A gun in every house is a must

[Iwassoclose]

The proliferation of guns in the conservative sphere is such that there is never going to be any meaningful law or disarmament attempt by the government.

At the current moment, we have a massive growth of right wing and a small amount of left wing militias armed to the teeth and have no shame in walking around and threatening people with guns in the public sphere.

I think that every household should be encouraged to be gun owners to make MAD a strategy domestically, not just externally. So that people will instead stop and think maybe its not a good idea to make threats about going and shooting someone.

What do you say?

[Sanghyeok]

And I thought some of my proposals were bad.

[Freiheit Reich]

The proliferation of guns in the conservative sphere is such that there is never going to be any meaningful law or disarmament attempt by the government.

At the current moment, we have a massive growth of right wing and a small amount of left wing militias armed to the teeth and have no shame in walking around and threatening people with guns in the public sphere.

I think that every household should be encouraged to be gun owners to make MAD a strategy domestically, not just externally. So that people will instead stop and think maybe its not a good idea to make threats about going and shooting someone.

What do you say?

It should be encouraged but not required. More gun safety classes could be offered without registration needed. We don't want to have lists of registered gun owners which could then be used against us (as Australia did).

'Red Dawn' (1984) is an important movie about the value of respecting rifles and being trained in knowing how to use them. You never know when you might be invaded (you may laugh but you forget that several European and Asian nations were invaded just a few years ago by nations long considered 'civilized.'

[Cordel One]

Not everyone's safe or trustworthy enough to have guns.

[Bombadil]

There's two rooms.

In both are 10 people and one sandwich, and you must choose which to enter for 3 days. The only difference is that in one everyone has guns and in the other no one has.

Which room do you choose?

[Iwassoclose]

Not everyone's safe or trustworthy enough to have guns.

...as opposed to how things are right now?

Clearly felons and people who have been diagnosed with mental illness shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Do it within the law that currently already exists.

There's two rooms.

In both are 10 people and one sandwich, and you must choose which to enter for 3 days. The only difference is that in one everyone has guns and in the other no one has.

Which room do you choose?

The one with the guns.

Its the equalizer.

[Cordel One]

Not everyone's safe or trustworthy enough to have guns.

...as opposed to how things are right now?

Clearly felons and people who have been diagnosed with mental illness shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Do it within the law that currently already exists.

The solution to armed crimes isn't giving out more guns, that just makes it worse.

[Iwassoclose]

...as opposed to how things are right now?

Clearly felons and people who have been diagnosed with mental illness shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Do it within the law that currently already exists.

The solution to armed crimes isn't giving out more guns, that just makes it worse.

Thats the thing. Its not a crime until they actually start shooting, by then its too late.

[Agarntrop]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin,_Utah

[El-Sallia]

Your intentions are pure, but I can't help but feel that there are disastrous risks that outweigh the benefits here.

[Galloism]

There's two rooms.

In both are 10 people and one sandwich, and you must choose which to enter for 3 days. The only difference is that in one everyone has guns and in the other no one has.

Which room do you choose?

Probably the one with guns. Seems more likely to lead to an equitable solution instead of a fight for food, given the threat to all if a fight starts in the other one.

[Bombadil]

There's two rooms.

In both are 10 people and one sandwich, and you must choose which to enter for 3 days. The only difference is that in one everyone has guns and in the other no one has.

Which room do you choose?

Probably the one with guns. Seems more likely to lead to an equitable solution instead of a fight for food, given the threat to all if a fight starts in the other one.

Given I don't know anyone in the room I've no way of knowing whether someone has the propensity to start shooting - I would absolutely choose the one with no guns.

[Nilokeras]

It sure is nice not having to live in the failed state that this thought experiment was birthed out of.

[Des-Bal]

There's two rooms.

In both are 10 people and one sandwich, and you must choose which to enter for 3 days. The only difference is that in one everyone has guns and in the other no one has.

Which room do you choose?

The one with none because if things get violent the room with guns is on equal footing and the room without guns will be run by the physically strong. I figure between women, the infirm, the old, and the young there's a solid chance that I'm tougher than many or even most people in the second room and therefore able to control them. That's the shitty thing about guns, they introduce a level of equality into situations where the strong could otherwise rule the weak.

[Disgraces]

Fuck no. All firearms should be banned, even from the police, and there should be a lot more cops patrolling the streets, both walking and travelling on them.

[Atheris]

Hooph. And I thought I'd seen all the bad takes on this site.

[Silvedania]

There's two rooms.

In both are 10 people and one sandwich, and you must choose which to enter for 3 days. The only difference is that in one everyone has guns and in the other no one has.

Which room do you choose?

The one without guns. We can be reasonable without killing eachother.

[Outer Bratorke]

You're all being foolish. I would not trust most people to use gun correctly (myself included), even when trained.

Swords on the other hand...

[Galloism]

Probably the one with guns. Seems more likely to lead to an equitable solution instead of a fight for food, given the threat to all if a fight starts in the other one.

Given I don't know anyone in the room I've no way of knowing whether someone has the propensity to start shooting - I would absolutely choose the one with no guns.

True, but if someone had a propensity for using violence to get what they want, everyone in the room is (roughly) of equal power in the gun room to oppose that, and 9 to 1 is good odds when everyone is of equal power. In the non gun room, the strong will rule the weak. In the gun room, there are no weak in a significant sense.

I prefer equality.

[Silvedania]

You're all being foolish. I would not trust most people to use gun correctly (myself included), even when trained.

Swords on the other hand...

Swords are less lethal but still dangerous.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Good take. I support this entirely.

[Bombadil]

There's two rooms.

In both are 10 people and one sandwich, and you must choose which to enter for 3 days. The only difference is that in one everyone has guns and in the other no one has.

Which room do you choose?

The one with none because if things get violent the room with guns is on equal footing and the room without guns will be run by the physically strong. I figure between women, the infirm, the old, and the young there's a solid chance that I'm tougher than many or even most people in the second room and therefore able to control them. That's the shitty thing about guns, they introduce a level of equality into situations where the strong could otherwise rule the weak.

I view that as a danger, I mean if the strongest person in the room decides to take the sandwich, fine, I can survive 3 days without eating.. but in a room where everyone's equal the opportunity for dispute is raised with deadly consequences.

[Deacarsia]

I strongly and wholeheartedly agree.

[Galloism]

The one with none because if things get violent the room with guns is on equal footing and the room without guns will be run by the physically strong. I figure between women, the infirm, the old, and the young there's a solid chance that I'm tougher than many or even most people in the second room and therefore able to control them. That's the shitty thing about guns, they introduce a level of equality into situations where the strong could otherwise rule the weak.

I view that as a danger, I mean if the strongest person in the room decides to take the sandwich, fine, I can survive 3 days without eating.. but in a room where everyone's equal the opportunity for dispute is raised with deadly consequences.

I mean, that’s basically the doctrine of appeasement in a nutshell.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

BASED.