Do you own any guns

[Audie]

Yes, but as we have gotten more civilised, we tend to need less of the more obvious ones that are designed to kill and mostly used to hunt animals or are used in warfare. The argument as to why the USA has so many weapons might appeal to so many other similar nations. Why don't they though?

"We" are more civilized?

I dont know what's your "need less".
There's a huge abundance of lethal
weapons everywhere.

Your "why don't they" applies to many
ways the USA is unique.

You present as understanding things like
solutions to social problems. You tell
me "why".

 

[Mock Turtle]

That is such a silly comment. You
surely don't take even yourself seriously

Hardly. Just look at what other nations have done. Are they all so silly? And perhaps look at the deaths in the USA related to guns.

 

[Audie]

Well there can't be a move from position A to position B without some drastic changes, and who says one has to get rid of all of the guns?

" Some drastic changes"

"Beware the social engineers",
is a lesson well taught in China,
whether or not everyone learned

 

[Mock Turtle]

"We" are more civilized?

I dont know what's your "need less".
There's a huge abundance of lethal
weapons everywhere.

Your "why don't they" applies to many
ways the USA is unique.

You present as understanding things like
solutions to social problems. You tell
me "why".

When about half of gun-owners have guns for protection, I think this means that something is wrong with that society. Especially when along with such fears comes the carnage in gun deaths.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well there can't be a move from position A to position B without some drastic changes, and who says one has to get rid of all of the guns?

The change from a society with threats & guns
to a society without both appears most unlikely.
But even if it were to happen some day, that
day hasn't arrived. I prefer to cope with the
reality we have, not with one imagined.

 

[Mock Turtle]

" Some drastic changes"

"Beware the social engineers",
is a lesson well taught in China,
whether or not everyone learned

Is that your benchmark - China? Why not much of Europe and elsewhere, given they have managed to transition away from such stupidity.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The change from a society with threats & guns
to a society without both appears most unlikely.
But even if it were to happen some day, that
day hasn't arrived. I prefer to cope with the
reality we have, not with one imagined.

So the other countries that don't have this are all barmy?

 

[Mock Turtle]

That is such a silly comment. You
surely don't take even yourself seriously

It is circular logic to have guns for protection because someone else has them.

 

[Revoltingest]

So the other countries that don't have this are all barmy?

Other countries have different histories, different
cultures, different constitutions, & different situations.
We shouldn't be blind to what is. Rather, consider it
when designing solutions to optimize our condition.
Banning & confiscation won't work here.
So I pursue useful & constitutional regulation, in
addition to addressing social & mental maladies.

 

[Audie]

When about half of gun-owners have guns for protection, I think this means that something is wrong with that society. Especially when along with such fears comes the carnage in gun deaths.

Some survey that found a percent stated that the
reasons for gun ownership includes self ptotection
does not mead there is somethig wrong with the society.

I won't suggest reasons for such a statement but
clear thinking is certainly not one of them.

People spend far far more on home insurance when the stakes a far lower.

But you go straight to it being " fears" for one, not the
other.

I won't analyze that for you, it's pretty obvious why.

Finally, you go straight from gun for protection, by
one such as I, to " carnage" that you say comes with it.
You consider that good clear thinking?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Other countries have different histories, different
cultures, different constitutions, & different situations.
We shouldn't be blind to what is. Rather, consider it
when designing solutions to optimize our condition.
So I pursue useful & constitutional regulation, in
addition to addressing social & mental maladies.

I understand this, and no doubt it was difficult for some countries to transition away from weapons being plentiful but it makes the most sense to be going in this direction - if one actually wanted to see the associated deaths become far less of a problem. I suspect it simply is the shorter history of the USA, and the nature of its growth as to why we have the current situation, and as to why there is such a huge lobby faction to keep the freedoms to own any.

 

[Audie]

It is circular logic to have guns for protection because someone else has them.

That is not circular logic.
It would be very clear thinking to be adequately
equipped to meet a threat.

The guy who attacked me did not have or
need any weapon. Being twice my size was
all he needed.
You sorry excuse for logic and proposed social
engineering would have me helpless to protect myself.

Lacking real world experience , this all comes so
easy for, analyze and prescribe, problem fixed.
As if.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand this, and no doubt it was difficult for some countries to transition away from weapons being plentiful but it makes the most sense to be going in this direction - if one actually wanted to see the associated deaths become far less of a problem. I suspect it simply is the shorter history of the USA, and the nature of its growth as to why we have the current situation, and as to why there is such a huge lobby faction to keep the freedoms to own any.

Why not improve gun regulation & social services?
Go for what's achievable to improve things, instead
of a dream that won't be realized.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Some survey that found a percent stated that the
reasons for gun ownership includes self ptotection
does not mead there is somethig wrong with the society.

I won't suggest reasons for such a statement but
clear thinking is certainly not one of them.

People spend far far more on home insurance when the stakes a far lower.

But you go straight to it being " fears" for one, not the
other.

I won't analyze that for you, it's pretty obvious why.

Finally, you go straight from gun for protection, by
one such as I, to " carnage" that you say comes with it.
You consider that good clear thinking?

My clear thinking is backed up by many professionals who have studied the situation in the USA and think it ludicrous. And so do many Americans.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That is not circular logic.
It would be very clear thinking to be adequately
equipped to meet a threat.

The guy who attacked me did not have or
need any weapon. Being twice my size was
all he needed.
You sorry excuse for logic and proposed social
engineering would have me helpless to protect myself.

Lacking real world experience , this all comes so
easy for, analyze and prescribe, problem fixed.
As if.

Of course it is circular logic, when the solution, as so many other nations have found out, is not to have so many weapons freely available, and hence you then have a much more normal situation where we still have violence, robberies and such, but they don't have all the associated silliness with mass killings and all the other 'accidents', like a child killing another child or a parent, or a child shooting a teacher. This is the circular logic when another solution is available - even if such is just too big a step for many currently.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is not circular logic.
It would be very clear thinking to be adequately
equipped to meet a threat.

The guy who attacked me did not have or
need any weapon. Being twice my size was
all he needed.
You sorry excuse for logic and proposed social
engineering would have me helpless to protect myself.

Lacking real world experience , this all comes so
easy for, analyze and prescribe, problem fixed.
As if.

But your being unable to defend yourself
benefitted others because you pose less
of a danger.
I find this rationalization troubling. It says
that being victimized is an acceptable price.

 

[Revoltingest]

My clear thinking is backed up by many professionals who have studied the situation in the USA and think it ludicrous. And so do many Americans.

Claiming un-named "professionals" with
un-linked studies isn't convincing.

 

[Audie]

Is that your benchmark - China? Why not much of Europe and elsewhere, given they have managed to transition away from such stupidity.

China is where I live.

I spoke of a lesson well learned but ignored by many.

Like you.

Your impression that countries in Europe and elsewhere have" transitioned away" from stupid social engineering,
you live in a dream world.

Ripe for social engineers to pluck.
Yiu are not just unwary, you advocate " drastic change".

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why not improve gun regulation & social services?
Go for what's achievable to improve things, instead
of a dream that won't be realized.

But it still does tend to be the number of weapons in circulation, and the availability that causes them to be used in situations not apparent in other nations. The issue really is as to how could you make the weapons to be made safe when there are so many of them and being used by quite a disparate demographic. It's not as if one needs an IQ test to buy one - if even that had any effect. And the same goes for all the proposals as to health care - such being an enormous undertaking and possibly leading the USA down the police state route. Which would an irony given that Americans seem to place so much on personal freedoms.

 

[Audie]

My clear thinking is backed up by many professionals who have studied the situation in the USA and think it ludicrous. And so do many Americans.

Not one example of your thinking is
clear or backed by anthing but your assertions.
Citing vague somebody's in reference to
nothing in particular is a good example
of what is NOT clear thinking.

Your claims are not even "thinking" at all,
you just say things.