Deflating DaBugge's bloated ego


The lunatic with the gun would end up shooting himself after a few minutes of verbally tangling with ombugge. duh!


Yes I have had the “privilege” of carrying a gun. As a PO in the Norwegian Navy. I was also required to fire a certain number of rounds per quarter, but I let the Gunner do that for me, against cleaning the gun.
How to protect myself a lunatic?? Call 112. The lunatic is not likely to carry a gun either.

Let me ask you how your theory work; If you carry a gun for protection then you would be able to shoot anybody with a gun that threatened you before he shot you, right??

If that was the case then, in you ideal world of EVERYBODY carrying guns, there would soon not be any crooks with guns alive, right??


A “privilege” is not a right. You have never had the right to bear arms, ever.

As per Webster:

Right: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

Privilege: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor

I have this right. You don’t and never will. In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the “Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Since you’ve never had this right, clearly don’t want it, and definitely don’t understand it (neither to most of your euro-globalist brethren) there’s no sense in discussing it further.


Just wondering how many of you guys have actually ever used your guns to defend yourselves. I asked this once on a US boating website and it seems like very few actually had.


That’s not something your likely to get an answer to. The ones that have (admitted few) will be reluctant to document it in any fashion unless it was officially done so somewhere else.


“Privilege”, “right to”, “required to”, it’s all the same to me.
I don’t WANT to, whether because I have RIGHT to, or not.

Most people in the world prefer NOT to feel they have to carry a gun to protect themselves at all.
If you feel that having the right to carry a gun is FREEDOM, then you have your freedom and we will enjoy our freedom and security, where we can feel free to live our lives without guns.

You never answered my direct question about how it can be that if every law abiding person carry a gun they will be able to always shoot first and hit ?

I can imagine a Theater full of people carrying guns and somebody let off a fire cracker.


None of those things are synonymous in language, theory or practice. I’ll chalk it up to English as your second language.

Now let’s move on.


I didn’t say it was the same in language, but it is the same to me whether I have the privilege, rigth, or are required to carry a gun. I still don’t want to feel I have to.

My English is second language, but I’m fairly familiar with it. How’s your second language??

Aggre, let’s move on.


You have a warped vision of life in America.

The great majority of Americans, in most of America, feel quite safe and do not find it necessary or advantageous to carry a gun. I know some people who have permits to carry, but most of them don’t actually carry routinely. I know a very small number of people who always carry.

Many Americans demand the right to carry, just as they demand the right to vote, but then don’t bother doing either. They just want to know that they have the right to do so.


I’m fully aware that there are places in the US were people don’t even lock their doors because they feel safe. They may have guns for hunting, or for target shooting BECAUSE THEY CAN.

But the argument here and everywhere else is; I have the right to carry a gun to protect myself and my family.

Some even argues that more guns makes the world a safer place. I respectfully beg to differ.
Just look at the statistics of death by guns in countries with liberal, or non-enforced, gun laws and those with stricter laws.

Now, let’s move on.


Statistically, the more civilians own guns in an area the safer that area is (in the US). Criminals will flat out tell you that they are terrified of the possibility that the homeowner (or other victim) might have a gun. The areas where more people own guns see less crime and the areas where more people carry them see even less.

The “Wild West”, despite what movies lead people to believe, was an extremely safe and polite place largely because most people were armed most of the time.


So the solution used in other countries, where few have guns, are the better solution?
If the potential victims are unlikely to have guns, the criminals may not need to be “flat out terrified”, thus don’t have to be armed either?

Actually, that is how it works in many countries, but obviously not in USA. Could it have something to do with gun obsession and easy access to guns??


If they’re terrified they don’t burglarize the house. If they’re not terrified they do. Places like the UK have a higher violent crimes rate than in the US, even though they have lower gun deaths.



Why is this misperception widely believed in the US??. This has been discussed to death in social media, like this one:

Dispelling the Myth:


Thanks for proving my point with your link:


Your term was; “UK have a higher violent crimes rate than in the US”,

Cherry picking “facts” to suite your point is beneath you!!
Leave “alternative facts” to those who don’t know what real facts are. (Or care)


True, but the closest thing that chart had was “crime rate” so that’s what I used in my reply.


Did you read the detailed Debunking of the perception here:

There is a BIG gap in what is considered violent crimes in the UK and in USA.


Not sure why you folks are wasting your time. I’ll say it again

I came across this cool graphic. It appears the descendants of Skandinavians are in Minnesota are more innovative than Skandinavians themselves.



There are plenty of guns in Canada, but they have a much lower crime rate than the US.

Most people in Mexico don’t own guns, but the crime rate is probably the highest in the World.