• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do firearms empower people?

Do firearms empower people?


  • Total voters
    52
Mostly they just make cowardly people less afraid(but only slightly, they still live in fear), and people with small penises feel less inadequate.

Would it be "cowardly" for a 90 pound female to brandish/use a firearm to try defending her life against a 250 pound assailant? Were she not armed, would it be an act of "cowardice" for an armed, 120 pound, 'inadequate' male to come to her aid?
 
How much power a person has should be based on how much power their guns have.

Power factors of basic rounds:

.308 or 7.62X52 rifle is 420 per round

.45 ACP pistol is about 93 per round

.22 long rifle is about 4 per round

So a person with a .308 battle rifle with 20 rounds would be empowered at a factor of 8,400.

And a person with an 8 round .45 Colt Gov Model would be at 744

And a person with a 25 round .22 rifle would only be at 100.
 
Last edited:
This exchange comes from one of my favorite movies:


Yeah, I think a lot of people feel that way. I think a lot of people would react completely differently if they didn't have a gun. I'm not pigeon-holing all gun owners like this, but I think that, for some people, owning a gun gives them this feeling that they can do anything, and can get away with anything.

Yeah, like guys who suffer from Small Man Syndrome or were born into wealth. As you said though, it does not reflect all gun owners. And you're right, I would, and have, act differently depending on whether I was armed or not. That's just common sense. Like, say you're in a situation that if you had a gun you'd feel better about your chances of survival, wouldn't you like to feel confidence in that kind of situation or be crushed by the realization of, "Hey, I'm going to die." Having friends that can ran faster than your opposition is always a good thing to have in this Machiavellian world.
 
How much power a person has should be based on how much power their guns have.

Power factors of basic rounds:

.308 or 7.62X52 rifle is 420 per round

.45 ACP pistol is about 93 per round

.22 long rifle is about 4 per round

So a person with a .308 battle rifle with 20 rounds would be empowered at a factor of 8,400.

And a person with an 8 round .45 Colt Gov Model would be at 744

And a person with a 25 round .22 rifle would only be at 100.

No, not really. The size of the bullet doesn't really matter if it hits the person in the right spot. A .22 will kill a man just as dead as a 7.62 or an HE round from a M198 howitzer.
 
No, not really. The size of the bullet doesn't really matter if it hits the person in the right spot. A .22 will kill a man just as dead as a 7.62 or an HE round from a M198 howitzer.

Thats a bit of an oversimplification. Yes, hitting vital tissue is what determines lethality, but the more vital tissue hit with the greatest capacity to expend that energy in vital tissue-the greaters the lethality.
 
No, not really. The size of the bullet doesn't really matter if it hits the person in the right spot. A .22 will kill a man just as dead as a 7.62 or an HE round from a M198 howitzer.

You're right than even a .22 can kill even a giant polar bear, if hit just right. And having a .22 rifle or pistol is going to "empower" a person far than someone with a bow and arrow (Rambo excluded:).

But---one doesn't need to be a very bright person to know what is adequate to bring down or stop a human being. A "raging beast" on certain narcotics can be hit dozens of times and still not die. A strong person on an adrenaline high can be shot through the heart and still fight on for 10 seconds.

I can simply rely on the thinking of every single modern police force and military on the earth. None use .22 long rifles or similar weak rounds as their standard issue carry weapons.

Sorry, but size does matter.
 
Thats a bit of an oversimplification. Yes, hitting vital tissue is what determines lethality, but the more vital tissue hit with the greatest capacity to expend that energy in vital tissue-the greaters the lethality.

Head shot FTW!
 
You're right than even a .22 can kill even a giant polar bear, if hit just right. And having a .22 rifle or pistol is going to "empower" a person far than someone with a bow and arrow (Rambo excluded:).

But---one doesn't need to be a very bright person to know what is adequate to bring down or stop a human being. A "raging beast" on certain narcotics can be hit dozens of times and still not die. A strong person on an adrenaline high can be shot through the heart and still fight on for 10 seconds.

I can simply rely on the thinking of every single modern police force and military on the earth. None use .22 long rifles or similar weak rounds as their standard issue carry weapons.

Sorry, but size does matter.

Of course the police do not use .22, nevertheless, a head shot will bring a man down. Tis all I'm saying.
 
No, not really. They are a means to give one's self the illusion of the ability to resist it. Small, sharp rocks provide the same ability to actually resist it.

So, lets say I get held up at knife point. I pull out a gun. This just gives me the illusion I can resist?? That knife would be your small sharp rock. I think I'll take my chances with the gun without any illusion at all.
 
So, lets say I get held up at knife point. I pull out a gun. This just gives me the illusion I can resist?? That knife would be your small sharp rock. I think I'll take my chances with the gun without any illusion at all.

I think you missed the context of the quoted post. The keyword in the exchange was "tyranny".

But thank you for illustrating the point I was making about resisting tyranny. In your "knife-point mugging" scenario, the people are the knife-wielders and the tyrannical government is the one armed with a gun. The knife wielder has no realistic chance in such a scenario, just as the people have no realistic chance of defeating a tyrannical US government. We can come up with all of the absurd hypotheticals we want, but 99,999,999 times out of 100,000,000 the knife-wielder gets ****ed in your scenario, just like how the people would get ****ed if the US government ever truly became a tyrannical one (i.e. when the word "tyranny" is used as something other than hyperbolic drivel).
 
How does creating a "rebuttal" about something entirely different from what I've actually been saying count as "owning" me?
It was not "about something entirely different from what I've actually been saying" as you allude to here_

I merely adjusted it to help make my point Tuck; which is something we all do occasionally, including you_

To give an example, the whole Bundy ranch thing. If we actually had a tyrannical government, all of the people involved in the "resistance" would have been smoking husks at the bottom of a crater.
Which would have further flamed the growing mistrust of government in much the same way as the 1993 Waco Massacre_

We don't actually have a tyrannical government, though, so they were able to give the illusion of resisting a mythical tyranny with their guns.
I agree that we do not yet have a full blown tyranny; but for how long_

Government has and still does institute laws and loopholes to help protect itself from accountability_

It barricades the electoral system to deter political opposition and protect its entrenched power structure_

It uses powerful government agencies to harass and punish dissent and instill fear into the mainstream_

The ever-growing government's increasing regulations and assaults on our liberties suggests we're heading towards tyrrany_

You can't be sufficiently armed to resist a tyrannical government in this country because our government, should it ever decide to become tyrannical, is always going to be armed significantly better than the resistance.

But if the government made the shift to tyranny without splitting up, any armed resistance by the people would be futile due to the disproportion of armament.*
Like most people cursed with a liberal thought pattern you deny and/or ignore pertinent information to form a conclusion_

First; you ignored the fact of how many armed citizens there actually are in the United States__Literally millions_

Second; the great majority are right-leaning; which adds up potentially to the largest armed fighting force on earth_

Third; 50% to 70% of the Military would eventually join the resistance once realized they're killing family, friends and neighbors_

Being a liberal-minded thinker you're unable get your mind outside the box long enough to see the big picture_

Only a true civil war, where the government splits fairly evenly and both sides take along the weaponry the government possesses, would allow a chance for victory from the "resistance" side.

In that case, it wouldn't be resistance to tyranny, because the side that is considered tyrannical would not have enough authority (due to the split) in order to actually be tyrannical. It would only become a tyrannical government if it actually wins the civil war.
*(original placement)
Wow; just; wow__this conglomeration of your rationale is some of the most ridiculous mumbo-jumbo I've ever read_

You appear to be hopelessly disconnected from all reality and incapable of any reasoning whatsoever, Tuck!
 
It was not "about something entirely different from what I've actually been saying" as you allude to here_

I merely adjusted it to help make my point Tuck; which is something we all do occasionally, including you_

Which would have further flamed the growing mistrust of government in much the same way as the 1993 Waco Massacre_

I agree that we do not yet have a full blown tyranny; but for how long_

Government has and still does institute laws and loopholes to help protect itself from accountability_

It barricades the electoral system to deter political opposition and protect its entrenched power structure_

It uses powerful government agencies to harass and punish dissent and instill fear into the mainstream_

The ever-growing government's increasing regulations and assaults on our liberties suggests we're heading towards tyrrany_

Like most people cursed with a liberal thought pattern you deny and/or ignore pertinent information to form a conclusion_

First; you ignored the fact of how many armed citizens there actually are in the United States__Literally millions_

Second; the great majority are right-leaning; which adds up potentially to the largest armed fighting force on earth_

Third; 50% to 70% of the Military would eventually join the resistance once realized they're killing family, friends and neighbors_

Being a liberal-minded thinker you're unable get your mind outside the box long enough to see the big picture_

Wow; just; wow__this conglomeration of your rationale is some of the most ridiculous mumbo-jumbo I've ever read_

You appear to be hopelessly disconnected from all reality and incapable of any reasoning whatsoever, Tuck!

He's all tuckered out.

If there ever was an overthrow of the govt or a civil war I think he knows where he'd be and how it would turn out.
 
Which would have further flamed the growing mistrust of government in much the same way as the 1993 Waco Massacre_

Tyrannical governments do not give a flying **** about mistrust of the government. They are tyrannical.

I agree that we do not yet have a full blown tyranny; but for how long_

I agree that we do not yet have a full blown unicorn apocalypse, but for how long?
 
Most of the people who die "from guns" in the US do so because they have committed suicide.

Excluding cops or citizens killing perps in justified shoots, most other "gun deaths" in the US are thug-on-thug, and who really cares if a drug dealer shoots another drug dealer, as long as he doesn't miss.


Accidents are statistically rare. Law-abiding CCW types shooting someone in a fit of anger are rare, despite the media hyping those rare incidents.

80% or more of those murdered by gun cannot legally own one. Same with those who commit murders.
 
If there ever was an overthrow of the govt or a civil war I think he knows where he'd be and how it would turn out.

If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

There will be no overthrow of the government or civil war in out lifetimes or our children's lifetimes, or our grandchildren's lifetimes because there is no need for it.
 
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

There will be no overthrow of the government or civil war in out lifetimes or our children's lifetimes, or our grandchildren's lifetimes because there is no need for it.

Its remarkable that you can not only see the future but know why it will happen. Incredible, really.
 
Its remarkable that you can not only see the future but know why it will happen. Incredible, really.

It's easy to see because it only takes a simple analysis of the present and a moderate grasp of reality (that last bit might be hard for some, but you might be able to "fake it till you make it" on that).

How could an "overthrow" of the government occur? If enough people had enough firepower to overtake the firepower of the country that is more well armed than any otehr 10 countries combined. Since that will never happen, the government will never be overthrown.

And with regard to a civil war, if it didn't happen as a result of the Civil rights act, it ain't ever happening. That was an issue worth killing people over. The **** we deal with now? Typically a bunch of crybaby ******s being pissed off because they have no ****ing perspective on what real tyranny and suffering due to government is.
 
It's easy to see because it only takes a simple analysis of the present and a moderate grasp of reality (that last bit might be hard for some, but you might be able to "fake it till you make it" on that).

How could an "overthrow" of the government occur? If enough people had enough firepower to overtake the firepower of the country that is more well armed than any otehr 10 countries combined. Since that will never happen, the government will never be overthrown.

And with regard to a civil war, if it didn't happen as a result of the Civil rights act, it ain't ever happening. That was an issue worth killing people over. The **** we deal with now? Typically a bunch of crybaby ******s being pissed off because they have no ****ing perspective on what real tyranny and suffering due to government is.

I'd suggest a grasp of history might be more relevant. Part of the hubris of the left is in thinking they know exactly how things are, when history demonstrates otherwise. You can get wound up about knowing whats on the horizon but its a fools errand. What we know is good enough-govt tyranny happens, and guns play a pivotal role in reversing that equation.

If you want to double down on your myopic claims of knowing why people will do what they do from here out by all means continue, it makes my point-not yours.
 
I'd suggest a grasp of history might be more relevant. Part of the hubris of the left is in thinking they know exactly how things are, when history demonstrates otherwise. You can get wound up about knowing whats on the horizon but its a fools errand. What we know is good enough-govt tyranny happens, and guns play a pivotal role in reversing that equation.

If you want to double down on your myopic claims of knowing why people will do what they do from here out by all means continue, it makes my point-not yours.

I can see cases where wide spread civil unrest is possible. Looting, government crackdowns etcs. The actions of the Cops during Katrina was a brief glimpse.
 
Why are you babbling about the left?

probably because they are the source of all the idiotic violations of the Second and Tenth Amendment
 
probably because they are the source of all the idiotic violations of the Second and Tenth Amendment

He's babbling about the left in response to what I'm saying, though, which has nothing at all to do with violating the Second and Tenth amendments, as it is regarding the unrealistic and idiotic belief that a tyrannical regime can be overthrown due to the existence of the second amendment (hell, a tyrannical government could just round up and kill all of the gun owners if it wanted to, as it is a tyrannical government).

If your hypothesis is correct, it would mean that he has some serious issues maintaining his focus on the conversation and may, perhaps, have some sort of syndrome which causes derangement and therefore prevents him from engaging in an intelligent discussion without sounding like a lunatic.

Thus, I'll allow him to answer for himself.
 
Back
Top Bottom