What I meant was that civilians, especially in WW2 had no chance to fight the army. When soldiers barge into town you can hardly put up a good defense against organised and trained enemies. So to have guns in case of a foreign invasion doesn't really fly in my opinion.

right, but when is the time to take up arms for your freedom? US gun rights are being reduced, but that doesnt call for an armed response.

Poland is passing undemocratic laws to increase the governments' power. What now? Riots without weapons would be acceptable, if those people had guns it would turn into a civil war.

When is the time to take up arms against the government? When did it happen before? I'm not saying it can't happen because it hasn't, but I'm having trouble imagining such a situation.

The US has 50 states, with all different cultures and stuff, but "Europe is bad for it?" what happened to our different cultures? All the SJW shit will resolve itself soon if not later. At least here rape is rape, court cases aren't reality shows and our application forms dont look like this picture It's from the UK, racist bastards

In the meanwhile I keep myself content with this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

You need guns to defend yourself from anyone who would pose a threat, generally speaking. This enemy could be other civilians, police and/or military, or foreign militaries. The whole point is that you can defend yourself and your rights from anyone who would seek to destroy them.

This includes Netherlands. You have already lost rights. Don't get me wrong, there is no government in the world that does not step out of line.It is just that europe is bad for it. I have seen many examples of people being legally persecuted for things like "hate speech".

You either have free speech or you don't. There are variable levels to how much free speech any one nation may lose, but generally speaking if you do not protect every instance of free speech, you are going to lose all of it.

My point was to make a comparison between the nature of war and occupation and the nature of violent attacks on an individual. I was trying to show you the similarities they have in that both involve 2 parties, one of which has control over the other. Shitty analogy maybe, but I am not talking about citizens on the frontlines(although there were french resistance fighters), nor am I talking about canadian civilians . It would have been Canadian soldiers.

What I meant was that civilians, especially in WW2 had no chance to fight the army. When soldiers barge into town you can hardly put up a good defense against organised and trained enemies. So to have guns in case of a foreign invasion doesn't really fly in my opinion.

right, but when is the time to take up arms for your freedom? US gun rights are being reduced, but that doesnt call for an armed response.

Poland is passing undemocratic laws to increase the governments' power. What now? Riots without weapons would be acceptable, if those people had guns it would turn into a civil war.

When is the time to take up arms against the government? When did it happen before? I'm not saying it can't happen because it hasn't, but I'm having trouble imagining such a situation.

The US has 50 states, with all different cultures and stuff, but "Europe is bad for it?" what happened to our different cultures? All the SJW shit will resolve itself soon if not later. At least here rape is rape, court cases aren't reality shows and our application forms dont look like this picture It's from the UK, racist bastards

In the meanwhile I keep myself content with this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

The Netherlands is likely quite low in crime, probably much lower than in the USA. Don't need statistics there since we agree. Not sure why you think that the goal of this is to reduce crime though.

Netherlands probably has the same laws all across the board, but the US is comprised of 50 states all with different laws, cultures, ethnic diversities, economies, and geographical conditions. To lump the entire US into the same bowl is silly.

States bordering mexico have to deal with the problems that come from the drug trade. The drug trade produces crime, so guns get used. This has nothing to do with the guns, and everything to do with the crime.

To put things into perspective, take a look at this website, especially the part about the UK since it is somewhat comparable to the Netherlands.
americangunfacts.com/

Don't forget, self defense includes defending yourself from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. That includes the government. If you want rights, you should be willing to kill and die for them

. I am Canadian by the way, but Americans did not get their rights because their ancestors laid down and accepted whatever their governing body shoved up their asses. They have those rights because at one point in time, someone said "enough is enough" and decided to fight back.

I remember a little thing about the Netherlands being under German control until Canada helped.

Perhaps you should look at the history of your country's occupation if you want a good look at what can happen when a nation is is brought to its knees by someone with little regard for its citizens.

You need guns to defend yourself from anyone who would pose a threat, generally speaking. This enemy could be other civilians, police and/or military, or foreign militaries. The whole point is that you can defend yourself and your rights from anyone who would seek to destroy them.

This includes Netherlands. You have already lost rights. Don't get me wrong, there is no government in the world that does not step out of line.It is just that europe is bad for it. I have seen many examples of people being legally persecuted for things like "hate speech".

You either have free speech or you don't. There are variable levels to how much free speech any one nation may lose, but generally speaking if you do not protect every instance of free speech, you are going to lose all of it.

My point was to make a comparison between the nature of war and occupation and the nature of violent attacks on an individual. I was trying to show you the similarities they have in that both involve 2 parties, one of which has control over the other. Shitty analogy maybe, but I am not talking about citizens on the frontlines(although there were french resistance fighters), nor am I talking about canadian civilians . It would have been Canadian soldiers.

What I meant was that civilians, especially in WW2 had no chance to fight the army. When soldiers barge into town you can hardly put up a good defense against organised and trained enemies. So to have guns in case of a foreign invasion doesn't really fly in my opinion.

right, but when is the time to take up arms for your freedom? US gun rights are being reduced, but that doesnt call for an armed response.

Poland is passing undemocratic laws to increase the governments' power. What now? Riots without weapons would be acceptable, if those people had guns it would turn into a civil war.

When is the time to take up arms against the government? When did it happen before? I'm not saying it can't happen because it hasn't, but I'm having trouble imagining such a situation.

The US has 50 states, with all different cultures and stuff, but "Europe is bad for it?" what happened to our different cultures? All the SJW shit will resolve itself soon if not later. At least here rape is rape, court cases aren't reality shows and our application forms dont look like this picture It's from the UK, racist bastards

In the meanwhile I keep myself content with this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

.....How about you let me know where "here" is? Would help a lot.

The Netherlands is likely quite low in crime, probably much lower than in the USA. Don't need statistics there since we agree. Not sure why you think that the goal of this is to reduce crime though.

Netherlands probably has the same laws all across the board, but the US is comprised of 50 states all with different laws, cultures, ethnic diversities, economies, and geographical conditions. To lump the entire US into the same bowl is silly.

States bordering mexico have to deal with the problems that come from the drug trade. The drug trade produces crime, so guns get used. This has nothing to do with the guns, and everything to do with the crime.

To put things into perspective, take a look at this website, especially the part about the UK since it is somewhat comparable to the Netherlands.
americangunfacts.com/

Don't forget, self defense includes defending yourself from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. That includes the government. If you want rights, you should be willing to kill and die for them

. I am Canadian by the way, but Americans did not get their rights because their ancestors laid down and accepted whatever their governing body shoved up their asses. They have those rights because at one point in time, someone said "enough is enough" and decided to fight back.

I remember a little thing about the Netherlands being under German control until Canada helped.

Perhaps you should look at the history of your country's occupation if you want a good look at what can happen when a nation is is brought to its knees by someone with little regard for its citizens.

You need guns to defend yourself from anyone who would pose a threat, generally speaking. This enemy could be other civilians, police and/or military, or foreign militaries. The whole point is that you can defend yourself and your rights from anyone who would seek to destroy them.

This includes Netherlands. You have already lost rights. Don't get me wrong, there is no government in the world that does not step out of line.It is just that europe is bad for it. I have seen many examples of people being legally persecuted for things like "hate speech".

You either have free speech or you don't. There are variable levels to how much free speech any one nation may lose, but generally speaking if you do not protect every instance of free speech, you are going to lose all of it.

My point was to make a comparison between the nature of war and occupation and the nature of violent attacks on an individual. I was trying to show you the similarities they have in that both involve 2 parties, one of which has control over the other. Shitty analogy maybe, but I am not talking about citizens on the frontlines(although there were french resistance fighters), nor am I talking about canadian civilians . It would have been Canadian soldiers.

What I meant was that civilians, especially in WW2 had no chance to fight the army. When soldiers barge into town you can hardly put up a good defense against organised and trained enemies. So to have guns in case of a foreign invasion doesn't really fly in my opinion.

right, but when is the time to take up arms for your freedom? US gun rights are being reduced, but that doesnt call for an armed response.

Poland is passing undemocratic laws to increase the governments' power. What now? Riots without weapons would be acceptable, if those people had guns it would turn into a civil war.

When is the time to take up arms against the government? When did it happen before? I'm not saying it can't happen because it hasn't, but I'm having trouble imagining such a situation.

The US has 50 states, with all different cultures and stuff, but "Europe is bad for it?" what happened to our different cultures? All the SJW shit will resolve itself soon if not later. At least here rape is rape, court cases aren't reality shows and our application forms dont look like this picture It's from the UK, racist bastards

In the meanwhile I keep myself content with this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

You're hitting on one of my thoughts on this whole thing fairly well, I'm just not afraid of getting mugged/broken into, it's never happened to me or anyone I know. I've lived at home and am currently studying and have never felt intimidated or threatened in either location. I don't know how to fix the issues in the US, better background checks and forcing people to get permits or the equivalent seems like it makes sense, but the gun lobby I'm sure would argue that goes against the wording of the 2nd amendment. Guns are fun, I get that, I've hunted and stuff, that's good fun, but I'd never want to have one in my house, there's more risk there than me getting attacked, and even in a crisis I really doubt I could kill someone honestly.

That is the problem right there. That is the root of it.

"the government will protect us" "the government just wants to help" "just call the police"

Every second arguing people so fucking vapid and disassociated from reality is wasted, but I like to waste time, so here I am.

Think about this. Every single crime. Every single rape, every mugging, every assault, every theft, every murder, every one, was a crime that was not prevented. Yet you still claim to this blanket of "feel good" thinking that somehow, even though you personally don't find yourself in danger with any frequency, everyone should be disarmed. How the fuck do you get from "hey, I don't think I will ever need a gun, so I won't bother" to "hey, I don't think I will ever need a gun, so no one can have any. No one except this one specific group of people"

Don't want a gun? Fine. Don't turn the rest of us into victims just because you are sheltered from all of the harm in the world. And don't turn the rest of us into victims just because you think the average person is functioning retard with no comprehension of proper firearm usage.

I am starting to feel like you actually are ok with someone helping themselves to your wife, you little cuckboi

.....How about you let me know where "here" is? Would help a lot.

The Netherlands is likely quite low in crime, probably much lower than in the USA. Don't need statistics there since we agree. Not sure why you think that the goal of this is to reduce crime though.

Netherlands probably has the same laws all across the board, but the US is comprised of 50 states all with different laws, cultures, ethnic diversities, economies, and geographical conditions. To lump the entire US into the same bowl is silly.

States bordering mexico have to deal with the problems that come from the drug trade. The drug trade produces crime, so guns get used. This has nothing to do with the guns, and everything to do with the crime.

To put things into perspective, take a look at this website, especially the part about the UK since it is somewhat comparable to the Netherlands.
americangunfacts.com/

Don't forget, self defense includes defending yourself from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. That includes the government. If you want rights, you should be willing to kill and die for them

. I am Canadian by the way, but Americans did not get their rights because their ancestors laid down and accepted whatever their governing body shoved up their asses. They have those rights because at one point in time, someone said "enough is enough" and decided to fight back.

I remember a little thing about the Netherlands being under German control until Canada helped.

Perhaps you should look at the history of your country's occupation if you want a good look at what can happen when a nation is is brought to its knees by someone with little regard for its citizens.

You need guns to defend yourself from anyone who would pose a threat, generally speaking. This enemy could be other civilians, police and/or military, or foreign militaries. The whole point is that you can defend yourself and your rights from anyone who would seek to destroy them.

This includes Netherlands. You have already lost rights. Don't get me wrong, there is no government in the world that does not step out of line.It is just that europe is bad for it. I have seen many examples of people being legally persecuted for things like "hate speech".

You either have free speech or you don't. There are variable levels to how much free speech any one nation may lose, but generally speaking if you do not protect every instance of free speech, you are going to lose all of it.

My point was to make a comparison between the nature of war and occupation and the nature of violent attacks on an individual. I was trying to show you the similarities they have in that both involve 2 parties, one of which has control over the other. Shitty analogy maybe, but I am not talking about citizens on the frontlines(although there were french resistance fighters), nor am I talking about canadian civilians . It would have been Canadian soldiers.

What I meant was that civilians, especially in WW2 had no chance to fight the army. When soldiers barge into town you can hardly put up a good defense against organised and trained enemies. So to have guns in case of a foreign invasion doesn't really fly in my opinion.

right, but when is the time to take up arms for your freedom? US gun rights are being reduced, but that doesnt call for an armed response.

Poland is passing undemocratic laws to increase the governments' power. What now? Riots without weapons would be acceptable, if those people had guns it would turn into a civil war.

When is the time to take up arms against the government? When did it happen before? I'm not saying it can't happen because it hasn't, but I'm having trouble imagining such a situation.

The US has 50 states, with all different cultures and stuff, but "Europe is bad for it?" what happened to our different cultures? All the SJW shit will resolve itself soon if not later. At least here rape is rape, court cases aren't reality shows and our application forms dont look like this picture It's from the UK, racist bastards

In the meanwhile I keep myself content with this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Have you tried taking a chill pill? It's just an internet argument.

So who's gonna protect my girlfriend if not me? Someone with a gun? because that would be a criminal. I hope they have visitation hours where he's going.

Anyway, I'm bad at explaining or I just don't know everything I need to know about this subject. What I do know is that our system is at the lower bound of criminal offenses, but pretty close to our neighbours. www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_rankings_country.jsp Its the Netherlands

Maybe when things go south we need guns. But we're not there yet

I am not angry, just thorough.

The whole point is that YOU are supposed to be the one to protect your girlfriend. And a gun is the best way to do that. If you think that just because some gets caught and goes to jail, that is somehow negates whatever they did in the first place, you should go get committed, because that is insane.

The whole point of having a gun is for when we NEED them. You have to have one before you need it obviously. And you don't even take into account government overreach. But that is something else entirely.

My original point still stands. You are responsible for your safety and for the safety of your family. Go buy a gun.

You're hitting on one of my thoughts on this whole thing fairly well, I'm just not afraid of getting mugged/broken into, it's never happened to me or anyone I know. I've lived at home and am currently studying and have never felt intimidated or threatened in either location. I don't know how to fix the issues in the US, better background checks and forcing people to get permits or the equivalent seems like it makes sense, but the gun lobby I'm sure would argue that goes against the wording of the 2nd amendment. Guns are fun, I get that, I've hunted and stuff, that's good fun, but I'd never want to have one in my house, there's more risk there than me getting attacked, and even in a crisis I really doubt I could kill someone honestly.

That is the problem right there. That is the root of it.

"the government will protect us" "the government just wants to help" "just call the police"

Every second arguing people so fucking vapid and disassociated from reality is wasted, but I like to waste time, so here I am.

Think about this. Every single crime. Every single rape, every mugging, every assault, every theft, every murder, every one, was a crime that was not prevented. Yet you still claim to this blanket of "feel good" thinking that somehow, even though you personally don't find yourself in danger with any frequency, everyone should be disarmed. How the fuck do you get from "hey, I don't think I will ever need a gun, so I won't bother" to "hey, I don't think I will ever need a gun, so no one can have any. No one except this one specific group of people"

Don't want a gun? Fine. Don't turn the rest of us into victims just because you are sheltered from all of the harm in the world. And don't turn the rest of us into victims just because you think the average person is functioning retard with no comprehension of proper firearm usage.

I am starting to feel like you actually are ok with someone helping themselves to your wife, you little cuckboi

.....How about you let me know where "here" is? Would help a lot.

The Netherlands is likely quite low in crime, probably much lower than in the USA. Don't need statistics there since we agree. Not sure why you think that the goal of this is to reduce crime though.

Netherlands probably has the same laws all across the board, but the US is comprised of 50 states all with different laws, cultures, ethnic diversities, economies, and geographical conditions. To lump the entire US into the same bowl is silly.

States bordering mexico have to deal with the problems that come from the drug trade. The drug trade produces crime, so guns get used. This has nothing to do with the guns, and everything to do with the crime.

To put things into perspective, take a look at this website, especially the part about the UK since it is somewhat comparable to the Netherlands.
americangunfacts.com/

Don't forget, self defense includes defending yourself from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. That includes the government. If you want rights, you should be willing to kill and die for them

. I am Canadian by the way, but Americans did not get their rights because their ancestors laid down and accepted whatever their governing body shoved up their asses. They have those rights because at one point in time, someone said "enough is enough" and decided to fight back.

I remember a little thing about the Netherlands being under German control until Canada helped.

Perhaps you should look at the history of your country's occupation if you want a good look at what can happen when a nation is is brought to its knees by someone with little regard for its citizens.

You need guns to defend yourself from anyone who would pose a threat, generally speaking. This enemy could be other civilians, police and/or military, or foreign militaries. The whole point is that you can defend yourself and your rights from anyone who would seek to destroy them.

This includes Netherlands. You have already lost rights. Don't get me wrong, there is no government in the world that does not step out of line.It is just that europe is bad for it. I have seen many examples of people being legally persecuted for things like "hate speech".

You either have free speech or you don't. There are variable levels to how much free speech any one nation may lose, but generally speaking if you do not protect every instance of free speech, you are going to lose all of it.

My point was to make a comparison between the nature of war and occupation and the nature of violent attacks on an individual. I was trying to show you the similarities they have in that both involve 2 parties, one of which has control over the other. Shitty analogy maybe, but I am not talking about citizens on the frontlines(although there were french resistance fighters), nor am I talking about canadian civilians . It would have been Canadian soldiers.

What I meant was that civilians, especially in WW2 had no chance to fight the army. When soldiers barge into town you can hardly put up a good defense against organised and trained enemies. So to have guns in case of a foreign invasion doesn't really fly in my opinion.

right, but when is the time to take up arms for your freedom? US gun rights are being reduced, but that doesnt call for an armed response.

Poland is passing undemocratic laws to increase the governments' power. What now? Riots without weapons would be acceptable, if those people had guns it would turn into a civil war.

When is the time to take up arms against the government? When did it happen before? I'm not saying it can't happen because it hasn't, but I'm having trouble imagining such a situation.

The US has 50 states, with all different cultures and stuff, but "Europe is bad for it?" what happened to our different cultures? All the SJW shit will resolve itself soon if not later. At least here rape is rape, court cases aren't reality shows and our application forms dont look like this picture It's from the UK, racist bastards

In the meanwhile I keep myself content with this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Holy shit, the assumptions are real.

First off, I did not say that people should not be trained. They should be, but even if they weren't, they have the right to take that risk. Why are you so quick to disregard the average citizen as someone too stupid to properly handle a firearm? Proper firearm discipline is easy to learn. To say that the average citizen cannot handle a gun is to say that the average citizen cannot drive a car, because proper firearm handling is literally much easier than handling a car.

I don't care if they often use guns or not. If I am getting mugged, or my house is getting broken into, if my family's like is in danger, I have the right to defend myself and my family. Like is not like some videogame where your strength is based on some simple fucking stats or weapons that you equip. Someone is in my house. I want to draw my gun on them and hold them there until police arrive and shoot them if they pose an immediate threat. How can I do that with a knife, or a baseball bat? How can elderly people or weaker people (your beautiful wife, for example) defend themselves if they do not have the strength to resist and overcome an attacker? I would rather be in a firefight than get gutted while some other nignog takes a turn at my wife and daughter. I dont need a gun to even the odds. I need a gun so that I control the odds. So that I am not at someone else's mercy. Someone who is already posing a threat to me. But how illogical of me., sorry.

I don't know where you live, but regardless, bad things can happen. The police cannot stop every crime, the police cannot be there when you wake up to thugs in your home, the police cannot be there when someone tries to mug you or rape you. You need quick, reliable defense in the moment, and that defense comes in the form of a gun.

I hope no one ever has to rely on you for their safety and well-being in a moment of danger, because they are going to be sorely let down. You owe it to yourself and to your loved ones to be able to provide a capable defense.

Have you tried taking a chill pill? It's just an internet argument.

So who's gonna protect my girlfriend if not me? Someone with a gun? because that would be a criminal. I hope they have visitation hours where he's going.

Anyway, I'm bad at explaining or I just don't know everything I need to know about this subject. What I do know is that our system is at the lower bound of criminal offenses, but pretty close to our neighbours. www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_rankings_country.jsp Its the Netherlands

Maybe when things go south we need guns. But we're not there yet

I am not angry, just thorough.

The whole point is that YOU are supposed to be the one to protect your girlfriend. And a gun is the best way to do that. If you think that just because some gets caught and goes to jail, that is somehow negates whatever they did in the first place, you should go get committed, because that is insane.

The whole point of having a gun is for when we NEED them. You have to have one before you need it obviously. And you don't even take into account government overreach. But that is something else entirely.

My original point still stands. You are responsible for your safety and for the safety of your family. Go buy a gun.

You're hitting on one of my thoughts on this whole thing fairly well, I'm just not afraid of getting mugged/broken into, it's never happened to me or anyone I know. I've lived at home and am currently studying and have never felt intimidated or threatened in either location. I don't know how to fix the issues in the US, better background checks and forcing people to get permits or the equivalent seems like it makes sense, but the gun lobby I'm sure would argue that goes against the wording of the 2nd amendment. Guns are fun, I get that, I've hunted and stuff, that's good fun, but I'd never want to have one in my house, there's more risk there than me getting attacked, and even in a crisis I really doubt I could kill someone honestly.

That is the problem right there. That is the root of it.

"the government will protect us" "the government just wants to help" "just call the police"

Every second arguing people so fucking vapid and disassociated from reality is wasted, but I like to waste time, so here I am.

Think about this. Every single crime. Every single rape, every mugging, every assault, every theft, every murder, every one, was a crime that was not prevented. Yet you still claim to this blanket of "feel good" thinking that somehow, even though you personally don't find yourself in danger with any frequency, everyone should be disarmed. How the fuck do you get from "hey, I don't think I will ever need a gun, so I won't bother" to "hey, I don't think I will ever need a gun, so no one can have any. No one except this one specific group of people"

Don't want a gun? Fine. Don't turn the rest of us into victims just because you are sheltered from all of the harm in the world. And don't turn the rest of us into victims just because you think the average person is functioning retard with no comprehension of proper firearm usage.

I am starting to feel like you actually are ok with someone helping themselves to your wife, you little cuckboi

.....How about you let me know where "here" is? Would help a lot.

The Netherlands is likely quite low in crime, probably much lower than in the USA. Don't need statistics there since we agree. Not sure why you think that the goal of this is to reduce crime though.

Netherlands probably has the same laws all across the board, but the US is comprised of 50 states all with different laws, cultures, ethnic diversities, economies, and geographical conditions. To lump the entire US into the same bowl is silly.

States bordering mexico have to deal with the problems that come from the drug trade. The drug trade produces crime, so guns get used. This has nothing to do with the guns, and everything to do with the crime.

To put things into perspective, take a look at this website, especially the part about the UK since it is somewhat comparable to the Netherlands.
americangunfacts.com/

Don't forget, self defense includes defending yourself from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. That includes the government. If you want rights, you should be willing to kill and die for them

. I am Canadian by the way, but Americans did not get their rights because their ancestors laid down and accepted whatever their governing body shoved up their asses. They have those rights because at one point in time, someone said "enough is enough" and decided to fight back.

I remember a little thing about the Netherlands being under German control until Canada helped.

Perhaps you should look at the history of your country's occupation if you want a good look at what can happen when a nation is is brought to its knees by someone with little regard for its citizens.

You need guns to defend yourself from anyone who would pose a threat, generally speaking. This enemy could be other civilians, police and/or military, or foreign militaries. The whole point is that you can defend yourself and your rights from anyone who would seek to destroy them.

This includes Netherlands. You have already lost rights. Don't get me wrong, there is no government in the world that does not step out of line.It is just that europe is bad for it. I have seen many examples of people being legally persecuted for things like "hate speech".

You either have free speech or you don't. There are variable levels to how much free speech any one nation may lose, but generally speaking if you do not protect every instance of free speech, you are going to lose all of it.

My point was to make a comparison between the nature of war and occupation and the nature of violent attacks on an individual. I was trying to show you the similarities they have in that both involve 2 parties, one of which has control over the other. Shitty analogy maybe, but I am not talking about citizens on the frontlines(although there were french resistance fighters), nor am I talking about canadian civilians . It would have been Canadian soldiers.

What I meant was that civilians, especially in WW2 had no chance to fight the army. When soldiers barge into town you can hardly put up a good defense against organised and trained enemies. So to have guns in case of a foreign invasion doesn't really fly in my opinion.

right, but when is the time to take up arms for your freedom? US gun rights are being reduced, but that doesnt call for an armed response.

Poland is passing undemocratic laws to increase the governments' power. What now? Riots without weapons would be acceptable, if those people had guns it would turn into a civil war.

When is the time to take up arms against the government? When did it happen before? I'm not saying it can't happen because it hasn't, but I'm having trouble imagining such a situation.

The US has 50 states, with all different cultures and stuff, but "Europe is bad for it?" what happened to our different cultures? All the SJW shit will resolve itself soon if not later. At least here rape is rape, court cases aren't reality shows and our application forms dont look like this picture It's from the UK, racist bastards

In the meanwhile I keep myself content with this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

You didn't answer mt question....

I think that private firearm ownership goes hand in hand with self-defense. Technically you can defend yourself without firearms, but a firearm is the best way of defending yourself. It is the equalizer. To me, if I have the right to self-defense (which everyone does), than I must also have the right to own firearms.

Holy shit, the assumptions are real.

First off, I did not say that people should not be trained. They should be, but even if they weren't, they have the right to take that risk. Why are you so quick to disregard the average citizen as someone too stupid to properly handle a firearm? Proper firearm discipline is easy to learn. To say that the average citizen cannot handle a gun is to say that the average citizen cannot drive a car, because proper firearm handling is literally much easier than handling a car.

I don't care if they often use guns or not. If I am getting mugged, or my house is getting broken into, if my family's like is in danger, I have the right to defend myself and my family. Like is not like some videogame where your strength is based on some simple fucking stats or weapons that you equip. Someone is in my house. I want to draw my gun on them and hold them there until police arrive and shoot them if they pose an immediate threat. How can I do that with a knife, or a baseball bat? How can elderly people or weaker people (your beautiful wife, for example) defend themselves if they do not have the strength to resist and overcome an attacker? I would rather be in a firefight than get gutted while some other nignog takes a turn at my wife and daughter. I dont need a gun to even the odds. I need a gun so that I control the odds. So that I am not at someone else's mercy. Someone who is already posing a threat to me. But how illogical of me., sorry.

I don't know where you live, but regardless, bad things can happen. The police cannot stop every crime, the police cannot be there when you wake up to thugs in your home, the police cannot be there when someone tries to mug you or rape you. You need quick, reliable defense in the moment, and that defense comes in the form of a gun.

I hope no one ever has to rely on you for their safety and well-being in a moment of danger, because they are going to be sorely let down. You owe it to yourself and to your loved ones to be able to provide a capable defense.

Have you tried taking a chill pill? It's just an internet argument.

So who's gonna protect my girlfriend if not me? Someone with a gun? because that would be a criminal. I hope they have visitation hours where he's going.

Anyway, I'm bad at explaining or I just don't know everything I need to know about this subject. What I do know is that our system is at the lower bound of criminal offenses, but pretty close to our neighbours. www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_rankings_country.jsp Its the Netherlands

Maybe when things go south we need guns. But we're not there yet

I am not angry, just thorough.

The whole point is that YOU are supposed to be the one to protect your girlfriend. And a gun is the best way to do that. If you think that just because some gets caught and goes to jail, that is somehow negates whatever they did in the first place, you should go get committed, because that is insane.

The whole point of having a gun is for when we NEED them. You have to have one before you need it obviously. And you don't even take into account government overreach. But that is something else entirely.

My original point still stands. You are responsible for your safety and for the safety of your family. Go buy a gun.

You're hitting on one of my thoughts on this whole thing fairly well, I'm just not afraid of getting mugged/broken into, it's never happened to me or anyone I know. I've lived at home and am currently studying and have never felt intimidated or threatened in either location. I don't know how to fix the issues in the US, better background checks and forcing people to get permits or the equivalent seems like it makes sense, but the gun lobby I'm sure would argue that goes against the wording of the 2nd amendment. Guns are fun, I get that, I've hunted and stuff, that's good fun, but I'd never want to have one in my house, there's more risk there than me getting attacked, and even in a crisis I really doubt I could kill someone honestly.

That is the problem right there. That is the root of it.

"the government will protect us" "the government just wants to help" "just call the police"

Every second arguing people so fucking vapid and disassociated from reality is wasted, but I like to waste time, so here I am.

Think about this. Every single crime. Every single rape, every mugging, every assault, every theft, every murder, every one, was a crime that was not prevented. Yet you still claim to this blanket of "feel good" thinking that somehow, even though you personally don't find yourself in danger with any frequency, everyone should be disarmed. How the fuck do you get from "hey, I don't think I will ever need a gun, so I won't bother" to "hey, I don't think I will ever need a gun, so no one can have any. No one except this one specific group of people"

Don't want a gun? Fine. Don't turn the rest of us into victims just because you are sheltered from all of the harm in the world. And don't turn the rest of us into victims just because you think the average person is functioning retard with no comprehension of proper firearm usage.

I am starting to feel like you actually are ok with someone helping themselves to your wife, you little cuckboi

.....How about you let me know where "here" is? Would help a lot.

The Netherlands is likely quite low in crime, probably much lower than in the USA. Don't need statistics there since we agree. Not sure why you think that the goal of this is to reduce crime though.

Netherlands probably has the same laws all across the board, but the US is comprised of 50 states all with different laws, cultures, ethnic diversities, economies, and geographical conditions. To lump the entire US into the same bowl is silly.

States bordering mexico have to deal with the problems that come from the drug trade. The drug trade produces crime, so guns get used. This has nothing to do with the guns, and everything to do with the crime.

To put things into perspective, take a look at this website, especially the part about the UK since it is somewhat comparable to the Netherlands.
americangunfacts.com/

Don't forget, self defense includes defending yourself from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. That includes the government. If you want rights, you should be willing to kill and die for them

. I am Canadian by the way, but Americans did not get their rights because their ancestors laid down and accepted whatever their governing body shoved up their asses. They have those rights because at one point in time, someone said "enough is enough" and decided to fight back.

I remember a little thing about the Netherlands being under German control until Canada helped.

Perhaps you should look at the history of your country's occupation if you want a good look at what can happen when a nation is is brought to its knees by someone with little regard for its citizens.

You need guns to defend yourself from anyone who would pose a threat, generally speaking. This enemy could be other civilians, police and/or military, or foreign militaries. The whole point is that you can defend yourself and your rights from anyone who would seek to destroy them.

This includes Netherlands. You have already lost rights. Don't get me wrong, there is no government in the world that does not step out of line.It is just that europe is bad for it. I have seen many examples of people being legally persecuted for things like "hate speech".

You either have free speech or you don't. There are variable levels to how much free speech any one nation may lose, but generally speaking if you do not protect every instance of free speech, you are going to lose all of it.

My point was to make a comparison between the nature of war and occupation and the nature of violent attacks on an individual. I was trying to show you the similarities they have in that both involve 2 parties, one of which has control over the other. Shitty analogy maybe, but I am not talking about citizens on the frontlines(although there were french resistance fighters), nor am I talking about canadian civilians . It would have been Canadian soldiers.

What I meant was that civilians, especially in WW2 had no chance to fight the army. When soldiers barge into town you can hardly put up a good defense against organised and trained enemies. So to have guns in case of a foreign invasion doesn't really fly in my opinion.

right, but when is the time to take up arms for your freedom? US gun rights are being reduced, but that doesnt call for an armed response.

Poland is passing undemocratic laws to increase the governments' power. What now? Riots without weapons would be acceptable, if those people had guns it would turn into a civil war.

When is the time to take up arms against the government? When did it happen before? I'm not saying it can't happen because it hasn't, but I'm having trouble imagining such a situation.

The US has 50 states, with all different cultures and stuff, but "Europe is bad for it?" what happened to our different cultures? All the SJW shit will resolve itself soon if not later. At least here rape is rape, court cases aren't reality shows and our application forms dont look like this picture It's from the UK, racist bastards

In the meanwhile I keep myself content with this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

If you had done just a little research, you would know these numbers are complete bogus because the British definition of violent crime is much, much. wider.

Considering that a bar fight counts, as opposed to being held at gunpoint, I'm gonna go with yes