Saryn

Is this true?

Oh yeah. There are tens of thousands of gun ranges throughout Europe. Hell, you can do crazy things at ranges owned by companies that provide shooting and combat training, like firing from a helicopter or learning to use an APC machine gun. These sorta services are available to any adult citizen that wants to use them (and can pay).

A very common type of visitor to USA gun ranges are tourists from other developed countries. I wouldn't expect this if these were equally accessible in other countries.

I mean, specific regulations and accessability will vary from one country to another, and I assume the same applies to US states. But in general - yes, shooting ranges are available at most any major town and city. Hunting is of course a different set of regulations but yeah absolutely you can hunt, assuming ofcourse you follow basic hunting laws.

I think the main difference comes down to culture. While gun ranges are readily available throughout Europe, I'm guessing the demand for them is significantly lower compared to the US, as is the demand for gun owning and using overall. And I believe the reason why is at the crux of the issue.

My guess is that a lot of tourists use gun ranges in the US because its "part of the experience", not because they don't have gun ranges back home. From a European perspective, and looking at google maps, seems like most Europeans have a gun range less than an hour drive away.

Edit: just to stress the point about how widely different things are compared to some US states. In Europe, you can shoot an AR-15 at a gun range (with proper training first) but you can't buy one, keep it in your car and go grocery shopping with it. I mean, I'm sure people and the police in the US won't be happy about you wandering around with an AR-15 but the fact that you can even do it is striking from a European perspective. And the fact that this activity is protected under the guise of "democracy" and "self-defence" makes it that much worse. Sure, the AR-15 might be an exxagerated examples (but only slightly) but the same applies for hand guns - it would be seen nearly the same way.

Seems to me like the only logical reason to own a gun in the US (unless, say, you use it professionally) is to defend against all the other people who own guns and might decide to use them for all sorts of reasons, including highly irrational ones. So we're back to the highly insidious cycle I mentioned before. There is only one way to stop the cycle and I don't see a logical reason why tougher gun laws haven't been enacted.

I think answer you're begging for here is "crime" or "violence against other humans"

Truthfully, I was thinking more along the lines of "identity", "entertainment" and "machoism". And while these often unfortunately do interesect with "crime" and "violence", I wouldn't think they were the primary reasons because I don't think that would be reflective of most people's actual attitudes and behaviours (regardless of nationality). I did not mean to imply that the dominant reason is "crime", lean on the stereotype of gun violence in the US or paint every gun owner as a psychopath. I can see how that might have been construed based on the way I wrote it. But I don't actually believe in any that.

My main point was that the actual reasons for both owning and using guns are not related to the reasoning of the 2nd amendment eventhough it is the law that makes all of this possible. And how could they be related - that reasoning is centuries old and simply nomlonger valid due to the way power is exercised in the 21st century.

The discussion of whether the reasons have more to do with crime or entertainment is an interesting one that I didn't really actually mean to touch on in my first comment because its kind of a side point to the main point I was making (though still obviously important). As you point out, and this seems to be corraborated by Pewpew, most Americans use their guns for the stated reasons of "go shooting" or "go hunting". Interestingly, you can hunt or go to a shooting range in most other developed countries and the fact they don't have an extensive right to bear arms enshrined in their constitution doesn't seem to be limiting that entertainment value. Nor has it impacted the ability of people in those countries to fight against tyranny. What it has done, however, is significantly limit gun violence, to the point where there are several hundred times more gun-related deaths in the US compared to Western European countries. Not even gonna mention countries with even tougher gun laws like Japan - the difference is staggering - in the thousands of times, at least according to the University of Washington.

Culture and ideology are the primary words here, I think. As the epistemological crisis deepens, I fear ideological violence will continue to rise, and guns will be a very combustible ingredient in that dynamic.

Again, did not mean to paint all gun owners as looney criminals. But the relationship to the culture of power is most definayely there and we should very much be afriad of those who use the notions of self-defence and democracy as a guise to enact their power fantasies, or even worse - as a tool of ideology and politics.

It's really weird to see people in the US from both the left and the right protect the 2nd amendment and see it as some sort of mechanism to protect against authoritarianism. In fact, weird is putting it lightly - it's actually kinda insane.

I'll spare you the whole debate format because I don't think there is any real arguing with the science and statistics behind the mass spread and use of guns in the US. I also don't think there is any stopping the gun culture in the current paradigm because the dogma behind it has been parrotted and regurgated so much that it's basically part of the nation's psyche.

Guns only matter as much as the ideas of the people carrying them. Most guns in the US are not used for self-defence or to protect against government overreach, are they? When it comes down to it those are not the real reasonS why most people buy and use guns, are they? They sure make it easy though, not just to buy and use but also to rationalize and justify violence and killings.

Fighting fire with fire creates an inferno. You're not going to put out the fire with more fire. You're just gonna make it worse and feel self-righteous while doing it, creating an insidious cycle of violence.

It's the 21st century. The name of the game is cognitive warfare and liberty-loving people are losing badly. Guns won't change that.

Regular GTX 1080 here. Running Space Marine 2 at 60 fps on 1080p on mid-ish settings. And that's basically the most graphics-intensive games I've played recently. Games like Total Warhammer 3, Dark Deity 2, Factorio or Heroes of the Storm don't care about the GPU and play great at 1080p.

Speaking of, what is the next best cost-efficient GOAT in the generations that followed the GTX 10 series? I'm gonna be needing a new GOAT at some point in the future - would love to hear recommendations.

Pretty sure they were being sarcastic

Not sure where you're from but since you were talking about Europe: IDs are mandatory throughout most (but not all) of the EU, as well as in most non-EU countries.

In my EU country, you could get a new ID in as little as a couple of days if you are willing to pay the extra fees which are actually not at all that much. You also have to pay if you lose your ID thiugh this sum is also not that much.

That's the hope. But what if there is an event horizon beyond which that hope is lost forever. Are we even in control of ourselves?

I think you're right - to an extent. You may not deserve this. Americans might not deserve this. Any other arbitrarily defined group of people may not deserve it.

But humanity as a whole? We are a disgusting scourge on this earth, and we probably deserve everything that's coming to us. The current situation is just a reflection of overaching dynamics of greed, lies and self-righteousness that have always been with us.

I realize this is basically an absurd notion of collective reaponsibility. At the same time, we have no one to blame for our species' toxic psychopathic behavior but the species as a whole. If we had any decency left we would just delete ourselves as quietly and staightforwardly as possible.

External self-determination cares little about national laws. That's kinda the whole point. The real question is what type of conditions need to be met before a right to external self-determination arises and is recognized by other countries. In general, most countries don't recognize a right to unilateral seccession under any condition. At the same time, it is also agreed that if a state were to make the practice of internal self-determination virtually impossible or meaningless, then a right to external self-determination should arise. In which case any "no backsies" rule under US national law (even the constitution) may be seen as a breach of fundamental rights.

With independence, it usually comes down to who has the bigger stick (in both material and ideational terms). The are definitely scenarios in which US states can make a valid legal case for independence but the conditions for that still haven't been met as most international lawyers will agree that Americans in all states are afforded the right to internally self-determine. For now. Things are changing quickly.