So mutts can kill even more people in schools, shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, hospitals, office buildings, universities etc etc even faster
So mutts can kill even more people in schools, shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, hospitals, office buildings, universities etc etc even faster
Personally I just rely on the wise words of Fairbairn and Sykes, as goofy as old school techniques may seem to us the world was a far more violent place then so I'm willing to place my trust in the judgment of the people who got into far more gunfights than any modern officer or professional shooter
The creation of men whose chain of logistics reached a point in the world where all objects required to propel projectiles at speeds superior of sound, yet fitting inside a pocket, briefcase, luggage....
Pinnacle of modern engineering; one of the only tools of western society where failure and loose tolerances are not allowed. Guns exist as the greatest force multiplier of the universe. Never before an elderly woman could fight back a man in his physical prime.
Because the idea of owning a hand-held device that -- at the pull of a trigger -- will propels chunks of metal at supersonic speed using small explosions.....
...is ngl fricking based.
I think about the philosophy of gun ownership quite a lot. I see them as perhaps the ultimate symbol of freedom and trust in society. I also see it as the logical conclusion to the idea that we have a right to life. If we're not free to defend our lives, we have no right to life at all. It would have been easy for the Founding Fathers to not include the 2nd Amendment, but America was still largely frontier, people needed to be able to band together and defend their communities if need be. I believe that spirit is still alive today. While most people will never have a true need for them (namely needing one to defend oneself or the community from forces that seek to disrupt society), the symbolic importance still remains.
When I was suicidal, I never, ever wanted to get rid of any guns. I knew that as long as I had them, I could trust myself. If I could trust myself with the power to destroy, I could trust myself to rebuild. I was not a subject of my impulses.
I agree with you on some points but consider this.
A gun is a device that's designed to take lives, it's not designed to protect them.
By your logic, if a device was made that could protect lives better than a gun can, you'd have to be ok with ridding yourself of right to bear arms.
Not necessarily, I believe that only the individual can determine what tool best suits his or her needs in a given situation. There are certainly people whose best option is a cap and ball pistol or even a baseball bat because legally they can't own "real guns." Any such device that you describe would fall under the umbrella of the right to keep and bear arms, but so would previous generations of arms. All of that being said, I'm not smart or lucid enough to think up a device that could break out of the natural concept of self-defense. It's almost like giving up the right to drink water because we found a better method of hydration.
The question is violence
The answer is yes
Frick ya mudda
So mutts can kill even more people in schools, shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, hospitals, office buildings, universities etc etc even faster
...why are you even on /k/?
It's an LGBTQIA+ flag now
At least fly a betsy ross or something, but the 50 star one is literally gay.
He's here to read about the kraine
I look like that and do that IRL
They exist to kill hohols
man browns are really wileyin out quick in this thread
GUN CONTROL IS HITTING THE TARGET
learn the rules
Frick off leave
>K STARTER PACK
No really, it's time to go.
those 2 posts are totally appropriate replies to op
Personally I just rely on the wise words of Fairbairn and Sykes, as goofy as old school techniques may seem to us the world was a far more violent place then so I'm willing to place my trust in the judgment of the people who got into far more gunfights than any modern officer or professional shooter
The creation of men whose chain of logistics reached a point in the world where all objects required to propel projectiles at speeds superior of sound, yet fitting inside a pocket, briefcase, luggage....
Pinnacle of modern engineering; one of the only tools of western society where failure and loose tolerances are not allowed. Guns exist as the greatest force multiplier of the universe. Never before an elderly woman could fight back a man in his physical prime.
Why? For the fun of it, also I guess to streamline the process of ending the lives of others
Guns exist due to the inexorable law of fun
Because the idea of owning a hand-held device that -- at the pull of a trigger -- will propels chunks of metal at supersonic speed using small explosions.....
...is ngl fricking based.
I think about the philosophy of gun ownership quite a lot. I see them as perhaps the ultimate symbol of freedom and trust in society. I also see it as the logical conclusion to the idea that we have a right to life. If we're not free to defend our lives, we have no right to life at all. It would have been easy for the Founding Fathers to not include the 2nd Amendment, but America was still largely frontier, people needed to be able to band together and defend their communities if need be. I believe that spirit is still alive today. While most people will never have a true need for them (namely needing one to defend oneself or the community from forces that seek to disrupt society), the symbolic importance still remains.
When I was suicidal, I never, ever wanted to get rid of any guns. I knew that as long as I had them, I could trust myself. If I could trust myself with the power to destroy, I could trust myself to rebuild. I was not a subject of my impulses.
I agree with you on some points but consider this.
A gun is a device that's designed to take lives, it's not designed to protect them.
By your logic, if a device was made that could protect lives better than a gun can, you'd have to be ok with ridding yourself of right to bear arms.
Not necessarily, I believe that only the individual can determine what tool best suits his or her needs in a given situation. There are certainly people whose best option is a cap and ball pistol or even a baseball bat because legally they can't own "real guns." Any such device that you describe would fall under the umbrella of the right to keep and bear arms, but so would previous generations of arms. All of that being said, I'm not smart or lucid enough to think up a device that could break out of the natural concept of self-defense. It's almost like giving up the right to drink water because we found a better method of hydration.
>*why* guns are?
See that guy way over there? FRICK that guy.
Yes, but we never seem to ask how guns are.
One race was smart enough to invent them.
the chinese
white people behind again
Fire arrows aren't guns.