File: 1635015409140.jpg (711.41 KB, 2500x1758, 1250:879, gettyimages-918718330.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
So I'm starting to think that all home-owners are entitled to receive a free firearm. A gun, like a handgun or an assault rifle.
Now, I'm vegan, so therefore I believe deep down in my heart of hearts: "guns are for self-defence, not hunting."
And I carry that sentiment with this statement: that all home-owners in the United States of America be given a free firearm for self defence.
File: 1635020723222.png (288.12 KB, 456x461, 456:461, it might be fun.png) ImgOps Google
You're probably a dirty immigrant and the reason the true US citizens need a firearm.
File: 1635022131353.png (41.13 KB, 379x380, 379:380, tophat lurker1.png) ImgOps Google
Don't you sometimes wanna take the airplane and stay in Germany for a while?
File: 1636290826264.png (3.04 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, You're failing.png) ImgOps Google
Only if schools teach gun safety as a mandatory class. I'd also be very much against handing each and every person an assault rifle for home defense. A handgun or a shotgun are far more reasonable options for a home defense scenario. An assault rifle is laughably overkill. I don't have the numbers on hand, but the amount of home invasions that involve the invaders wearing body armor capable of stopping even 9mm rounds is likely very, very small.
Most people don't need an automatic weapon, frankly. I think they should be available for purchase, sure. However I'm not sold on the idea of the government providing free firearms in the first place, much less something like an assault rifle.
File: 1636327472034.jpg (91.35 KB, 545x720, 109:144, 4a4e4dda946159599b7bed811e….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I agree. I'm no fan of the Hughes Amendment, but at the same time, I think it would be a bad idea for the government to give free machine-guns to untrained persons.
The firearms industry basically wants guns to be treated like Barbie dolls so that fans buy as many expensive models as possible and fiddle with them as much as possible, those fans can be either law-abiding citizens or hardened criminals for all the industry cares.
If you're primarily interested in supporting your fellow American's self-defense, your interests aren't really aligned with the firearms industry. You want, first of all, to prevent criminals from buying guns completely. Second, you want law-abiding citizens to purchase the best firearm for their specific needs rather than the most expensive item. Third, you want those citizens to have the best understanding of how to use their purchase rather than for them to mindlessly keep buying more and more additional stuff.
Not a terrible idea.
At the very least, I think a swiss-like mandatory (perhaps for certain state privileges, like voting perhaps?) military training would be ideal, with the issued rifle being either available for you in an armory, or if you so choose, kept in your home and maintained personally.
Would give good cause to cut military defense budgets, give basic firearm safety to all, and make firearms less alien to many who don't seem to understand, and consequently fear, them.
Japan suggests otherwise.
Lack of firearms doesn't dissuade suicide, and besides that what one chooses to do with their own life is nobody but their own business.
File: 1636913445691.jpeg (83.21 KB, 528x700, 132:175, 0 SN9OLLuKaKvKFJR_.Jpeg) ImgOps Google
I'd be down for it.
ironically I think crime would spike then flatten real low really quickly.
>>10078>Lack of firearms doesn't dissuade suicide, and besides that what one chooses to do with their own life is nobody but their own business.
Both of those statements are false. First, in the U.S., firearm availiablity drastically increases suicide. Second, in the U.S., suicide increases significantly in response to outside pressures such as unemployment, family abuse, and social prejudice.
If America wasn't an immoral cesspool with a "culture of hatred" and "culture of violence", then suicide wouldn't be the second leading cause of death for people under the age of 35.
Japan again proves that yes firearm ownership does not increase suicide.
You've not provided any citations to demonstrate anything contrary besides.
And of course it needs to be said you didn't even bother addressing my other argument. You just stated its false. That isn't an argument, that's an admission of your own inability to engage with the matter.
Suicide is the individual's choice. It is their body. Their life. It is their choice what occurs, anything less is slavery.
Americans shouldn't force victims to commit suicide by creating situations in which they're bullied into death.
America should be a county worth living in instead of a pile of shit in which people are forced to either live in suffering or take their own lives.
Nobody's got a gun to their head, and while I don't consider America flawless, it's certainly a fair ways better than many places.
It'd be nice to improve, but trying to restrict the right of the people to live their own lives as they desire isn't a solution.
You're attacking the symptom, not the cause.
A lot of people do have guns to their heads.
This doesn't have to be a horrific cesspool of abuse, bigotry, discrimination, drug addiction, homelessness, poverty, and more.
It shouldn't be considered normal as the rain for people to be explicitly told that they should commit suicide for being lesser then others.
Not with the option of "kill self" or "don't", really.
Though perhaps you're a grander pessimist than I.>This doesn't have to be a horrific cesspool of abuse, bigotry, discrimination, drug addiction, homelessness, poverty, and more.
True. But nowhere is perfect, and either way it isn't right to force others to live as you please instead of allowing them the right to choose to end it if they so desire.
You don't really have a choice, honestly.
If you're in a position where Americans have chosen to structure society so that you're in extreme pain, then your options are "make the pain go away" or "endure".
But Americans could stop doing that in the first place.
Don't know what you mean by "Americans" as though Americans are separate from Americans if they desire to kill themselves.
But in any case, the point is, that's not solved by stopping them from being any to make that choice.
Being ordered to commit suicide by a hateful society isn't a free choice, though.
I mean, to take an extreme historical example, do you think that all of those people in Stalinist Russia who killed themselves truly were free people doing free actions to suit their own logical best interests?
When suicide is so common and so routine and so normal that it's a leading cause of death akin to heart attacks and cancer, that says a lot about the moral quality of a country and its place in the world.
File: 1636949233320.png (99.74 KB, 987x505, 987:505, suicide-rates-by-country.png) ImgOps Google
>>10116>When suicide is so common and so routine and so normal that it's a leading cause of death akin to heart attacks and cancer, that says a lot about the moral quality of a country...
Hmm, I'm a bit doubtful. I think only a small portion of variance in moral quality of countries can be explained by their suicide rates. Do you have any data to support your claim?
While "morality" can probably be measured to some
degree, I don't think that it's scientifically possible to really quantify it that coherently at an objective level. That's not to say that "morality" doesn't exist, but then it's like "beauty" or "compassion" in terms of having highly subjective elements.
While I don't have the facts in front of me, I'd say that the objective data on suicide of particular groups in the U.S. in terms of LGBT people, Native Americans, and veterans probably clearly indicate that abuse and otherwise ill-treatment is a close driver of suicide. Particularly when it comes to veterans. Denial of needed health care and shunning by friends has been documented as fundamental issues in news stories that I've read.
It naturally will be more of a fuzzy thing looking broadly at whole countries and continents in general.
Nobody's given you that order.>do you think that all of those people in Stalinist Russia who killed themselves truly were free people doing free actions to suit their own logical best interests?
I think that their choice to end their own life is theirs alone to make, that nobody should stand in their way, and that it would be wrong to stop them.
The reasons, as I already said plenty of times now and evidently you've ignored, have no bearing on that.
I can disagree with the Soviet state's treatment of individuals and their rights, while also still respecting people's rights when it comes down to whether or not to end their own life.
No idea why you struggle with something so simple.
File: 1636962013028.jpg (13.79 KB, 188x268, 47:67, 1629238221790.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>10130>>10130>I think that their choice to end their own life is theirs alone to make, that nobody should stand in their way, and that it would be wrong to stop them.
If someone of sound mind decides to commit suicide, I agree their choice should be respected. But see https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/25/in-defense-of-psych-treatment-for-attempted-suicide/
for an argument that many people who attempt suicide are of unsound mind and later are glad that they survived. And then there are 'suicides' like that of Vince Foster that are somewhat suspicious.
Nobody said it was.
That's just you projecting.