I think it's the moderate stance twords guns. To say they have no purpose isn't true.

To say some models have no purpose for you average American holds truth. It's not uncommon to restrict things to a degree, we do it with all sorts of things.

And that does not mean special purpose use cases can't exist. A wildlife guide or ranger should still be able to have a handgun via a secondary class of restricted licence. Joe blow does not need a glock though.

But there's just too much circulating now anyways. If certain things were made illegal it would be very easy to just get your hands on whatever you want still and those are the people who are most likely to misuse firearms to begin with, not your law abiding citizens. If someone wants to do bad they would still easily find a way at this point.

Canada is currently going through a buy back system which is fucking moronic. A money sink pandering to some audience.

This post was edited by SBD on Sep 1 2025 12:44pm

Joe Blow doesn't care what you think and has the right to defend himself

That's fine for now, does not mean discussion can't happen online.

What do we suppose the rate of defending one's self is vs the rate of misuse for such firearms is in the USA I wonder. And frankly a shotgun with a buckshot for any average person is vastly batter for home defense. Anyone who says otherwise is a retard who's never actually shot a handgun, let alone while panicked.

I'd wager though that permissive gun laws actually reduce safety and though you have a right to have a glock your net safety is actually significantly lower. I mean I think that's well known though.

This post was edited by SBD on Sep 1 2025 04:37pm

When gramps saw the george floyd riots underway, he left the over/under in his gun cabinet. He holstered a 1911 and stood on the street carrying his mauser, thankfully no mob came this away
now that I think about it, I never really checked how many or if any of those 5 round clips he had. But 2 down and reload a shotgun is not where you want to be

Hence saying home defense.

Regards to public carry, that's the part regarding a non effective safety measure with net negative impact. Let's be real draw your firearm out in that and you're more likely to be shot and harmed if in a violent situation where gun use is warranted.

I am pro gun ownership, but there's clear use cases and staying strapped up or keeping it in your dash is clearly quite silly. And very much so results in more misuse than self defense.

This post was edited by SBD on Sep 1 2025 04:56pm

I think 'home defense' and 'breakdown of civil order' are kind of issues that have been married for the entire history of the USA, I mean given all the indian wars, pre-civil war skirmishes, race riots, etc.
People don't just want security against sly and the family stone breaking into their home to rape their wife like the start of death wish. They also want security the next time shit hits the fan and the police won't be coming.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Sep 1 2025 05:00pm

And when shit hits the fan are you statistically more likely to be injured or killed or get your family killed by drawing a handgun in public against those that may also be strapped up or better off going with virtually any other action.

I suspect we both know the non emotional answer to that. Now I understand why that does not offer piece of mind but again just objectively speaking I believe it's probably heavily slanted in one direction of all incidents were tallied up.

The problem being is you have lobby groups as well that makes sure people don't think like that and the only piece of mind or answer is to have a gun. That's the beautiful brainwashing that's taken place. Not so much different that a lot of marketing tactics though.

A false piece of mind is what's being sold. Is that worth it. Don't think so but with the amount of firearms in circulation now there's little to be done.

This post was edited by SBD on Sep 1 2025 05:06pm

When shit hits the fan the statistics are out the window. Ask the rooftop koreans if they felt statistically more in danger during the Rodney King riots than those who couldn't defend themselves. That's not an emotional answer, its a logical one. If we look to build an AI model for self-driving cars on how to react in life and death driving scenarios, you quickly realize they are extraordinarily rare and varied unique instances. They can only be approached by guiding logic, by algorithmic choices, not by trying to navigate the 'most likely case'. And when the low flying aircraft is making an emergency landing on the freeway in front of my vehicle I want my hands on the wheel and feet on the pedals, not some bean counter at Tesla telling me I'm statistically more likely to die if I have control of the 2 ton metal death-cage.

The country was founded by men who lived through exceptional circumstances and they enshrined the right of men to have those life and death powers when it matters. It wasn't even a debate back when, not because they lacked superweapons, but because there was no sheltered mundane peacetime existence, only deadly frontiers and european wars.

This does not address the point that you're more likely to get killed or get your own family killed. We can create silly fringe scenarios to make many things the public shouldn't have warranted. And to reference old times like times have not changed significantly is also pretty silly to be honest.

Fact is there's just no real logic to it. You have to simply jump through some wild hoops to just to justify it and anyone who's ever moderate can understand it truly just makes no sense to have certain firearms legal or have ultra lax carry laws.

And I do feel bad for people that they have been managed to be convinced their own country is such a third world dump that they need to strap up on a daily basis. I couldn't personally imagine living with that level of paranoia.

This post was edited by SBD on Sep 1 2025 05:23pm