldier#1
theothermanoverthere
Suicidesoldier#1
Comrade Texada Wolf
Suicidesoldier#1

You forget about the IRA in Britain don't you?

You guys just want that to go away; nope, they never had guns, couldn't possibly get them into Britain.


They did not build the Guns

they "imported" them from the US and Libya.


They primarily came from China and Russia.

The U.S. does not produce fully automatic Ak-47's, for instance.


Also fully automatic AR-18's were being produced in Japan and South America.

The few for testing in the U.S. were hand made and the company shut down and the design was taken by Eugine Stoner to other parts of the world.
They manly used ar15 semi auto. They were cheaper and easier to get old of. Also they used home made explosive like jar bombs. But they would use anything they could get. And they were good at it fighting like they did.


The IRA made the AR-18 Infamous, as it was one of their most widely used weapons.

They Christened it the "widowmaker".
Nvm you're right. Lol I was thinking of something else.


lol yeah xd

Well, The AR-18 is cool, too bad it never took off the way it should- we may be getting some cooler guns soon though! blaugh
Samadhi23
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Old Blue Collar Joe
No, all it does is show, in high density area's, it has some effect, but population density has to be included, and taking away peoples rights to defend themselves is one more step toward tyranny.


Defending themselves from whom? This is what I always find the most curious. You've got a few situations. There's defending yourself from:

- The general public
- The government

Now, I've always looked at it thus: the general public only need a gun to be protected from if they also have access to guns. The government, however, needs far more than a gun to be protected from.

So in a society with no gun ownership and very few illegal firearms in circulation, who exactly are guns protecting me from?


"the general public only need a gun to be protected from if they also have access to guns." -
Incorrect. Most gun related crimes are not committed by people using legally obtained guns. Even if guns were illegal, criminals would still have access to guns, but law-abiding citizens would have no means to protect themselves.
Additionally, let's say you were 5'1" and 110 lbs soaking wet and in a wheelchair due to total leg paralysis, being assaulted by someone who, while unarmed, is 6'2" and 210 lbs of pure muscle. If I was the small person, I would be happier if I had a legal protection available to me.
Removing all guns is not only not feasible, but it ignores the issue of not everyone has the same natural ability to defend themselves.

"The government, however, needs far more than a gun to be protected from." -
Partially Correct. True, no amount of traditional firearms is going to save you if the government decides you must be taken out. However, I would prefer some protection to no protection. A heavily armed population is a strong deterrent towards government control, because ultimately we do still pay government paychecks. If they bomb ALL of us, then they won't have anyone to pay their bills.

I cannot help but reflect on:
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
- Plato (427-347 B.C.)

As far as I can tell, if we want to be a free society, we should do everything possible to encourage all aspects of personal responsibility, which includes personal safety. It is up to the individual, not government, to decide if that includes purchasing a firearm for protection or not.


Ignoring my point that legally accessible guns inflates the black market for firearms, I see.

Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.

We've already discussed that idea in other areas of this topic. It's far more likely that political pressure from any number of origins would dissuade the USA from taking action against its own citizens, to the point that the "governmental genocide" idea is non-sequitur.

Please tell me why encouraging people to be armed is more personally responsible than encouraging people not to commit crimes?

By the same logic, I can say that it is up to the individual to decide whether purchasing drugs is responsible, whether abusing children is responsible, or obtaining military-grade hardware. Invoking a "free society" tends to imply that individuals will not make decisions that need regulating in order to preserve said free society: just as I would argue that firearms deprive many individuals of the freedom to live without illegal interference from others.
rasta slang's avatar

Timid Gaian


As someone who grew up in a gun-friendly home, I don't have a problem with people owning firearms. I'm not really worried about having guns to protect myself from nuts or criminals, but I do enjoy hunting and shooting clays and such.

We have an air rifle in the house to peg squirrels and scare off crazy people.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Blind Guardian the 2nd


Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So, my neighborhood should become uncompensated and unpaid bodyguards? Yea, they'll surely go for THAT. stare
GunsmithKitten
Blind Guardian the 2nd


Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So, my neighborhood should become uncompensated and unpaid bodyguards? Yea, they'll surely go for THAT. stare


They'd probably be more willing if it wasn't a certainty that aggressors would have guns.
Blind Guardian the 2nd
GunsmithKitten
Blind Guardian the 2nd


Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So, my neighborhood should become uncompensated and unpaid bodyguards? Yea, they'll surely go for THAT. stare


They'd probably be more willing if it wasn't a certainty that aggressors would have guns.


And your proof of such?
Old Blue Collar Joe
Blind Guardian the 2nd
GunsmithKitten
Blind Guardian the 2nd


Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So, my neighborhood should become uncompensated and unpaid bodyguards? Yea, they'll surely go for THAT. stare


They'd probably be more willing if it wasn't a certainty that aggressors would have guns.


And your proof of such?


I said probably, indicating that it is speculation based from the observation that someone is more likely to intervene in a dispute if they are less likely to be seriously injured by doing so.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Blind Guardian the 2nd
GunsmithKitten
Blind Guardian the 2nd


Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So, my neighborhood should become uncompensated and unpaid bodyguards? Yea, they'll surely go for THAT. stare


They'd probably be more willing if it wasn't a certainty that aggressors would have guns.


"Why SURE, Kitten, I'll come a running to help you if some 250 pound shitkicker with a bat or a knife is barging into your home or corners you on the street!"

WOW, you do NOT know my neighborhood, mister.

I'll stick to my firearm, thank you.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Blind Guardian the 2nd
Old Blue Collar Joe
Blind Guardian the 2nd
GunsmithKitten
Blind Guardian the 2nd


Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So, my neighborhood should become uncompensated and unpaid bodyguards? Yea, they'll surely go for THAT. stare


They'd probably be more willing if it wasn't a certainty that aggressors would have guns.


And your proof of such?


I said probably, indicating that it is speculation based from the observation that someone is more likely to intervene in a dispute if they are less likely to be seriously injured by doing so.


Because again, you can't get seriously injured with a bat, a knife, a broken bottle, a rock...
GunsmithKitten
Why SURE, Kitten, I'll come a running to help you if some 250 pound shitkicker with a bat or a knife is barging into your home or corners you on the street!"

WOW, you do NOT know my neighborhood, mister.

I'll stick to my firearm, thank you.


At no point did I ever say that I want to see you without your gun in the current state of affairs, not did I ever say that what I believe others should do for their fellow would be pragmatically possible in said climate.
GunsmithKitten
Because again, you can't get seriously injured with a bat, a knife, a broken bottle, a rock...


Can you read, Kitten? Did you see the point where I said "less likely"?
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Old Blue Collar Joe
Blind Guardian the 2nd
GunsmithKitten
Blind Guardian the 2nd


Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So, my neighborhood should become uncompensated and unpaid bodyguards? Yea, they'll surely go for THAT. stare


They'd probably be more willing if it wasn't a certainty that aggressors would have guns.


And your proof of such?


I said probably, indicating that it is speculation based from the observation that someone is more likely to intervene in a dispute if they are less likely to be seriously injured by doing so.


I'm not speculating on my families safety. I will use the best means at my disposal to protect them.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games