Most gunowners are......Posted by: Max.Wallace
27 Total Votes
@Donderpants - Where do you live? In the US, there are about 1.3m active duty in the military, with an additional .8m reserve. There are ~270m guns in the us. The numbers of owners (thanks to the NRA) are near impossible to get, but it is a VERY easy bet that there are WAY more non-military people with guns.
Found a decent number "32 percent of Americans own a firearm or live with someone who does" so... Over 100million households.
By the way, the number is going down contrary to the perception.
I wouldn't say for freedom. I just say most are just obsessed with guns.
@TBR Your right, when crime reduces, less people have reasons to buy a gun.
@Our household owned guns, but we never had to pull them out. I only used them once for target practice like once in my life.
However, I still recognize the right to bear arms.
The fact is that the politically correct Lords of Tyranny, are mostly too cowardly to entrust themselves with a gun. The have no clue, only an ideal. A communist ideal. Pluck communism.
@Max.Wallace - That is just about like me calling you a gunnutter, sooo... Gunnutter
Couldn't shoot the broad side of a barn most likely. That being you.
New Zealand is where I live. Even the police never use guns here. I feel more than slightly sorry for the Americans.
Why feel sorry for us? You said yourself that you believe the military is full of freedom fighters ... And if thats the case, call America the tip of the spear. What kind of culture do you think is required to have a military full of freedom fighters like that? One revolving around liberal arts and journalism?
They inject vegetables in NZ. And feed them to you.
@FreedomBeforeEquality- Fair enough. TBR informed me that actually most gun owners aren't in the military. I'm actually switching now. I didn't actually say that those pro freedom people were great for owning guns. My upbringing has brought a small level of distaste for guns, as neither criminals nor police have many guns. Freedom is good, killing to get it is not. @Max Wallace- I was not aware of that, not sure if you're lying or not, but if you're using food to insult us somehow, NZ food is prized overseas, we have very high quality food, and the economy agrees. Bad example. Besides, if they do, I imagine it's to get rid of any bad bits. People inject blood into people who without it would die- injecting things into other things is not necessarily bad.
"Freedom is good, killing to get it is not." !! But killing is a small price to pay for it. You make it sound like the end doesnt justify the means here. It most certainly does. Killing for freedom is one of the few ways you can even justify killing at all. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the action imprints itself on the freedom you earn by it, marking it as of a higher value than that earned in other ways due to the price paid to earn it.
I'm sorry, but I'm against killing humans at all. I'm against the death penalty, abortion, or anything that ends human life.
So you would be a willing slave to others ... Since the thought of freeing yourself makes you cringe. Its good for you then that others can do that killing for you, or you wouldn't be free at all. Life under the umbrella of others actions must be good.
I wouldn't kill just to have a few extra rights. NZ never had to go through that, slavery never really happened here. As well as this, I come from a European background, Europe was always the one doing the enslaving, which is really not something to brag about, but only a very small proportion of my ancestry would have been enslaved. Ever. I'd free myself if possible, but I would not kill to get there. As I said, freedom is good, killing to get it is not so good.
"slavery never really happened here." Yes I know, thanks to other western civilizations laying the groundwork and setting a standard for you.
Yeah, I guess.... You clearly skimmed my argument if that's your only point. Plus, the name that comes to mind when I think of getting rid of slavery? Martin Luther King. Someone who specifically went for non-violence to get black rights. I don't have to thank guns for being rid of slavery, I can instead thank those like Martin Luther King
And yet youll always be thanking someone else for the freedom ... Regardless of what level of intervention was needed to obtain it. Each of those generations can be proud in their own right. I dont think europe needs to apologise for having had taken the route it did to get to where we are today. Just because a newer generation was able to bring it about in a much smaller sense without fighting doesnt make their fights comparable. Its obviously going to be alot easier now to push a civil rights movement with non violence because of the groundwork the laid out in violence in the past. Thats why there will arguably be no WW3. Its why wars seem to be more 'cold' now. People remember what that feels like enough to not want to go back there. I dont think that takes away from those generations having to make that sacrifice or do things the way they did for us to get here.
Oh yeah, good for them. If they feel right about fighting for their rights, that's grand. But I wouldn't fight for them. I'm a pacifist, killing is never right in my mind.
To be honest, I didn't really like the sound of you anyway, this is just affirming what I already had suspicions of.