That's because you have been blinded to the fact, that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with one. That's not your fault tho. It was governent funded manipulation.

A modern rifle is highly adjustable to individual needs and capable of fending off mutliple attackers at once. This is becoming necessary as house invasions happen more often and are usualy not by one criminal acting alone.

I recommend watching the YT Channel 'Colion Noir' and reading John R Lots Books on Gun Control doing more harm than good.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gun-Control-Myths-politicians-botched/dp/B08C95PD1K/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?crid=3NY57ZJGIPW5L&keywords=John+r+lott&qid=1688121990&sprefix=john+r+lott+%2Caps%2C145&sr=8-4

We don't live in a perfect world. Guns don't kill People but People do. With or without guns.

Because of what your country did to our forefathers over 200 yrs ago is why we need rifles... freedom is preserved with a rifle, excuse me, many rifles. They DS fucked up and should have designed a virus that only took out Gen X cause we still love the constitution and know our history... wow sorry Xanny, guess I'm passionate about the subject. 🚬☕️🤣🖖

Home invasion, government tyranny, personal protection, protection of property. These are at least the main reason though of course hunting and other things would also be on the list as well.

Firearms. A marital art. They aid in natural relm of violence.

I love this thread.

I opened a discussion on one of the most controversial and emotionally charged topics in politics.

All the responses have been totally civil genuine attempts at education that lay down their arguments rationally and clearly.

I don't even know anywhere else on the internet where that would happen these days.

And to be clear on my motivation for making it: I'm not opposed to the idea of an armed population, especially when there's an extremely armed state.

It's more just that the entire culture I've known my whole life ignores the issue entirely. There is zero debate. It's taken for granted people shouldn't have guns.

So I want to take in the perspectives of others in cultures where this isn't the case.

nostr:nevent1qqsz4273sfhs9xw8jhn6v9l2nugfdj8ypj0v0efns0fwux4mthj3z2qpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezumr49e4k2q3q7rlc0emedw5xljztfqrmykjaacsx6ujvdas64zznjadrnhhwlavqxpqqqqqqzl850hr

Canadian here. We are losing our firearms. We have no Rights to self defense.

So.

#PrintGuns

#StackSats

Crazy boating accident: all mine are there. 🤓#2A

It’s always worth pointing out that the second amendment was not enacted for hunting or “self defense.”

The men signing the document just got done fighting a guerrilla war against an oppressive government that legally controlled their territory.

We own guns to remove the government monopoly on violence, so they can be held accountable. Everything else is a side issue and fiat at the end of the day. Making the issue have anything to do with hunting or home defense is probably one of the biggest propaganda successes our government has ever had.

Im a polak american, me? I need them for protection. Mao took the guns, Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns.... oh hello noooo. If 3 dudes trying to stomp you to death and chase you like animals...... there ya go

https://youtu.be/iryQSpxSlrg

I think generally, widespread assault rifle possession functions as a system of mutually assured destruction between forces or government and the body of governed people. Like strategic nuclear arsenals, it is the threat of use that balances power and assures peace. Would the military exact astounding casualties on the populace in the case of conflict? Absolutely. History shows us though, that an armed population with superior numbers and guerrilla war tactics is extremely effective in combat.

Sport shooting.

This is a good thread. Was reading it over a cup of tea.

It’s a tool. Like anything else. Whatever reason you want to own one is the reason. Including not owning one.

The benefit to me is that I’ll extremely rarely be out-gunned when trying to protect my family. Some guys literally carry a rifle in a backpack wherever they go, because they think the benefit is worth the pain in. They see themselves as people ready to protect who willingly inconvenience themselves so they will also be able to protect. I wish there were tons of people like that (though not so much so that I think we should really promote it, they need to self-select because less stable people doing it could be net negative). Imagine if every robber knew that in all likelihood if they shot someone in a store, three guys would be posted up across the street waiting for them when they exited the door.

I think any method of use of force exists on a multidimensional continuum though. The characteristics of some makes the effect of them such that a mostly voluntary society might be justified in forcing members to not possess some. Nukes, engineered viruses, drones, machine guns, rifles, pistols, large physical size. They are all somewhere on it.

On that continuum, I think rifles play am important role in tyranny prevention because you can use them to harass a better-armed group from far enough away to probably escape.

Here’s an honestly held belief that I’m 100% willing to give up if false (and also am sneaking into the thread since it’s on handguns not rifles): nearly everyone who doesn’t have a handgun and at least occasionally carries it with them it hasn’t actually thought through what protecting themselves might look like. I think the default is to believe that we are completely safe and would never need one, and usually that’s true. Now maybe somebody really would rather “chance it”, but it seems like most are saying that while actually what they are doing is ignoring it and hoping for the best, where a more serious study would result in behavior change. One indicator of this for me is when people say Kyle Rittenhouse wasn’t defending himself when he shot those those guys. Ask them and they will always admit to not watching the video, usually because it’s too graphic for their personal limits. And fair, some people don’t want to develop familiarity with a scary topic. But I think then they would be responsible recognize that they should not vote about it either.

Still love this thread just purely because of the open debate on a very hot button controversial political issue.

This is what web 1.0 was like.

nostr:nevent1qqsz4273sfhs9xw8jhn6v9l2nugfdj8ypj0v0efns0fwux4mthj3z2qpydmhxue69uhhyetvv9uj6an9wf5kv6t9vshxgetnvd5x7mmvd9hxwtn4wvpzpu8lslnhj6agdlyykjq8kfd9mm3qd4eycmmp42y98966880wal6cqvzqqqqqqyssn0ys

Handguns are horrible at killing a person. They are convenient to carry, but that makes them deficient for defense. In most cases, the perpetrator is maimed until they eventually die.

Unless you want to carry your firearm with you everywhere, a rifle, (or a shotgun with the proper load), is the only practical option for a defense firearm.