Why are Americans so in love with guns?

[Mr Rager]

Why are people in Kanto so in love with Pokemon?

I just don't understand this "protect myself" culture. shyt makes zero sense to me. First of all, most of the people who own multiple Pokemon have never been in a situation that's extreme enough to need a pokemon in order to be safe. In fact, I think it works the other way around in most cases. Usually, when someone with a Pokemon gets into the type of confrontation where they would normally just walk away if they were not a Trainor , they escalate it because they now feel like they can intimidate the other party. People swear that making Pokemon illegal would not reduce Poke crime. They combat this with saying shyt like: "Rare Candies are illegal, but people still do them." Yeah, no shyt. People are chemically addicted to Rare Candies, so whether or not the shyt is legal really makes no difference. If there is a strong demand then there will also be a supply. Suggesting that it would be the same exact thing with Pokemon is fukking ridiculous, though. Look at Cerulean City, for instance, a city that is now notorious for its strict Pokemon laws. Is it not the safest big city in Kanto? I've honestly never met a single person with a legally owned Pokemon that has actually been Thundershocked, Vine Whipped, or was in any serious danger at any point in his life. Most of these people who claim that they need to protect themselves with Pokemon don't even live in the type of neighborhoods where that shyt would make any sense. Lol at living in Pallet Town and needing a fukking Charizard in your party. Also, there are those who are stupid enough to think that Pokemon will protect them against Team Rocket or the Elite Four How Brock? You open fire on Blaine and you might as well lose all your HP right after.

 

[fukkyalifestyle]

history shows when the people are disarmed tyrannical governments take over.

 

[intruder]

The way i see it... because they can afford them

 

[beenz]

after having my spot broke into multiple times over the years including once when I caught them in the joint while my daughter was with me, I made the decision right there and then that I'd never be in that kinda situation again where I don't have the ability to protect myself and my family by all means necessary

 

[beenz]

I say 7 I can think of

It has been mostly at these young dudes trying to make a come up in their set and thought I was going to be a easy target...

 

[Luke Cage]

history shows when the people are disarmed tyrannical governments take over.

If true....
That would imply that only tyrannical governments existed before guns were invented.
Obviously not the case, but I still believe people should own guns. I'm just against the paranoia arguments.
If you have a right to do something you should exercise it. Never take your rights for granted and never abuse them and you will keep those rights.

 

[fukkyalifestyle]

If true....
That would imply that only tyrannical governments existed before guns were invented.
Obviously not the case, but I still believe people should own guns. I'm just against the paranoia arguments.
If you have a right to do something you should exercise it. Never take your rights for granted and never abuse them and you will keep those rights.

Hitler, Mao, Stallin all took guns.

 

[fukkyalifestyle]

Matter of fact, look into Austriala and how and why they lost there guns. Look around world, people die everyday from weapons besides guns. We gonna ban butcher knifes? Ban McDonald's for making people fat?

 

[unit321]

I just don't understand this "protect myself" culture. shyt makes zero sense to me. First of all, most of the people who own multiple firearms have never been in a situation that's extreme enough to need a handgun in order to be safe. In fact, I think it works the other way around in most cases. Usually, when someone with a gun gets into the type of confrontation where they would normally just walk away if they were unarmed, they escalate it because they now feel like they can intimidate the other party. People swear that making guns illegal would not reduce gun crime. They combat this with saying shyt like: "Drugs are illegal, but people still do them." Yeah, no shyt. People are chemically addicted to drugs, so whether or not the shyt is legal really makes no difference. If there is a strong demand then there will also be a supply. Suggesting that it would be the same exact thing with guns is fukking ridiculous, though. Look at New York, for instance, a state that is now notorious for its strict firearm laws. Is it not the safest big city in America? I've honestly never met a single person with a legally owned gun that has actually been robbed, assaulted, or was in any serious danger at any point in his life. Most of these people who claim that they need to protect themselves with guns don't even live in the type of neighborhoods where that shyt would make any sense. Lol at living in the suburbs and needing a fukking arsenal in your closet. Also, there are those who are stupid enough to think that guns will protect them against cops or the government. How Sway? You open fire on a cop and you might as well shoot yourself in the head right after.

Well, so you are assuming that if someone has never experienced being a victim of criminal activity, they have no reason to fear its existence?

 

[Banned Account12]

Why are nikkas that dont live in Amerikkka so in love with Amerikkka?

 

[Drake is God]

god only knows

 

[Luke Cage]

Hitler, Mao, Stallin all took guns.

And? As I said four examples of gun bans by dictators doesn't really prove any correlation to gun crime.
Did people see increase robberies, kidnapping etc?

Just saying Hitler did this so it's bad is not a valid premise for an argument. Of course Hitler did many terrible terrible things. But I'm not going outlaw speed limits on highways just because it was illegal to go speeding under under the hitter regime.

You listed for dictators that outlawed weapons, what non dictatorships that did it? Like Taiwan?

Also gun control on assault weapons for everyone is not the same as taking away handguns from one specific race of people.

You always turn you argument into a sensationalized version of "they wanna make us defenseless and take away all our weapons."

No, you can still have an arsenal of semi automatic weapons and be perfectly fine. They just rightfully don't feel it's needed for every citizen to have tanks and grenades and nuclear deterrents to protect themselves from road rage incidents.

I own a Glock 19 a Glock 43 and a Mossberg 500. If that's enough for the average patrol cop to feel safe, then that's enough for me. And I'm not out here enforcing laws and shyt so I usually just carry the G43.

 

[samtalksradio]

I got a gun, because I'm in the hood son just in case these bytch ass nikkas try me you wouldn't understand until you around savages must of your life.

 

[cam>]

white ppl love guns bc they know blk ppl deserve revenge.

 

[Won Won]

Hitler, Mao, Stallin all took guns.

These "facts" are a half-truth at best and propoganda at worst.

The Germans made it illegal for Jews to own guns, ammo and stabbing weapons in the late 30s, while loosening regulations for everyone else, including lowering the age limit.

In fact gun laws were a hell of a lot looser during the Nazi regime than they were previously after WW1. You'd be hard-pressed to find a credible historian who believes Jews having guns would have done anything but hasten the inevitable.

As far as Mao...people can't seem to find the receipts, plus the populace at the time was too poor to be affected by gun laws. I'm also sure guns and other weapons were used in their 20 year civil war, so if they couldn't get it done then...