Anon breaks up
-
It can be a hobby, sure. But men having a hobby isnt was was being discussed at all. Nobody cares about men having hobbies, the issue is when this hobby is a potential threat to other people. Isnt this rather obvious?
You know exactly as much as I do about this hypothetical situation. Girlfriend cheats. Guy breaks up. Girl calls cops. Guy gets guns confiscated. If your argument is nothing more than "Well maybe he deserved it" you're an asshole.
-
Guerilla tactics in foreign countries on the other side of the planet, where they needed to overcome giant logistics problems.
Fighting on their own territory where they already have all their bases and equipment is not going to end the same way.
Fighting on their own territory where they already have all their bases and equipment is not going to end the same way.
You're forgetting that it's also where most of the military's supplies come from. That means their sources are more vulnerable as well
-
You know exactly as much as I do about this hypothetical situation. Girlfriend cheats. Guy breaks up. Girl calls cops. Guy gets guns confiscated. If your argument is nothing more than "Well maybe he deserved it" you're an asshole.
Thats just not what im saying.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I appreciate the 100% complete, unbiased and unvarnished picture of the situation Green OP (Gropey?) has painted for us.
-
So you nazis have mind reading technologies now?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Resorting to calling me a Nazi now? Thanks for telling me that you have no actual counterargument.
The Pro-Choice argument is one of bodily autonomy. If people have the right to refuse the use of their organs to save others after they are dead, then everyone should also have the right to refuse the same while they are alive.
Not only that, bans on abortion adds red tape to many procedures necessary to keep the mother alive, incpuding in situations where the fetus isn't viable. If the fetus dies in the womb and the mother doesn't naturally expel it, she needs an abortion ot it'll rot and kill here. If the zygote never fully makes it to the uterus and starts developing inside the ovarian tubes, it needs to be aborted or it will kill both the mother and the fetus.
Making it harder for pregnant women to gain access to these procedures is needlessly and ridiculously cruel.
And let's also discuss your Nazi claims: I'm pro-workers right, pro-consumer rights, pro-privacy. I think we need to increase social welfare services to help the most vulnerable of us, including some form of universal healthcare. But I'm a Nazi simply because I support the 2nd ammendment? Yeah, that bullshit. You aren't worth wasting more of my time on.
-
Thats just not what im saying.
It sure feels like what you're saying is that due process goes out the window for things you don't like.
-
Lot of US leftists and liberals hate guns, as a reaction to the right’s obsession with them.
It is a stupid and dangerous reaction, because they give up their means of self-defense against far right militias and a fascist government.
Then they post about how the gun owners aren't doing anything to stop the fascist government. Yea, you've been alienating them for decades. They're not on your side.
-
It perpetuates itself. If someone thinks there is a significant probability a burglar might have a gun, getting a gun themselves can increase their chance of survival. This is even ignoring the actual culture around it, where people want guns "just to have them".
You don't own a gun in case of a burglar having a gun. It's in case of home invasion period. I'm not going to wait around to determine if they're armed or not and I'm not going to restrict myself to some lesser means of stopping them just because they aren't. I didn't create this situation and I am not going to accept risk to myself to preserve the life of some asshole who doesn't even respect me enough not to break into my home.
-
The US lost because of domestic pressure to end those wars. Militarily the US was never in danger of defeat. Do you think that the current US administration is going to give a singular shit about domestic pressure once the shooting starts? If the military sides with the government, the government wins. If the military sides against the government the government loses.
The war in Afghanistan went on for 20 years, with Iraq and Vietnam lasting not much less. And once the US military left all of those countries, all of the regimes that the US put into place fell apart relatively quickly.
In what universe are those conditions a win? In what universe are they even a tie?!?
I know you're just parroting an argument you've seen written by someone else before. Maybe it's because of patriotism. Maybe it's because of pride and not wanting to admit defeat. Maybe it's something else. Regardless, I ask that you take a step back and actually think about your comment logically.
-
It's very amusing to read such things from outside the American hellscape. Well, "amusing."
Let's say eventually there comes a government overreach that a popular armed uprising puts down. Every day until that day, children die. Accidental death from firearms is one of the leading causes of death of children in your country. (Do you feel that pricking sensation in your neck and face or are you immune to shame?) If the rebellion doesn't come soon enough (or at all) then you are underwater in terms of dead children. So, how long is that runway? How long do you get to keep killing children until you have to admit, fuck, this is costing us more than it's worth?
HAVE YOU EVEN DONE THE MATH, or are you just working from feelings?
To compare dead children to the cost of failing to check government power, we can reduce both to life-years lost:
Current Cost: Child Firearm Deaths in the U.S.- ~2,000 preventable child gun deaths/year
- ~60 life-years lost per death
- 120,000 life-years lost annually
- Over 30 years: ~3.6 million life-years lost
️ Hypothetical Benefit: Preventing TyrannyAssume a worst-case scenario:
- Authoritarian collapse kills 10 million (based on 20th-century examples)
- Avg. age at death: ~40 → ~35 life-years lost
- 10M deaths × 35 = 350 million life-years lost
Estimate risk:
- Without civilian arms: 0.5% chance over 30 years
- With civilian arms: 0.4% chance
- These figures are speculative; there’s no empirical support that civilian gun ownership reduces the risk of tyranny—many stable democracies have strict gun control.
In fact, high civilian armament may reduce stability:
- Greater availability of weapons increases the lethality of civil unrest, crime, and domestic terrorism.
- Armed polarization can accelerate breakdown during political crises, as seen in failed or fragile states.
- States may respond with harsher repression, escalating rather than deterring authoritarian outcomes.
Expected Value Calculation- Without arms: 0.005 × 350M = 1.75 million life-years at risk
- With arms: 0.004 × 350M = 1.2 million life-years at risk
- Net benefit of arms: ~550,000 life-years saved (generous estimate)
ConclusionEven with favorable assumptions:
- Civilian firearms cost ~3.6M life-years (due to preventable child deaths)
- And prevent only ~550K life-years (via marginally lower tyranny risk)
Bottom line: The ongoing cost vastly outweighs the hypothetical benefit, and high armament may worsen long-term stability rather than protect it.
-
Yes, but this is 4chan, so the odds aren't in OP's favor.
Fair enough
-
It sure feels like what you're saying is that due process goes out the window for things you don't like.
Where you got that from? Looks like your imagining a whole other discussion there
-
This post did not contain any content.
Crazy how someone can just make a call to the cops and that shit happens. Kinda like swatting
-
I appreciate the 100% complete, unbiased and unvarnished picture of the situation Green OP (Gropey?) has painted for us.
Story: Girlfriend cheats
This guy: Maybe he deserved it -
It's not most Americans. It's about a third (which is still huge) and less than half of the population living in a gun owning household.
Then there's a spectrum of how "important" guns are culturally. There are in my experience 3 categories of gun owners.
- People who own a gun or two. They may take it to the range or hunt, but mostly it's tucked securely away and they don't think about it or use it.
2)Then there are collectors and enthusiasts. They enjoy firearms as a hobby. They have multiple. They watch firearms videos on social media. They go to gun shows and might join a club related to the hobby.
3)Then there are the paranoid psychopaths for whom gun ownership and the insistence that they could have to defend themselves at any time is constantly at the forefront of their mind. They wish they had a reason to shoot someone and may end up shooting someone anyway.
Sorry bad phrasing, by most I meant a lot of americans. Thanks for correcting me
I am somewhat familiar with the type of gun owners from US media and movies.
For me the most mind-blowing thing is how easy is to get a gun at some places.
I just imagine some shady people I know in my country, even some of my family members and can't imagine them having access to guns
-
I don't avoid guns due to a fear of crime. I avoid guns due to a fear of negligence.
Every single day, someone in my family does something negligent, but ultimately harmless. Oops. Now there's an extra dirty dish. Oops. Broke a coaster. Oops. Dirty towel. Oops. Got sprayed with water.
Putting a gun in that situation would be pretty dangerous.
I suppose some households could keep guns responsibly. Mine could not, despite my personal practices.
I don't understand how you justify in your head adding guns into any of those situations you listed.
If you own guns, you're supposed to have a secure way to store them. Especially if you have kids. While some people do leave guns sitting around the house, that is strongly discouraged.
You're supposed to keep guns inside a safe unless you're about to use it such as going to a range or hunting. And best practice is to keep ammo secured in a separate safe as an extra measure. And when you are handling a gun, you always check if it's loaded and follow the 4 rules of gun safety
-
To compare dead children to the cost of failing to check government power, we can reduce both to life-years lost:
Current Cost: Child Firearm Deaths in the U.S.- ~2,000 preventable child gun deaths/year
- ~60 life-years lost per death
- 120,000 life-years lost annually
- Over 30 years: ~3.6 million life-years lost
️ Hypothetical Benefit: Preventing TyrannyAssume a worst-case scenario:
- Authoritarian collapse kills 10 million (based on 20th-century examples)
- Avg. age at death: ~40 → ~35 life-years lost
- 10M deaths × 35 = 350 million life-years lost
Estimate risk:
- Without civilian arms: 0.5% chance over 30 years
- With civilian arms: 0.4% chance
- These figures are speculative; there’s no empirical support that civilian gun ownership reduces the risk of tyranny—many stable democracies have strict gun control.
In fact, high civilian armament may reduce stability:
- Greater availability of weapons increases the lethality of civil unrest, crime, and domestic terrorism.
- Armed polarization can accelerate breakdown during political crises, as seen in failed or fragile states.
- States may respond with harsher repression, escalating rather than deterring authoritarian outcomes.
Expected Value Calculation- Without arms: 0.005 × 350M = 1.75 million life-years at risk
- With arms: 0.004 × 350M = 1.2 million life-years at risk
- Net benefit of arms: ~550,000 life-years saved (generous estimate)
ConclusionEven with favorable assumptions:
- Civilian firearms cost ~3.6M life-years (due to preventable child deaths)
- And prevent only ~550K life-years (via marginally lower tyranny risk)
Bottom line: The ongoing cost vastly outweighs the hypothetical benefit, and high armament may worsen long-term stability rather than protect it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Tongue in cheek of course but it still makes a point. The facts-over-feelings crowd has to show that the benefit of firearms outweigh the very observable negative consequences, and they cannot. So they are arguing feelings, not facts.
-
You don't own a gun in case of a burglar having a gun. It's in case of home invasion period. I'm not going to wait around to determine if they're armed or not and I'm not going to restrict myself to some lesser means of stopping them just because they aren't. I didn't create this situation and I am not going to accept risk to myself to preserve the life of some asshole who doesn't even respect me enough not to break into my home.
Isn't this just a vicious cycle? You own a gun, because other people also have access to guns. The burglar might bring a gun, because the home owner possibly has a gun, etc
-
It's not most Americans. It's about a third (which is still huge) and less than half of the population living in a gun owning household.
Then there's a spectrum of how "important" guns are culturally. There are in my experience 3 categories of gun owners.
- People who own a gun or two. They may take it to the range or hunt, but mostly it's tucked securely away and they don't think about it or use it.
2)Then there are collectors and enthusiasts. They enjoy firearms as a hobby. They have multiple. They watch firearms videos on social media. They go to gun shows and might join a club related to the hobby.
3)Then there are the paranoid psychopaths for whom gun ownership and the insistence that they could have to defend themselves at any time is constantly at the forefront of their mind. They wish they had a reason to shoot someone and may end up shooting someone anyway.
Sorry bad phrasing, by most I meant a lot of americans. Thanks for correcting me
I am somewhat familiar with the type of gun owners from US media and movies.
For me the most mind-blowing thing is how easy is to get a gun at some places.
I just imagine some shady people I know in my country, even some of my family members and can't imagine them having access to guns -
I mean if someone makes death threats to someone else they should absolutely have their guns taken away.
The problem is that the system is open to abuse. Anyone who wants to get back at someone can make up allegations and have their guns taken away with no due process.
But on the other hand if you make this process too difficult you can allow someone who is actually dangerous to keep their guns.
I mean if someone makes death threats to someone else they should absolutely have their guns taken away.
The thing is, this isn't shown in the original post. Also, making death threats on its own is illegal, red flag laws aren't required if the person making the report has proof.
Said victim could even get a restraining order if they were worried about violence, which won't completely assure safety but will go down a process that actually uses due process and doesn't violate anyone's rights.
