this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
359 points (96.1% liked)
Greentext
6852 readers
281 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't this just a vicious cycle? You own a gun, because other people also have access to guns. The burglar might bring a gun, because the home owner possibly has a gun, etc
I don't own a gun, I am 100x more likely to use it on myself than need it for self defense where I'm at. But the scenario I'm describing, whether or not the home invader has a gun or not doesn't matter, the simple fact that they are invading your home in the first place justifies lethal force. You could be injured/killed by them even without them having a gun so the safest option for the resident is shoot them immediately. The resident should not have to accept any level of risk whatsoever in dealing with this situation. You're not getting a gun because someone might attack you with a gun. You're getting a gun because someone might attack you.
Kinda. It’s also a remnant of the old west. Guns were freedom, protection, power, etc.
It would be much more effective to curb crime by meeting everyone’s basic needs than giving everyone a gun.
But dumb Americans don’t know any other way. They are just too self-centered and absorbed to think about anyone else.
If crime is reduced by meeting everyone's needs, then it shouldn't matter whether people have guns or not. So let's have strong social safety nets and quit pissing people off by taking away their hobbies and property.