I wonder if they’ll ban 3D printers in Scotland since a kid was recently jailed there for plotting a mass shooting at his/her school.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyj2g5l1g2o.amp

Other’s have noticed that the quote of Kirk speaking about the 2nd amendment has spread like a disease among his enemies, like most propaganda does. Even Elon Musk has noticed, and posted a video of a woman proving how it was taken out of context, as per usual.

It is an interesting phenomenon.

My question is: what psychological benefit does one receive from posting it on social media?

So you think frequent mass shootings at schools is a price worth paying because it's theoretically possible that society will collapse or that the government will become a tyranny and start executing innocent citizens? — Michael

My argument is not to be reframed. If you think it's invalid, point out why.

Also, how is it "theoretical?" Humans have been creating civilizations and societies for thousands of years. Thousands of empires over thousands of years. None of them exist today. Therefore, it is not "theoretical" that "society [might] collapse" it is literally historic and scientific fact no different than the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

That said, I don't believe a person should be able to purchase any firearm in the same manner and with the same ease they would buy a sack of flour. However, there are unrealistic people with poorly thought out views and inclinations to enact those views on both sides of the debate. A man with several average modern handguns attached to his person can basically go on a shooting spree with the exact same deadliness as that of a semi-automatic "assault" rifle in the same amount of time and with the same ease and lack of effort.

In my opinion, evidenced by fact, a firearm is an equalizer between men. Otherwise, the bigger guy basically always wins the fight, fights the bigger guy often picks because it gives him purpose to be superior over a stranger (when it's easy for him to be). Any other weapon aside from a firearm has its effectiveness basically determined by the size (and sometimes skill) of the user.

I find it pleasing to know I live in a society where an elderly man or woman or even child home alone can fend off a large, armed man with murder or rape on his mind, with ease, in the event of such an emergency, whereas the only other fate would be unspeakable tragedy. Is that so irrational in your eyes? Am I such a bad guy for holding such a sentiment? I don't think so.

I wonder if they’ll ban 3D printers in Scotland since a kid was recently jailed there for plotting a mass shooting at his/her school. — NOS4A2

I doubt it, they are getting cheaper all the time so there must be a lot of them around, and you can buy all of the piece on ebay and build your own.

But what is most noticeable about the case is that he was a loudmouth and practically turned himself in to the police. How many are out there that are smarter that him that the police have no idea about?

The number of stabbings has risen as well, probably not too long to wait before it happens in a school. Using the US gun advocates logic, I real hope the teachers have bigger knives, as they seem to think that teachers with guns will prevent shootings.

Humans have been creating civilizations and societies for thousands of years. Thousands of empires over thousands of years. None of them exist today. — Outlander

Civilizations, societies and empires are not the same things. Many empires and societies have disappeared, but there are still a few places where you can find the same cultural, customs and languages that made up those societies and have been around for thousands of years.

there are still a few places where you can find the same cultural, customs and languages that made up those societies and have been around for thousands of years. — Sir2u

Oh, absolutely. Thing is. In every single one of those places, you'll tend to find signs of brutal war, killing, rape, enslavement, or displacement of those who originally left them, many of which were non-combatants I.E "average Joes", specifically "average Janes" in regards to rape. They kill the soldiers, who is basically every male over the age of 12 since you're not going to just sit there and let some people come in and kill your mom or sister. Then they either kill or rape the women, or both, often not in the order you would expect. Sometimes killing either all the children or just the males leaving the raped females (if they decided not to kill them) alive to ethnically "change" the entirety of the civilization thus "conquering" it. That is what demi-humans do. That's a fairly standard practice in ancient warfare.

So, that's pretty much what I mean as far as "society collapsing." And, if they were somehow able to have a form of self-defense over those who committed these atrocities (or non-atrocities if you're a "that's just how life is" kind of guy) they possibly would be alive today without the brutal rape, murder, and abuse. Think about it. If you're a group of 1,000 people with 1,000 guns, and you want to "conquer" or "wage war" on a land of 10,000 people with an army of 2,000 who have 2,000 guns. That's something you might consider doing. You knows, you might win. Once the soldiers are out of the way, all you have to do is play shepherd dog with the remaining 8,000 and herd the defenseless people to where you want them to go, like cattle. Often into a mass grave. So they don't "bother you" in the future. After picking out your "prize" or "spoils of war", of course (by which I mean women and for some cultures, children..) Now, if those 10,000 people each have 10,000 guns, you're outnumbered, and you'll look for easier prey. Is that not how this world works? Both in the animal kingdom and in terms of both ancient and modern military strategy? Surely this isn't difficult to understand.

So what's your point. Just because I like to play with the personal belongings of my deceased victims and perhaps keep them around as a morbid token of my little "conquest" over others, that's supposed to vindicate how a community of men, women, and children collapsing and falling to unspeakable violence is somehow "fine?" That's no argument. That's a declaration of insanity! With all due respect.

In my opinion, evidenced by fact, a firearm is an equalizer between men. Otherwise, the bigger guy basically always wins the fight, fights the bigger guy often picks because it gives him purpose to be superior over a stranger (when it's easy for him to be). Any other weapon aside from a firearm has its effectiveness basically determined by the size (and sometimes skill) of the user.

I find it pleasing to know I live in a society where an elderly man or woman or even child home alone can fend off a large, armed man with murder or rape on his mind, with ease, in the event of such an emergency, whereas the only other fate would be unspeakable tragedy. — Outlander

I agree.

If the authorities cannot reasonably keep you safe, there's no moral grounds upon which they can prevent you from keeping yourself safe.

Many places in the West are degenerating when it comes to crime and the state's ability or willingness to fight it. Clever criminals can basically do whatever they want.

Is that so irrational in your eyes? Am I such a bad guy for holding such a sentiment? — Outlander

No, but the reality is that easy access to guns seems to lead to an increase in gun deaths, school shootings, etc.

So you have to ask; is it worth it? Charlie thought so. The British didn’t. I think we made the right call.

And in 30 years, we haven't changed our minds, even across party lines. Perhaps because we've seen what happens in the USA.

Many Americans see what is happening to the UK and it only reaffirms the reasons we should never give up our guns.

Many Americans see what is happening to the UK and it only reaffirms the reasons we should never give up our guns. — NOS4A2

What things?

I think you had to delete what you wrote because you could be arrested for it. I couldn’t imagine.

General unsafety, police being completely powerless to stop it - it's obvious what he means.

UK and many other countries in Europe including my own are turning into shitholes. The sense of safety that once was is now just an illusion. People feel safe because they had the good fortune not to be confronted with reality, which is that if they cross paths with the wrong people the authorities can't and won't do a single thing.

I am being confronted with such a situation right now.

Oh, absolutely. Thing is. In every single one of those places, you'll tend to find signs of brutal war, killing, rape, enslavement, or displacement of those who originally left them, many of which were non-combatants I.E "average Joes", specifically "average Janes" in regards to rape. — Outlander

Is there any new society that is different? They all want what they think is best for themselves and care little for anyone else. Prejudice and partiality are part of every group, from the coffeehouse reading club to the biggest countries in the world. Will all of these people having guns solve their differences?

Think about it. If you're a group of 1,000 people with 1,000 guns, and you want to "conquer" or "wage war" on a land of 10,000 people with an army of 2,000 who have 2,000 guns. That's something you might consider doing. You knows, you might win. — Outlander

That sounds like basic inter-gang warfare in downtown some place USA.

Now, if those 10,000 people each have 10,000 guns, you're outnumbered, and you'll look for easier prey. — Outlander

Well that looks like a lot of guns, 10,000 guns X 10,000 people is a a hundred million guns, Where are they going to put them all.
So you seem to believe that if everyone in the USA has a gun then no one will invade. But that does not explain who the hell would even want to invade the USA.
But if you take the time to consider the actual number of guns in the hands of bad guys and compare it to the number in the hands of the good guys, you might find that there are a lot more on the good side. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the bad guys don't target them.

If this is a reference to criminals then I'll repeat what I said to NOS4A2 before: I’d much prefer it if they don’t have access to guns, even if that means I don’t have access to guns either.

I think you had to delete what you wrote because you could be arrested for it. I couldn’t imagine. — NOS4A2

I deleted it because in my haste I was putting words in your mouth, which may have been unwarranted. Perhaps you weren't referring to government tyranny but crime, like Tzeentch above.

Interesting.

To be clear, I think US gun laws are much too loose, but I think there are ways to sensibly mitigate the risks while still allowing citizens to carry protection when the authorities neglect their duties.

And I would much rather have "the great equalizer" as called it.

Criminals already have access to firearms, even in my country, that has virtually no legal firearms.

But what about a knife wielder? How are you going to protect yourself against that? What about a knife wielder who is also twice your size?

I'm in the unfortunate position where I've had to contemplate my options in such a situation, and my conclusion is that I would 1000% prefer to go toe-to-toe with firearms, than I would against a knife wielder. One stab in the neck and it's over, as recent events have shown.

Grim, I know, but this is reality. We are not living in the '90s anymore. Society has changed.

But you know, if you have any advice for me I'm all ears.

UK and many other countries in Europe including my own are turning into shitholes. The sense of safety that once was is now just an illusion. People feel safe because they had the good fortune not to be confronted with reality, which is that if they cross paths with the wrong people the authorities can't and won't do a single thing. — Tzeentch

Also see this:

Seventy-eight per cent of people in England and Wales think that crime has gone up in the last few years, according to the latest survey. But the data on actual crime shows the exact opposite.

As of 2024, violence, burglary and car crime have been declining for 30 years and by close to 90%, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) – our best indicator of true crime levels. Unlike police data, the CSEW is not subject to variations in reporting and recording.

The drop in violence includes domestic violence and other violence against women. Anti-social behaviour has similarly declined. While increased fraud and computer misuse now make up half of crime, this mainly reflects how far the rates of other crimes have fallen.

All high-income countries have experienced similar trends, and there is scientific consensus that the decline in crime is a real phenomenon.

This is a straight-forward dodge. Fuck your paper reality.

And I would much rather have "the great equalizer" as ↪Outlander called it. — Tzeentch

Perhaps if we have a pistols-at-dawn duel, but that's not the reality. It's drive-by shootings, someone pulling a gun on you before you know what's happening, being shot at a distance and from behind, etc.

And according to this, "overwhelming evidence demonstrat[es] that firearms are not an effective means of self-defense."

Of course they're effective. That's why we send people to other countries wielding them. :lol:

You know what, maybe they are not effective, but they're a hell of a lot more effective than your bare fists I'll tell you that much.

But if you have any ideas on how to fight off a knife wielder with your bare hands without losing your throat, I am all ears buddy.

Comparing street crime to warfare is a false equivalency. But that said, I'm 100% certain that wars would be less deadly without guns (and other long-range weaponry).

You know what, maybe they are not effective, but they're a hell of a lot more effective than your bare fists I'll tell you that much. — Tzeentch

I'm much more likely to survive a fist fight than a gun fight.

I'm talking about fending off a knife fighter and you only have your bare fists.

Also, I agree that wars would be less deadly without guns - they would be less deadly for the side made up of criminals fighting against the side made up of law-abiding, normal people.

It would be a landslide for the criminals.

I'm talking about fending off a knife fighter and you only have your bare fists. — Tzeentch

Running away is perhaps the most effective option.

Also, I agree that wars would be less deadly without guns - they would be less deadly for the side made up of criminals fighting against the side made up of law-abiding, normal people.

It would be a landslide for the criminals. — Tzeentch

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Running away is perhaps the most effective option. — Michael

Of course it is - and it would be the first option I'd consider.

Unfortunately, if someone is out to seriously hurt you, they will have considered it as well.

Unfortunately, if someone is out to seriously hurt you, they will have considered it as well. — Tzeentch

And as I said before, if someone is out to seriously hurt me then I’d rather neither of us have guns than both of us have guns.

I’m unlikely to be sniped to death with a knife from 200 yards whilst I’m busy debating college students.

You don't get to choose from those options. The other guy has a knife, and you have nothing.

Or maybe you started to feel the gravity of unsafety, and you wield a knife as well. I'd love to hear your thoughts on fighting a guy twice your size in a knife fight. Keep in mind, if you manage to defend yourself using a knife (which in many countries you're prohibited from using in self-defense) you may also be guilty of murder - possibly premeditated.

And believe me, you wouldn't be debating college students in public if you had any awareness that there were serious threats on your life.

Just for the record, I would take my chances even running away from a gun wielder at 20 yards+ - they're not that likely to hit you lethally. A knife wielder in a small alley or corridor - you're chanceless.

Gun vs gun in a small alley - at least it's 50/50, and the other side will realize this as well. You have a counter-threat.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue. If it’s just that my likelihood of surviving a knife attack is greater if I have a gun than if I’m unarmed, then I agree, but it’s incredibly myopic and naive to think that this proves anything.

You need to look at the bigger picture; at what actually happens in the real world.

The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007–2011

Self-defense gun use (SDGU) occurs in fewer than 1% of contact crimes.

...

SDGU is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury.

...

Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.

...

Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

Then consider the high levels of gun violence more generally that come with high levels of gun ownership. There are so many mass shootings, school shootings, and other gun homicides in the USA. Yet somehow their citizens are safer because they have a gun that they can putatively use in self-defence?

It seems like their defence of gun ownership is a fantasy that contradicts the actual facts.

I'll stick to what the statistics and studies show. My country is safer with strict gun control, and so I'm glad that we have it.