Guns in society

Krazy: I don't think driving a tank in public is uncivilized. As long as you obey the speed limit and traffic rules.

Weapons are tools. They are dangerous and can kill people en masse, and they need to be respected as such.

A society where non-militant individuals are openly operating destructive weapons of war during routine civilian activities, is showing a disrespect for the weapon and their civilization.

Crow: Weapons are tools. They are dangerous and can kill people en masse, and they need to be respected as such.
Agreed.

A society where non-militant individuals are openly operating destructive weapons of war during routine civilian activities, is showing a disrespect for the weapon and their civilization
Disagreed.

It would be safer if everybody had a rifle or handgun everywhere they went. Nobody would steal from anybody or kill anybody out of anger. And those who would are considered suicidal.

Krazy: It would be safer if everybody had a rifle or handgun everywhere they went. Nobody would steal from anybody or kill anybody out of anger. And those who would are considered suicidal.

You are not even following the argument here. The point had nothing to do with safety, but respect and basic civility.

Also I disagree it would be universally safer. Gun control has had varying effects on violence from the civil population throughout history. There is more evidence to suggest that if people just had an assault rifle on them 100% of the time, there would be more emotionally prone crimes.

Most crimes are impulsive and not methodical, The sensible working class have every reason to be uneasy about people waving around weapons in public and in places of business.

Let's just reclarify the positions here. I am concerned that either position is or will be misrepresented.

You believe civilians should carry around military grade weapons throughout their civilian routines.

I believe civilians should be allowed equal access, but the notion of their possession becoming integrated in activities that do not necessitate violence, is irresponsible and uncivil.

Crow: Again, if a guy tried to commit a robbery or terrorist shooting where everyone around him had a gun ready, he would be quickly killed and the crime would be prevented or put to an end real quick. Or better yet, the fact that everybody had a gun would prevent him from committing a crime in the first place. I think that's obvious.

Crow: Recently on the news, there's a new story that one guy in Phoenix has committed 9 shootings. All of them within or near the Phoenix area. If everybody had a gun in public, he wouldn't even make it to the second shooting. In fact, it's likely he wouldn't even do the first one, in fear of being killed himself. But since hardly anybody brings a gun in public anymore, he goes out and does these multiple shootings because nobody's stopping him.

If everybody had a gun, he would be shot and killed on the spot in the first shooting, and it would've been over right there. Who knows how many people he injured and killed in those 9 shootings (and possibly more; we'll see how the story turns out as time passes).

You are not paying my arguments or my position any mind.

I told you I agree with the above over and over.

Are you daft, or not reading what I am writing?

Listen carefully - Military. Grade. Rifle. Civilian. Routines

Referring to these...







Not saying people should not have them, but they should be walking around work with them,

The current fear hype does not necessitate anything close to that. Sensible working class people would have every right to be concerned about them being used emotionally prone.

There is a distinction between a soldier and a civilian, and harms in carrying weapons of war into regular civilian routines.

Crow: Listen carefully - Military. Grade. Rifle. Civilian. Routines
I'm not interested in getting into a semantics debate. If everybody had "military-grade" rifles, they wouldn't be "military-grade".

What do you mean by "them being used emotionally prone"?

Krazy: I'm not interested in getting into a semantics debate. If everybody had "military-grade" rifles, they wouldn't be "military-grade".

It isn't a semantics argument, because ATM you are proposing people to walk around with what are currently classified as military-grade rifles into civilian routines.

What do you mean by "them being used emotionally prone"?

What do you think is going to happen when somebody gets in a heated domestic dispute carrying a 6 pound 700 RPM rifle assault rifle in a grocery store?

Almost all crimes are impulsive and not methodical.

Military grade assault rifles were not designed to be self defense weapons. They are not something sensible working class men and women should advocate for in public places or in businesses. They have a purpose, and that is for fighting wars, which sometimes civilians must do under no banner.

Unless you are fighting a war with your own people, then leave your AK-107 at home. The notion that 50,000 people all walking around in downtown Chicago with two hands on an assault rifle is ridiculous.

Crow: It isn't a semantics argument, because ATM you are proposing people to walk around with what are currently classified as military-grade rifles into civilian routines
You just argued semantically. If everybody had "military-grade" rifles, then they wouldn't be "military-grade". Your argument hinges on emotional language. "Military-grade". "Weapons of war". Okay, technically, a knife is a weapon of war. A handgun is a weapon of war. To then argue that you can't carry them in public is silly.

What do you think is going to happen when somebody gets in a heated domestic dispute carrying a 6 pound 700 RPM rifle assault rifle in a grocery store?
1. How is it a domestic dispute if it's in a grocery store?

2. You don't have to carry it. I would use a sling and have it on my backside pointed down.

3. Be more specific. What kind of "dispute"?

The notion that 50,000 people all walking around in downtown Chicago with two hands on an assault rifle is ridiculous
They wouldn't carry them with both hands. They would just use slings so that they can use their hands for their "civilian routines" as you put it.

Krazy: It would be better to live in a society without people carrying guns for everyone to see in public(militarized culture), and be relatively safe for people to live. We don't need a militarized society to be "safe".

A society that openly flaunts violence is not a society that values peace.

What I am getting out of the argument is a general disrespect for weapons and society.