• 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!

Fear and gun ownership.

Fear of not having sufficient fuel in your tank to make your destination is not good reason to stop at the gas station.
If you are providing a logical debate, basing things on fear dont really work. You are also using fear wrong.
 
Answer this. Would America be a better nation with our current gun status, or with no guns?
Probably with less. It appears that the gun concentration in America is not making us safer.
 
The pro gun crowd is not asking anyone to be aware. They are exaggerating the problem and telling you to be scared if you do not have a gun.

True, but no one is telling you to have a seatbelt close by and ready to use in an instant are they?

And the pro gun crowds answer to crime is to increase the tension by arming everyone. Ridiculous.
It appears thats the only answer they have, give teachers guns!
 
1. most people fear for their safety much more than say 100 years ago.
2. Most likely they worried more about their health than now. Meds and care were far worse.
3. If most were not afraid of their safety there would be a Million firearms laying around for sale.
4. If the above facts weren't correct there would be millions of rounds of Ammo sitting on Shelves.
5. If Elected officials weren't afraid of their safety they wouldn't own hand guns and hire protection.
6. The whole ban firearms is Job safety for the 1 Lawyer for every 350 citizens of the US. Cal. LEO union refused to confiscate.
7. Most likely the reason for the Harm done in large Cities/Burgs is due to Anti firearm laws.
8. Sure firing a round up in the air and knowing not where it will land is still true.
9. Sure following gun safety tells one not to fire a rifle or hand gun up in the air.
10. So sum up all the above if scaredy cats would stop buying all the stuff up i could buy 50 rounds at my store. ... Its like toilet paper and Cleansers.
Why do people fight tooth and nail to own as many firearms as they please instead of fighting to prevent people from going bankrupt over calling an ambulance?
 
If you are providing a logical debate, basing things on fear dont really work. You are also using fear wrong.
I believe I was paraphrasing the other posters. I see nothing wrong with my usage, and am not really sure of what you're trying to express. Hell, that was several months ago.
 
as I said-you should go around and try to confiscate banned bump stocks. Tell me how that works out
The US Constitution prohibits retroactive laws. Which means that while Congress (not the President) may ban certain items under their Commerce Clause authority, they cannot make the law retroactive and confiscate those now banned items that were originally purchased or obtained legally prior to the law being enacted.

A ban by a President via Executive Order is meaningless. Since Executive Orders only apply to the Executive Branch and not the private sector. No bump stocks were ever legally banned. That requires an act of Congress, not an Executive Order.
 
Animals bred to hunt particular game are not intended to actually fight the game critter, but only to track it down and contain the critter if possible. That also applies to the Japanese Akita or the Norwegian Elkhound which were trained to hunt elk, wild boar, and bear. Neither dog would last very long against the critters they were hunting, and they wouldn't be hunting those critters at all if not for humans.

My boerboel was not trained to hunt, but rather to be a guardian. They are used on farms in South Africa to keep the family safe from the larger African game critters, including lions. While I have no doubt that my mastiff would have fought bravely to protect me, I also have no doubt that he would have lost badly against either a wolf or a bear. A 150 pound dog is no match for a 1,500 pound brown bear.

Interestingly enough, the Dogo Argentino was bred to be tough enough not so much to fight wild boar but be able to stave them off once they caught up with them long enough for the hunter to get in position and make a shot. And, yes, be a guard dog and defend the family and territory. Not too many dogs will take on a wild boar. Those boars will take on tigers. And track humans.
 
As Mao Zedong once quipped: "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun".

He probably noticed that all states are armed. And the most powerful, are armed most powerfully.

Why doesn't the British state you are so fond of (though not so fond you didn't un-ass at your earliest opportunity)--why doesn't that state disarm?
 
Why do people fight tooth and nail to own as many firearms as they please instead of fighting to prevent people from going bankrupt over calling an ambulance?
apples and cinderblocks. Why do people own Ferraris when some people cannot afford a car? why do some people have two homes when some live on the streets.
 
Interestingly enough, the Dogo Argentino was bred to be tough enough not so much to fight wild boar but be able to stave them off once they caught up with them long enough for the hunter to get in position and make a shot. And, yes, be a guard dog and defend the family and territory. Not too many dogs will take on a wild boar. Those boars will take on tigers. And track humans.
I use to hunt wild boar on Catalina Island in California. I am very aware of how dangerous they can be. Wild boar are also not predators.

While they have tusks that can do some serious damage, they only fight defensively. That is considerably different from predators that are equipped with tools designed for initiating attacks. Wolves, for example, are what they call "coursing predators" and can literally begin eating their prey while they are on the run. While other predators, like bears and cougars are ambush predators. They are built to surprise their prey and take them down quickly. Where coursing predators chase their prey long distances (usually in open terrain) before taking them down.

I would expect most dogs can deal with non-predators. Dogs are always harassing the moose in Alaska. Much to the moose's frustration, they are unable to stomp those annoying dogs as much as they might try. The dogs are just too fast for them. Predators, on the other hand, are a completely different story and one that will not end well for a domesticated dog.
 
I use to hunt wild boar on Catalina Island in California. I am very aware of how dangerous they can be. Wild boar are also not predators.

While they have tusks that can do some serious damage, they only fight defensively. That is considerably different from predators that are equipped with tools designed for initiating attacks. Wolves, for example, are what they call "coursing predators" and can literally begin eating their prey while they are on the run. While other predators, like bears and cougars are ambush predators. They are built to surprise their prey and take them down quickly. Where coursing predators chase their prey long distances (usually in open terrain) before taking them down.

I would expect most dogs can deal with non-predators. Dogs are always harassing the moose in Alaska. Much to the moose's frustration, they are unable to stomp those annoying dogs as much as they might try. The dogs are just too fast for them. Predators, on the other hand, are a completely different story and one that will not end well for a domesticated dog.

Even predators can instinctively flee from a fight. In the wild, even a fight you "win", might mean your death. Cougars often (maybe mostly) flee from aggresive dogs and go to tree, at which point they can be disposed of with a .22 LR.
 
Even predators can instinctively flee from a fight. In the wild, even a fight you "win", might mean your death. Cougars often (maybe mostly) flee from aggresive dogs and go to tree, at which point they can be disposed of with a .22 LR.
You use a .22 LR on a big game animal in Alaska and not only would you forfeit your rifle and pay a substantial fine, you would also lose your ability to hunt anywhere in Alaska.
 
You use a .22 LR on a big game animal in Alaska and not only would you forfeit your rifle and pay a substantial fine, you would also lose your ability to hunt anywhere in Alaska.

It's been commonly used for fur bearing animals for least damage to the pelt. A treed Cougar, it's apparently easy to put one through their brain. In my state, it's illegal to hunt deer with any rifle except a muzzleloader. Poachers often use a .22, though.
 
It's been commonly used for fur bearing animals for least damage to the pelt. A treed Cougar, it's apparently easy to put one through their brain. In my state, it's illegal to hunt deer with any rifle except a muzzleloader. Poachers often use a .22, though.
In Alaska it is illegal to use a .22 LR on any big game animal. Poaching is also illegal in Alaska. Just ask Ted Nugent.


Alaska does not have cougars, but shooting a critter that is not either attacking you or someone else is considered "poaching" (unless you are legally hunting the critter) and not self-defense.
 
Last edited:
In Alaska it is illegal to use a .22 LR on any big game animal. Poaching is also illegal in Alaska. Just ask Ted Nugent.


Alaska does not have cougars, but shooting a critter that is not either attacking you or someone else is considered "poaching" (unless you are legally hunting the critter) and not self-defense.

Poaching is defined as illegal hunting.

The Nugent case is interesting. He apparently violated a rather obscure Alaskan regulation, but wasn't charged for that. Instead, the feds got him for illegally transporting the carcass.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom