NSSF: Gun Crimes Plummet as Gun Sales Skyrocket.

[Tempguy]

You seem like an angry, petulant child. It sounds like we're all better off with you not being armed.

I honestly didn't even read his post all the way through. He really does. It's also funny that I have military training and work in security so I kinda do know what I am talking about.

I will buy a gun soon. Not sure when but soon. Why? For peace of mind. I doubt I'll use it, but it's nice to have. I don't think anyone is out find kill me , I don't think I will save the day Wild West style. I just like knowing that if some loser with a gun shows up at my door, I won't be at his mercy and he will think twice before trying to break in.

It's really simple.

If guns did not exist here, I wouldn't care at all for them. But they do, so why wouldn't I at least try to even the playing field with a potential attacker?

[Deleted]

Bravado? Hold on while I google that...

Hm. I neither tried to impress or intimidate you. Not sure why you think I did.

All I am saying is that it isn't some crazy paranoia or extreme danger threat that causes people to buy guns. You or anyone claiming that is wrong.

Bravado, ha! Good one.

I could buy a gun, but why would i need one?

The only people in my vicinity that own a gun, are police, huntsmen and criminals.

[PickleballAce]

Haha, are you scared that a percieved "child" is gonna cause trouble?

Also, nice baseless accusation, it really brings forth your "argument" (See: Nothing.)

That avatar must be a self portrait. I couldn't imagine why you've been "attacked a number of times".

Either way...rage on, my friend.

[Tempguy]

I could buy a gun, but why would i need one?

The only people in my vicinity that own a gun, are police, huntsmen and criminals.

Good for you? Not everyone is in your situation.

[spinner981]

If only we could get everyone in the country armed, crime would be a thing of the past.

It's people like this that simply misunderstand the argument. It is arming the lawful citizens who know how to use guns, not just everybody. People need to understand the difference between arming non-criminal citizens and arming everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

People need to realize that correlation is not causation.

But isn't this contrary to what the left says would happen? That violent crimes go up as gun possession goes up? Yet when the opposite happens they ignore it with "It's correlation, not causation!"

[Deleted]

That avatar must be a self portrait. I couldn't imagine why you've been "attacked a number of times".

Either way...rage on, my friend.

Again, baseless assertions and pointless accusations. Do you even yield an argument? Or is your portrait indicative of what your purpose is?

Good for you? Not everyone is in your situation.

I already accounted for if you're in the US ; What would be the excuse for buying a gun, if you're not in actual remote fesible danger?

[May90]

I am saying that all of what you said doesn't matter. The feeling of safety isn't based in logic most times. You can tell someone that their chances of getting killed by a terrorist is slim to none and they still fret over it. Tell them their chances of getting shot by a handgun is much higher than a big black rifle, and try wanna ban the rifle still.

The feeling of safety, even if it ultimately leads to a falsehood , is what is important to them. Like cops. The fact remains that the chance of a cop actually saving you and preventing a crime are low. Yet having cops gives people peace of mind.

That is my argument against the one saying that the only reason to own a gun is paranoia or living in a bad area. And that doesn't even touch on folks who do live in bad areas and do not have the means to move.

I understand the reasoning, but it is a dangerous mentality to live by. When you need guns to feel safe, there is something wrong with your perception of the world, I think. Logical or not, it is strange if a person needs to have a lethal weapon on them to not feel threatened. And if a significant part of a society has this mentality, then probably something needs to be done to change this mentality. Not "ban all guns", but, maybe, design some kind of governmental awareness programs to explain to people that the world isn't as scary as they think.

It also reminds me the concept of nuclear stalemate: "If I have a nuke, you won't attack me, and if you have a nuke, I won't attack you, hence we both will be safe". "Arm the population with weapons, then people will counter each other, and they will be safe". It is good as long as everyone plays by the rules. But when someone says, "Ah, I don't care whether my opponent has a weapon or not. All bets are off!", the situation explodes quickly.

[Deleted]

But isn't this contrary to what the left says would happen? That violent crimes go up as gun possession goes up? Yet when the opposite happens they ignore it with "It's correlation, not causation!"

It's kinda obvious, the amount of gunshot incidents would decrease if less people have guns, cause there would be less guns to actually shoot people with.

You know, kinda says itself.

- - - Updated - - -

There are recreational uses for guns, not to mention some people collect them like baseball cards.

That would then fall under the section of a Hobby, but i somehow doubt that the poster in question was talking about hobbies, lest he included the idea of "Peace of Mind" to be under "Shootin on the Range" (Sounds kinda twisted, when i think about it.)

But yeah, you answered my question, so i ain't giving you flak

[May90]

It's kinda obvious, the amount of gunshot incidents would decrease if less people have guns, cause there would be less guns to actually shoot people with.

You know, kinda says itself.

Not so simple. There is also an effect of criminals being less likely to shoot their guns, when they know that anyone they shoot at can have a gun of their own. There is a lot of debate on whether the resulting effect is increase or decrease of the number of gunshot incidents.

[Deleted]

Not so simple. There is also an effect of criminals being less likely to shoot their guns, when they know that anyone they shoot at can have a gun of their own. There is a lot of debate on whether the resulting effect is increase or decrease of the number of gunshot incidents.

Yeah, there is a lot of factors intermingling and being at play, yes, but fundamentally, it would physically be impossible, to fire a gun, if you don't have one.

Thus, the point being, that societies that don't have guns, surprise surprise, don't have a lot of Gunshot accidents.

I know that it's ignoring a lot of complications along the way, but the poster in question still poses a about as flawed perception and representation, so i did not feel like it was worth justifying it with a proper accomodating picture of reality ; Cause the person itself, doesn't have one that bases itself on reality to begin with.

[Masark]

It also reminds me the concept of nuclear stalemate: "If I have a nuke, you won't attack me, and if you have a nuke, I won't attack you, hence we both will be safe". "Arm the population with weapons, then people will counter each other, and they will be safe". It is good as long as everyone plays by the rules. But when someone says, "Ah, I don't care whether my opponent has a weapon or not. All bets are off!", the situation explodes quickly.

The problem there is that it is rather problematic to implement second-strike capability on a personal level, meaning you pretty much instantly go to the end situation. The other guy being armed really doesn't matter when you've got your gun to his head before he even knows you're there.

[Deleted]

Oh, I didn't bother to head backwards through the conversation for once, so I thought your question just stood on its own.

Hah, don't worry about it, man, water under the bridge and all that. :P

[Tempguy]

I understand the reasoning, but it is a dangerous mentality to live by. When you need guns to feel safe, there is something wrong with your perception of the world, I think. Logical or not, it is strange if a person needs to have a lethal weapon on them to not feel threatened. And if a significant part of a society has this mentality, then probably something needs to be done to change this mentality. Not "ban all guns", but, maybe, design some kind of governmental awareness programs to explain to people that the world isn't as scary as they think.

It also reminds me the concept of nuclear stalemate: "If I have a nuke, you won't attack me, and if you have a nuke, I won't attack you, hence we both will be safe". "Arm the population with weapons, then people will counter each other, and they will be safe". It is good as long as everyone plays by the rules. But when someone says, "Ah, I don't care whether my opponent has a weapon or not. All bets are off!", the situation explodes quickly.

I think it's being realistic. Let's take guns out of the equation.

I'm a pretty big guy. I feel pretty comfortable dealing with anyone even if they have a knife and I don't. Stupid maybe, but that's my confidence level.

Now, a lot of people get nervous around me. I don't know why since I am a big teddy bear, but they do. Especially women. I would find it reasonable for a woman to carry pepper spray, or whatever, if that makes her feel safe. Sure, she will probably never be raped, robbed, chocked to death, beaten, etc. but ha Ingrid that spray just in case makes her feel at ease.

It gives her confidence to walk the streets at night and talk to strangers she meets in life. She may not even think about that spray beyond putting it in her purse in the morning before she heads out.

That is what I am getting at. The peace of mind is what is important t to people. That spray may just be water, or it may have expired or maybe she won't be able to get it of she is attacked, but having it makes her feel safe.


That is all I am saying. People who choose to have pepper spray (guns) are not messed up in the head. They just realize that they may be vulnerable and they don't like that feeling.

[May90]

Yeah, there is a lot of factors intermingling and being at play, yes, but fundamentally, it would physically be impossible, to fire a gun, if you don't have one.

Thus, the point being, that societies that don't have guns, surprise surprise, don't have a lot of Gunshot accidents.

I know that it's ignoring a lot of complications along the way, but the poster in question still poses a about as flawed perception and representation, so i did not feel like it was worth justifying it with a proper accomodating picture of reality ; Cause the person itself, doesn't have one that bases itself on reality to begin with.

Ah, I agree with this. The problem is, the black market is very hard to control, and even in the countries with the strictest gun laws, criminals still manage to get guns sometimes, and even if the country doesn't have any guns in it at all, they still can smuggle guns from other countries... As long as there is a single gun existing on this planet, it can end up being used anywhere.

But ultimately, indeed, having a lot of guns roaming around is not the best way to ensure safety.

The problem there is that it is rather problematic to implement second-strike capability on a personal level, meaning you pretty much instantly go to the end situation. The other guy being armed really doesn't matter when you've got your gun to his head before he even knows you're there.

Depends on the situation. Imagine the extreme scenario in which every Norwegian had a gun on them. Would Breivik succeed at doing what he did then? Probably not. While in one-on-one situation a possible gun possession probably won't stop a criminal from trying to attack the victim, it becomes increasingly dangerous for them to do it, as the number of people involved increases.

[Tempguy]

Oh, I didn't bother to head backwards through the conversation for once, so I thought your question just stood on its own.

Don't listen to him. My entire argument is to refute his claim that people who have guns are not always super paranoid or live in a dangerous area.

Go back and check the post line. It's there.

So yes, hobby shooting is part of that. I may not have brought it up, but that is also an example that refutes his claim. I just chose a more colorful route than the typical "hobby shooting" route.

If I knew it was that easy to shut him down perhaps I should have just said that.

[May90]

I think it's being realistic. Let's take guns out of the equation.

I'm a pretty big guy. I feel pretty comfortable dealing with anyone even if they have a knife and I don't. Stupid maybe, but that's my confidence level.

Now, a lot of people get nervous around me. I don't know why since I am a big teddy bear, but they do. Especially women. I would find it reasonable for a woman to carry pepper spray, or whatever, if that makes her feel safe. Sure, she will probably never be raped, robbed, chocked to death, beaten, etc. but ha Ingrid that spray just in case makes her feel at ease.

It gives her confidence to walk the streets at night and talk to strangers she meets in life. She may not even think about that spray beyond putting it in her purse in the morning before she heads out.

That is what I am getting at. The peace of mind is what is important t to people. That spray may just be water, or it may have expired or maybe she won't be able to get it of she is attacked, but having it makes her feel safe.


That is all I am saying. People who choose to have pepper spray (guns) are not messed up in the head. They just realize that they may be vulnerable and they don't like that feeling.

Well, of course, I understand that. However, I personally have always felt safe without a gun. I am not representative of the entire population, but I've been through some nasty things (including being assaulted by a criminal gang once), and still I do not need a gun to feel comfortable. Probably other people can feel the same way, if their thinking process is changed properly.

I think the society in which no one feels the need to carry guns on them all the time would be a safer one, but it is hard to say without trying it out in real life.

[Thetruth1400]

People need to realize that correlation is not causation.

Yeah, but really, where do you draw the line of what is correlation and which is the cause?

If I'm testing a new medicine designed to give people 20/20 vision, and 100% of the people on it ended up with 20/20 vision, but those same people also only drank water and ate protein bars and stared into the sun for 5 minutes a day, is it my medicine that's the cause of their now perfect vision or is it just correlation and some other factor is at play?

[Tempguy]

Well, of course, I understand that. However, I personally have always felt safe without a gun. I am not representative of the entire population, but I've been through some nasty things (including being assaulted by a criminal gang once), and still I do not need a gun to feel comfortable. Probably other people can feel the same way, if their thinking process is changed properly.

I think the society in which no one feels the need to carry guns on them all the time would be a safer one, but it is hard to say without trying it out in real life.

I think we are entering a different pool now. My entire point was to simply refute that people who choose to have a gun is not messed up in the head somehow. Since it seems we have an understanding, I'll consider this a new topic.


Yeah it would be nice. I said before that I hate guns. It makes punks think they are tough guys. It gives power to those who do not deserve it or no how to deal with it. And no one should have the power to take a life that easy. Wrestle your victim down and choke them like a real man, lol.

But I would still understand if females and smaller males have weapons in such a society. Not a gun of course cause guns wouldn't exist, but some kind of tazer. A 90 pound female has no chance against me unless she has some training and stamina to fight. And I don't think women should be escorted everywhere.

So I think we should train 100% of society is badass shoalin Kung fu, or issue self defense devises for those who feel they need it. Nothing that can incapacitate you though. That can be used on victims. But something that just hurts like fuck would be great.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, but really, where do you draw the line of what is correlation and which is the cause?

If I'm testing a new medicine designed to give people 20/20 vision, and 100% of the people on it ended up with 20/20 vision, but those same people also only drank water and ate protein bars and stared into the sun for 5 minutes a day, is it my medicine that's the cause of their now perfect vision or is it just correlation and some other factor is at play?

The sun. Definitely the sun.

[spinner981]

Under the normal narrative, criminals are all assumed to be armed anyway.

And the goal is to reduce illegal firearm ownership, especially in the hands of criminals.

It's kinda obvious, the amount of gunshot incidents would decrease if less people have guns, cause there would be less guns to actually shoot people with.

You know, kinda says itself.

Except apparently the results say otherwise.

[Deleted]

Ah, I agree with this. The problem is, the black market is very hard to control, and even in the countries with the strictest gun laws, criminals still manage to get guns sometimes, and even if the country doesn't have any guns in it at all, they still can smuggle guns from other countries... As long as there is a single gun existing on this planet, it can end up being used anywhere.

But ultimately, indeed, having a lot of guns roaming around is not the best way to ensure safety.


Depends on the situation. Imagine the extreme scenario in which every Norwegian had a gun on them. Would Breivik succeed at doing what he did then? Probably not. While in one-on-one situation a possible gun possession probably won't stop a criminal from trying to attack the victim, it becomes increasingly dangerous for them to do it, as the number of people involved increases.

There is a lot of factors involved on who would get harmed first or how people react. I saw a video of a Store Clerk, who was a victim of armed robbery, he ignored the guy and the robber went away.

According to some, here, though, the guy would be smoked dead, cuz he didn't see him coming and he was some steroids übermench fueled by rage or some shit.

Don't listen to him. My entire argument is to refute his claim that people who have guns are not always super paranoid or live in a dangerous area.

Go back and check the post line. It's there.

So yes, hobby shooting is part of that. I may not have brought it up, but that is also an example that refutes his claim. I just chose a more colorful route than the typical "hobby shooting" route.

If I knew it was that easy to shut him down perhaps I should have just said that.

You basically escalated it to this level, by saying it's 3rd grade logic to run away from a threat, whilst you go on to paint a colourful picture of all these things that you yield ; Your physical size, your stature, your military training etc.

You haven't refuted or shut down shit, you are just swaying emotionally loaded arguments and hope it goes well, without a damn trace of logic.

Your substance of argument, was "What if" - That premiss has not been shut down, by any stretch of the imagination, wether you feel something or not - That's not how logic works.

The odds, mathematically, remain the same, regardless of what you or i, say on these forums.

- - - Updated - - -

Except apparently the results say otherwise.

You have no proven co-relation. On my side, i am providing a argument that is sound by metrics of pure Physical standard (i.e, physically no gun, no gunshot)

What do you have? Conviction of Belief?