Guns Are For Insecure People
Why should americans act like they're all cops? I'm from a country called Sweden, and we don't have these problems at all. Bullying and rape can't be fixed that easily (but there are electrical weapons if you think you'll be raped). However, murder can be reduced a lot if you americans disallow guns for civilians.
You are not EDUCATED to use a gun like a cop and you DO NOT KNOW when you'll go into a psychos (when you act like the world is against you). Cops are continously trained, they are suited for this.
Get more cops on the streets if you want the BEST security.
If I lived in USA and saw someone with a gun wrapped around his waist I'd be scared for my life. How can americans live like this?
HOW can other countries like Sweden live fine without guns?
You are not EDUCATED to use a gun like a cop and you DO NOT KNOW when you'll go into a psychos (when you act like the world is against you). Cops are continously trained, they are suited for this.
Get more cops on the streets if you want the BEST security.
If I lived in USA and saw someone with a gun wrapped around his waist I'd be scared for my life. How can americans live like this?
HOW can other countries like Sweden live fine without guns?
Comments135
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
There's nothing wrong with a person owning gun to protect them self, the problem lies in people killing each other. But there's always going to be murder and people are going to get hurt, there isn't much we can do but not be the one to go off and kill people for the hell of it.
"If I lived in USA and saw someone with a gun wrapped around his waist I'd be scared for my life."
your more likely to be raped back in sweden than shot by a gun owner in the US of A. Your fears are not justified, and based on rhetoric, stereotypes, more rhetoric.
Then we get into the 'psychos' comment, which againt, more like "terrorists", "communists", and other fear words, probably means your the one who is insecure.
You know, before terrorism even, calling someone a "psycho" was how you could lock them up legally without trials, lawyers, appeals, or even a good reason, except the single opinion of a man who wasn't smart enough to study neroscience in college.
At least I'm not arguing for banning a now legal thing because I'm scared of it, then have the nerve to call others "insecure", then threatening to put them in a classification of people to be locked up without due proccess.
your more likely to be raped back in sweden than shot by a gun owner in the US of A. Your fears are not justified, and based on rhetoric, stereotypes, more rhetoric.
Then we get into the 'psychos' comment, which againt, more like "terrorists", "communists", and other fear words, probably means your the one who is insecure.
You know, before terrorism even, calling someone a "psycho" was how you could lock them up legally without trials, lawyers, appeals, or even a good reason, except the single opinion of a man who wasn't smart enough to study neroscience in college.
At least I'm not arguing for banning a now legal thing because I'm scared of it, then have the nerve to call others "insecure", then threatening to put them in a classification of people to be locked up without due proccess.
Nope. A coward is a person that uses a gun to shoot innocent people around.
A person that is peacefully sleeping at home and confronts a robber who breaks into his/her house and uses a gun to protect himself is not a coward, he just does not know if the robber is armed or not.
I like guns, a lot, but I know better not going around gun totting like in the Wild West.
I Spain, were I used to live, you get in more shit for protecting yourself than the robber would get into if he would kill you in the robbing, our wonderful justice system
A person that is peacefully sleeping at home and confronts a robber who breaks into his/her house and uses a gun to protect himself is not a coward, he just does not know if the robber is armed or not.
I like guns, a lot, but I know better not going around gun totting like in the Wild West.
I Spain, were I used to live, you get in more shit for protecting yourself than the robber would get into if he would kill you in the robbing, our wonderful justice system
You know, we might get farther asking why these people feel insecure. I mean, if they have police, why do they feel the need to have a firearm to defend themselves instead of relying on the police?
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. If there is someone in your house, it's the middle of the night, and you don't know them, why they are there, if they are armed, would you rather have a phone in your hand or a weapon?
I fully understand this. I was just wondering if the OP would have an answer, or if the others that wish to start banning guns realized this.
Oh, that's easy. One, no reasonable person trusts the police. Two, the police aren't obligated to actually help you. Three, even if they do want to help you, they're not necessarily available in the timeframe you need them. Four, you may not actually be able to contact them when you need their help. Five, I don't believe the use of guns automatically becomes more moral or acceptable when outsourced to somebody else. Six, I think police are -too likely- to use their guns in a conflict. Seven, it is my responsibility, not somebody else's, to ensure my own safety. Eight, no reasonable person ever, ever, EVER trusts the police.
and you DO NOT KNOW when you'll go into a psychos
You're all so paranoid and OH YEAH people can snap any minute.
You aren't making your case very well.
You're all so paranoid and OH YEAH people can snap any minute.
You aren't making your case very well.
That's always amused me about the gun control crowd. They claim we're buying guns because we're so afraid, yet all we ask is to be left alone, while they launch into fear-mongering every time there's a shooting.
Take a look at what steps were taken in response to a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD with a TOY GUN:
[link]
Take a look at what steps were taken in response to a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD with a TOY GUN:
[link]
Please tell me this insidious law wasn't passed.
Am I hallucinating?
I don't know. Are you?
I must be. Banning toy guns? Really?
Politicians have never been known for what's upstairs.
I live on a cattle ranch 30 miles from the nearest form of law enforcement, medical assistance, animal control, etc. We have large predators that occasionally harass, maim, or even kill our livestock, which are the primary source of income not only for my family but for a large part of our community. We use guns to drive off or kill these predators before they can injure our animals. We've had a dog and some calves killed by coyotes, cats killed by bobcats, antelopes killed by a mountain lion near our house, and wolves have killed calves on a nearby ranch.
We also use our guns to kill smaller animals such as skunks, raccoons, and feral cats that invade our outbuildings (barns, silos, etc) because these animals will consume any available food, injure our domestic animals, and they can possibly be rabid or carry other diseases that could infect us or our animals. Trap and release does not work with these animals because they just find another building to raid, so they're either back in your barn in a few days or are in your neighbor's barn instead.
Finally, we use our guns to put down mortally injured animals. Sure, you could call a veterinarian, wait two days for him to find the time to come out and euthanize the cow with the broken pelvis, and then pay the vet half the amount of money you make from each cow you sell, but why would you when you can give her a much quicker end with a single bullet.
So, here are my thoughts on this:
No, citizens do not need assault rifles, fully automatic weapons, sniper rifles, silencers, etc. for any reason.
Yes, most citizens, especially those in urban areas, can get along just fine without owning any type of gun.
Yes, people should have to go through an in-depth process that involves a background check in order to purchase a gun, and should have to pass a gun safety course in order to purchase a pistol or receive a permit to carry.
However, there is a part of the population that needs access to firearms, by which I mean repeating rifles and revolvers, in order to live and earn a living in the manner they have chosen. Insecurity and ego have nothing to do with it.
We also use our guns to kill smaller animals such as skunks, raccoons, and feral cats that invade our outbuildings (barns, silos, etc) because these animals will consume any available food, injure our domestic animals, and they can possibly be rabid or carry other diseases that could infect us or our animals. Trap and release does not work with these animals because they just find another building to raid, so they're either back in your barn in a few days or are in your neighbor's barn instead.
Finally, we use our guns to put down mortally injured animals. Sure, you could call a veterinarian, wait two days for him to find the time to come out and euthanize the cow with the broken pelvis, and then pay the vet half the amount of money you make from each cow you sell, but why would you when you can give her a much quicker end with a single bullet.
So, here are my thoughts on this:
No, citizens do not need assault rifles, fully automatic weapons, sniper rifles, silencers, etc. for any reason.
Yes, most citizens, especially those in urban areas, can get along just fine without owning any type of gun.
Yes, people should have to go through an in-depth process that involves a background check in order to purchase a gun, and should have to pass a gun safety course in order to purchase a pistol or receive a permit to carry.
However, there is a part of the population that needs access to firearms, by which I mean repeating rifles and revolvers, in order to live and earn a living in the manner they have chosen. Insecurity and ego have nothing to do with it.
By what right, by what code, by what standard do you or anyone else get to decide what a person does and does not need?
Also, how many times does it have to be said that assault rifles (which are fully automatic weapons, by the way) and silencers are already regulated? And what is a sniper rifle in this context? Contrary to popular belief, a hunting rifle with a scope on it does not automatically become a sniper rifle.
Also, silencers actually do have practical applications for civilians. They can help protect one's hearing, shoot accurately (people tend to flinch in anticipation of the sound and recoil, both of which suppressors lessen), hunt safely without wearing hearing protection or dispose of pests/predators without disturbing others, among other things.
Also, how many times does it have to be said that assault rifles (which are fully automatic weapons, by the way) and silencers are already regulated? And what is a sniper rifle in this context? Contrary to popular belief, a hunting rifle with a scope on it does not automatically become a sniper rifle.
Also, silencers actually do have practical applications for civilians. They can help protect one's hearing, shoot accurately (people tend to flinch in anticipation of the sound and recoil, both of which suppressors lessen), hunt safely without wearing hearing protection or dispose of pests/predators without disturbing others, among other things.
Yes, and they would still have guns after new gun-control laws are passed. I totally agree that some people need them, but that is not the reason for most gun-owners.
LMAO 'you are not educated to use a gun' ahhh you crack me up, obviously you know nothing about what life is like in america so stick to what you know
As far as I know, everyone who owns a gun is REQUIRED to undergo training on how and when to use it. Plus, with the average response time from police being about twenty minutes, so I'm told, everything would be over by the time they arrive. Also, criminals don't give a damn about gun laws, thus if anything one could predict the number of gun crimes increasing with the removal of guns, because they know they can get away with it.
And finally, citizens have a right to guns in order to protect themselves, not from criminals, but from the government. The second amendment was created in order to prevent another tyranny and keep the government in check. Thus, removing guns from citizens runs the risk of threatening, not just the lives of civilians, but their freedoms as well.
And finally, citizens have a right to guns in order to protect themselves, not from criminals, but from the government. The second amendment was created in order to prevent another tyranny and keep the government in check. Thus, removing guns from citizens runs the risk of threatening, not just the lives of civilians, but their freedoms as well.
We have a constitution that garuntees us certain rights. for example the right to say what we want the right to not be forced to quarter soldiers the right to not be jailed without reason etc.... in order to make sure that these rights are protected we have the right to bear arms. in case our government ever did decide to throw out our founding documents and become a tyrannical, we have the ability to "uphold and defend the constiution of the united states."
That brings me to my next point. in a dicatorship the people are not allowed to own guns but there is a policeman on every corner. the soviet union was this way and it was a pretty safe society, crime wise anyways. but where do we draw the line between liberty and freedoms and safety? should we abondon all our rights for the sake of feeling that we are "safe"?
i am far from insecure, i dont own guns for protection i own them for hunting. i am incredily well versed in firearms safety and use and to usggest that because i have not been the state trooper school i am ignorant about my tools. im not a construction worker but im pretty damn handy with a hammer...
That brings me to my next point. in a dicatorship the people are not allowed to own guns but there is a policeman on every corner. the soviet union was this way and it was a pretty safe society, crime wise anyways. but where do we draw the line between liberty and freedoms and safety? should we abondon all our rights for the sake of feeling that we are "safe"?
i am far from insecure, i dont own guns for protection i own them for hunting. i am incredily well versed in firearms safety and use and to usggest that because i have not been the state trooper school i am ignorant about my tools. im not a construction worker but im pretty damn handy with a hammer...
I don't have a problem with people owning guns, they should be educated on how to use them, store them and the likes. they got classes and due to certain acts you're suppose to follow but some seldom do and some can obtain guns without waiting periods and other guidelines. the 2nd amendment rights can still be in place, just need to do the proper protocol on such matters. blaming something (gun, video game, music, movies...bad parenting/lack there of) are just one more blame. Switzerland everyone has a gun and is military they are taught how to use the gun and so forth. Japan you have to pass a mental, drug and written exam but you can still own a gun but you have to fire it at a certain place. it's still possible. and truth be told, I am quite curious how the American government is going to pull guns from people, since they are suppose to follow guidelines and rules. although they aren't following the rules quite so much this election, but hey, anything is possible now !
Comment Flagged as Spam
shhhh....it's only Americans.
Don't worry....Breivik got a good wrist slap of 21 years for killing 77 people. So let that be a lesson, yah!
Don't worry....Breivik got a good wrist slap of 21 years for killing 77 people. So let that be a lesson, yah!