Anonymous3: @anon2 fuck it I’ll bite.
What do you define as ‘pro gun’? Simply the right to own them? The right to use them? Or the symbolic meaning behind owning them. I’ll agree a good number of pro-gun people only want them because they’re cool and they think it makes them cool. But for some, such as me, it’s the meaning behind being allowed to own them that’s important. Allowing citizens to be armed means they are allowed to defend themselves. That they can revolt against tyranny, and cannot be subjugated. Of course in the modern day it’s not as simple as that because a modern first-world military could kerb stomp any civilian uprising with things like cruise missiles and attack drones and tanks and shit. But an armed populace still stands enough of a threat that any government that would want to oppress the people will think twice about doing it simply because of the damage it would cause. Look at how effective the camel jockeys are with a bunch of ancient kalashnikovs, technical utes, and homemade bombs.
Of course, it’s not as simple as ‘where there are more guns, there’s less crime’. Far from it. With more guns comes more gun crime, there’s no way around that. It’s a deeply philosophical discussion that roots back to liberty vs security. Do you want to be free, or do you want to be safe? How much of one are you willing to sacrifice in pursuit of the other? Everyone has a different answer to that. But remember this; one of the 18th century’s greatest philosophers put it rather well: those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither.
I'm not surprised, with all the fapping...
What do you define as ‘pro gun’? Simply the right to own them? The right to use them? Or the symbolic meaning behind owning them. I’ll agree a good number of pro-gun people only want them because they’re cool and they think it makes them cool. But for some, such as me, it’s the meaning behind being allowed to own them that’s important. Allowing citizens to be armed means they are allowed to defend themselves. That they can revolt against tyranny, and cannot be subjugated. Of course in the modern day it’s not as simple as that because a modern first-world military could kerb stomp any civilian uprising with things like cruise missiles and attack drones and tanks and shit. But an armed populace still stands enough of a threat that any government that would want to oppress the people will think twice about doing it simply because of the damage it would cause. Look at how effective the camel jockeys are with a bunch of ancient kalashnikovs, technical utes, and homemade bombs.
Of course, it’s not as simple as ‘where there are more guns, there’s less crime’. Far from it. With more guns comes more gun crime, there’s no way around that. It’s a deeply philosophical discussion that roots back to liberty vs security. Do you want to be free, or do you want to be safe? How much of one are you willing to sacrifice in pursuit of the other? Everyone has a different answer to that. But remember this; one of the 18th century’s greatest philosophers put it rather well: those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither.