A gun in every house is a must

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Eating animals requires feeding animals, and the conversion factor by weight and by calories and by water use and by land use all show that the least amount of resources are used when no animals are kept for food. A polity can still stop the predatory people without using violence.

Farming causes 80% of land loss for animals. Farming is permanent, it does not turn back into wilderness. It is the problem of civility, a combination of desertification which destroys land and turning the land where animals live into permanent farms. Gathering and hunting are selective unlike farming. The highest level of civility causes the most damage.

There is no way to apprehend people without physical force. This is the nature of having people who protect. People with batons, with tasers, and different weapons have to use a continuum of force starting with pinning or apprehending people to using tasers or knockout weapons to using physical force to kill people. Sometimes in the worst conditions, like a person who is shooting people at random it is necessary to use physical force. This is the function of having police.

Many polities which are unwilling to protect themselves end up with dictators. Military dictatorships often have nonviolent populations who are not willing to take protective measures. In many cases, the dictators encourage this.

Most new farmland now is used to produce animal feed for animals specifically bred for food. Physical force is not necessarily violent; it is only bad if the harm is intentional.

[Saiwania]

Farming causes 80% of land loss for animals. Farming is permanent, it does not turn back into wilderness.

Farmland can probably turn back into wilderness if it is abandoned for long enough. We have plenty of examples of cities that got completely taken over by nature because it got abandoned but I'm not sure about farmland first hand. Usually any arable land to be had, isn't abandoned because its too valuable for the purposes of producing food/economy.

I'm inclined to believe that the Earth can repair itself gradually with the complete absence of people interfering.

https://theconversation.com/rewilding-a ... ope-119316

[UniversalCommons]

Farming causes 80% of land loss for animals. Farming is permanent, it does not turn back into wilderness. It is the problem of civility, a combination of desertification which destroys land and turning the land where animals live into permanent farms. Gathering and hunting are selective unlike farming. The highest level of civility causes the most damage.

There is no way to apprehend people without physical force. This is the nature of having people who protect. People with batons, with tasers, and different weapons have to use a continuum of force starting with pinning or apprehending people to using tasers or knockout weapons to using physical force to kill people. Sometimes in the worst conditions, like a person who is shooting people at random it is necessary to use physical force. This is the function of having police.

Many polities which are unwilling to protect themselves end up with dictators. Military dictatorships often have nonviolent populations who are not willing to take protective measures. In many cases, the dictators encourage this.

Most new farmland now is used to produce animal feed for animals specifically bred for food. Physical force is not necessarily violent; it is only bad if the harm is intentional.

Physical force is the definition of violence. If the state has to resort to physical violence to control people it is never a good thing. Physical force without consent is violence.

Most new farmland comes from cutting down the rainforest which is a very civilized thing to do. It destroys animal habitats and helps create global warming.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/sep ... 90210.html

Most of the products coming out of the rainforest are not animal products except for beef. They are things like palm oil, lumber, and coffee.

[New Visayan Islands]

Having a gun in your house isn't going to do much to prevent crime.

And not having a gun in your house opens the flood gates for you to get robbed I mean some people have kinks for liking getting their stuff stolen I'm not one to judge if you so choose that route but don't go out and force people what they can and cannot do especially when it comes to saving lives or loved ones and we all know guns save lives.

*** Warned for flamebait. ***

[Jebslund]

Having a gun in your house isn't going to do much to prevent crime.

And not having a gun in your house opens the flood gates for you to get robbed I mean some people have kinks for liking getting their stuff stolen I'm not one to judge if you so choose that route but don't go out and force people what they can and cannot do especially when it comes to saving lives or loved ones and we all know guns save lives.

Having a firearm doesn't stop you from getting robbed. The vast majority of robberies occur when there's nobody home. The only thing it'll do is give you another option to defend yourself in the event that you *are* home. It's far more likely it'll be stolen or be used against you.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

If "not knowing how it works" is disqualifying, expect harsh treatment the next time you voice your opinion on democracy.

I knew a kid in school who tried to learn everything about cars. But one day he started talking about boats, and I said something like "do you think you know everything about cars now?". He said "no, there's too much to know about cars, I've decided to learn everything about boats instead".

Point being, you need a better hobby. Guns are only good for a few things, and two of those things are really boring. The other one is illegal. Maybe you could learn all about motor-bikes or something, instead?

I have multiple hobbies. Computers, cars, chemistry, guns, mathematics, politics, reading, electricity and mechanics. I like guns because they are cool, just like how I like the explosive chemicals I manufacture or shitty circuits I make

EDIT: I wont do motorbikes because i'm scared of hurting myself, which is ironic as I've nearly sliced off my eye with a katana or burnt myself using acid

In my ideal world, people would all have hobbies in childhood, and pursue them and find others well into adulthood, because hobbies are play careers and people educate themselves as necessary to advance in their hobbies ... until they're so serious at one or two hobbies that they could earn a living from it, and actually want to do that. In a way, hobbies are taking an ideal of childhood education, making it into self education at no cost to anyone else, and then wanting to contribute the joy of the hobby, to society at large. "You enjoy what you're good at, and the more things you become good at, the more you will enjoy school" I think my father said that. It's an ideal of schooling to create a love of learning, and an ideal of the job market that workers enjoy what they do, and the two could be linked together by a decade of taxpayer-funded "hobby apprenticeships" with or without further formal education.

At the very least, we could make serious hobbies tax deductible. Except gun enthusiasm, that's a bad hobby because no developed nation wants to be like the United States in that way.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

And not having a gun in your house opens the flood gates for you to get robbed I mean some people have kinks for liking getting their stuff stolen I'm not one to judge if you so choose that route but don't go out and force people what they can and cannot do especially when it comes to saving lives or loved ones and we all know guns save lives.

*** Warned for flamebait. ***

Will you please stop posting your rubbish in the threads I'm in? Thanks.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

I have multiple hobbies. Computers, cars, chemistry, guns, mathematics, politics, reading, electricity and mechanics. I like guns because they are cool, just like how I like the explosive chemicals I manufacture or shitty circuits I make

EDIT: I wont do motorbikes because i'm scared of hurting myself, which is ironic as I've nearly sliced off my eye with a katana or burnt myself using acid

At the very least, we could make serious hobbies tax deductible. Except gun enthusiasm, that's a bad hobby because no developed nation wants to be like the United States in that way.

>Looks at Switzerland
Sure lmao

[Miku the Based]

Gathering food does not necessarily mean killing; one can live and remain healthy without killing. And in extreme circumstances, scavenging recently deceased life is not immoral, merely gross (but not as gross as otherwise). Running into a large crowd, simply running, or giving a fake wallet with little money in it are other methods. I just ran into a crowd once when something which you seem to consider killing over is justified, and another time just ran away. I don't ever carry much money on me anyway, so at most I'd lose twenty dollars.

Harmlessness in this case can be more destructive to animals than hunting. Systematically taking food from the environment and animals can be quite damaging, especially if you are not familiar with the local wildlife. Farming does more to damage the environment and animals than hunting. Growing human food replaces animal food on a large scale and it does it permanently. A good example of this is growing large banana or melon patches in the rain forest permanently destroying large areas of land and forest.

Farming does far more damage to the environment and animals in the bigger picture than hunting.

Also not fighting encourages people to continue acting in a predatory manner. It encourages predatory behavior. There are people that are predatory. It is necessary to apprehend them. If people are unwilling to protect society, they end up in a society often controlled by strong men. Places end up controlled by violent men because the society will not defend itself. There is a balance between protection and nonviolence. Some societies split by violence have people who will not be stopped by nonviolent behavior.

You can't pluck a tree of it's fruit because it harms them, you can't take a leg of a animal because it harms them. Not even Taoist Monk can uphold this ideology. This is a ideaology for literal vultures. The thing is humans are omnivore not scavenger.

[Neutraligon]

*** Warned for flamebait. ***

Will you please stop posting your rubbish in the threads I'm in? Thanks.

Just because you have taken part in a thread does not exempt that thread or you from moderation. As you should be aware of since you have already lost nations

[United Dependencies]

Most people actually struggle to hit targets even fairly close with a handgun in a serious situation...

This certainly seems to match perfectly with OP's proposal that we require all adults to be armed.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Will you please stop posting your rubbish in the threads I'm in? Thanks.

Just because you have taken part in a thread does not exempt that thread or you from moderation. As you should be aware of since you have already lost nations

I am aware that describing another poster's work as "rubbish" is close to the line. I'm pleased to discover the line is still there and I only got loomed at.

This would never have happened if you allowed third-party appeals. It doesn't have to be a free-for-all. Just let the accused poster pick their own defender. And perhaps honor the Average Joe reader principle you use to cut down the best, to also protect the least of the posters.

And not having a gun in your house opens the flood gates for you to get robbed I mean some people have kinks for liking getting their stuff stolen I'm not one to judge if you so choose that route but don't go out and force people what they can and cannot do especially when it comes to saving lives or loved ones and we all know guns save lives.

Having a firearm doesn't stop you from getting robbed. The vast majority of robberies occur when there's nobody home. The only thing it'll do is give you another option to defend yourself in the event that you *are* home. It's far more likely it'll be stolen or be used against you.

In short, "a gun in every home" means that any mug who can't afford a gun to commit crimes with, can get one by committing a burglary.

But there is a golden path: own one gun, and take it with you everywhere. Displayed, so everyone is aware of the risk you pose by your presence. And all government buildings, or private buildings declaring No Guns, must provide safe storage of guns at the door.

Impossible? No. Just reinterpret the words "keep and bear" as exclusive. No bearing of illegal ("kept") firearms. No leaving at home or in your car ... you own only those guns which you always bear. At the very least this would limit the number of guns one person can own.

[Adamede]

And what exactly are those?

Not even to defend yourself or a oboes one?

Why? Not all killing it unjustified.

A nonlethal defense which can not easily be used offensively is a bullet proof vest, if you don't want to risk it.

Thing about bullet proof vests is that they’re not full prod, and in some jurisdictions heavily regulated.

Guns are designed to kill, that is inherently offensive rather than defensive.

Except that’s not how the distinction between offense and defense works.

Better than either defensive and offensive means in both morality and potential at succeeding more is preventive measures.

And those don’t always work.

If you are killing someone, that is no longer defense, but offense.

Wrong

[Adamede]

Harmlessness in this case can be more destructive to animals than hunting. Systematically taking food from the environment and animals can be quite damaging, especially if you are not familiar with the local wildlife. Farming does more to damage the environment and animals than hunting. Growing human food replaces animal food on a large scale and it does it permanently. A good example of this is growing large banana or melon patches in the rain forest permanently destroying large areas of land and forest.

Farming does far more damage to the environment and animals in the bigger picture than hunting.

Also not fighting encourages people to continue acting in a predatory manner. It encourages predatory behavior. There are people that are predatory. It is necessary to apprehend them. If people are unwilling to protect society, they end up in a society often controlled by strong men. Places end up controlled by violent men because the society will not defend itself. There is a balance between protection and nonviolence. Some societies split by violence have people who will not be stopped by nonviolent behavior.

Eating animals requires feeding animals, and the conversion factor by weight and by calories and by water use and by land use all show that the least amount of resources are used when no animals are kept for food. A polity can still stop the predatory people without using violence.

Not really. Pacifism fixes nothing.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Not really. Pacifism fixes nothing.

And war produces nothing.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not really. Pacifism fixes nothing.

And war produces nothing.

Idk man war and other forms of national struggle or competition has pretty universally been linked to rapid advancements in all sorts of things.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Not really. Pacifism fixes nothing.

And war produces nothing.

We got tech

[Ifreann]

Having a gun in your house isn't going to do much to prevent crime.

And not having a gun in your house opens the flood gates for you to get robbed

No it doesn't. Most people don't own guns and also don't get robbed. Honestly, you're acting like a gun is a magic totem that repels crime.

I mean some people have kinks for liking getting their stuff stolen I'm not one to judge if you so choose that route but don't go out and force people what they can and cannot do

I didn't say anything about what people can or cannot do, I just pointed out that guns don't magically prevent crime.

especially when it comes to saving lives or loved ones and we all know guns save lives.

Mostly guns sit around gathering dust.

---

Why would you need to reload?

I might be a shit shot in a stressful situation

You probably would be, like most people, but I don't see how it's remotely likely that you would need to hit your shots to resolve the situation.

[UniversalCommons]

Some people say taxation is robbery. However, if you don't pay a decent amount of taxes to your police in your neighborhood you are more likely to get robbed. Robbery is directly related to two things your taxes and your ethnicity or race. The combination of racism and taxes determines how likely you are to get robbed. It has a lot less to do with whether or not you have a firearm. Surprisingly, there is little information on this idea which I can find. The two are often described separately. Another big factor is if the neighborhood is looking out after itself, not just you but everyone around you is aware of what is happening.

[Kubra]

Some people say taxation is robbery. However, if you don't pay a decent amount of taxes to your police in your neighborhood you are more likely to get robbed. Robbery is directly related to two things your taxes and your ethnicity or race. The combination of racism and taxes determines how likely you are to get robbed. It has a lot less to do with whether or not you have a firearm. Surprisingly, there is little information on this idea which I can find. The two are often described separately. Another big factor is if the neighborhood is looking out after itself, not just you but everyone around you is aware of what is happening.

Man I want to meet someone in the street say taxation is robbery so I can say "nah that's not robbery, *this* is robbery!"

[Jebslund]

You probably would be, like most people, but I don't see how it's remotely likely that you would need to hit your shots to resolve the situation.

You clearly don't live in the ghetto, then. Plenty of people here used to being shot at and used to shooting back.

In short, "a gun in every home" means that any mug who can't afford a gun to commit crimes with, can get one by committing a burglary.

But there is a golden path: own one gun, and take it with you everywhere. Displayed, so everyone is aware of the risk you pose by your presence. And all government buildings, or private buildings declaring No Guns, must provide safe storage of guns at the door.

Impossible? No. Just reinterpret the words "keep and bear" as exclusive. No bearing of illegal ("kept") firearms. No leaving at home or in your car ... you own only those guns which you always bear. At the very least this would limit the number of guns one person can own.

... This has got to be THE stupidest "solution" to gun violence I've ever heard. Displaying a firearm is not the deterrent you think it is, nor do you pose a risk just by having one on your hip. The idea of only owning a firearm you have on your person is so full of holes it has more air than a bag of chips. And the idea that everyone would just go along with such a thing is absurd. An outright ban has more merit than this idea.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

In short, "a gun in every home" means that any mug who can't afford a gun to commit crimes with, can get one by committing a burglary.

But there is a golden path: own one gun, and take it with you everywhere. Displayed, so everyone is aware of the risk you pose by your presence. And all government buildings, or private buildings declaring No Guns, must provide safe storage of guns at the door.

Impossible? No. Just reinterpret the words "keep and bear" as exclusive. No bearing of illegal ("kept") firearms. No leaving at home or in your car ... you own only those guns which you always bear. At the very least this would limit the number of guns one person can own.

... This has got to be THE stupidest "solution" to gun violence I've ever heard. Displaying a firearm is not the deterrent you think it is, nor do you pose a risk just by having one on your hip. The idea of only owning a firearm you have on your person is so full of holes it has more air than a bag of chips. And the idea that everyone would just go along with such a thing is absurd. An outright ban has more merit than this idea.

Good. Five insubstantial dismissals, huffing and puffing like you're about to deliver the most crushing argument ever ... and in the end nothing ... lets me know I'm busting some assumptions.

I shall develop this argument further. Criminals obtaining guns by burglary would be impossible, if gun owners had to take their gun with them every time they left the house. And let's toughen up "leave your guns at the door" since there's no real need for citizens to enter a public office in these times. Have a secure disposal bin at the door instead. Of course, designated private property could also be "no more gun" zones.

I will also double down on open carry or no carry. A "hidden deterrent" to crime is cowardly, because it leads armed criminals to treat everyone as if they might be armed ... that is, shoot first ... for the safety of the concealed carrier. The specious assumption that gun carriers will defend strangers as readily as they defend themselves, is something I could be persuaded on. If you have any, y'know, what-do-you-call-them ...

[UniversalCommons]

You could always make dueling legal so it would be unsafe to not carry a gun or be ready to have a second duel for you. Every gentleperson would carry a pistol or a knife if they were challenged. There would be a number of choices, first blood with the knife, first draw with the gun, as well as the option of having a second fight for you.

[Ifreann]

You probably would be, like most people, but I don't see how it's remotely likely that you would need to hit your shots to resolve the situation.

You clearly don't live in the ghetto, then. Plenty of people here used to being shot at and used to shooting back.

The poster I'm speaking to lives, I believe, in Australia. Not "the ghetto".

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

You could always make dueling legal so it would be unsafe to not carry a gun or be ready to have a second duel for you. Every gentleperson would carry a pistol or a knife if they were challenged. There would be a number of choices, first blood with the knife, first draw with the gun, as well as the option of having a second fight for you.

Rich people would get about with a "second" ie bodyguard. In fact all of society would be stratified into those who could afford a bodyguard, and those who had to be very careful and polite all the time.

It does put a new twist on "criminals will always have guns". Just replace "gun" with "gunsel".