Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,164]

[jaeger19]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146

So you think that you have the right to threaten people with violence in order to drive them out of public places? Or did you not read what I said and thus did not notice that I was talking about public places? By all means, have weapons and protect yourself and your family in your home. If you're so terrified of the dangers in public, stay home. But you do not have the right to add to those dangers for others.

In no way does my carrying a gun in public threaten you with violence. In fact that opposite occurs. Do you think a criminal that plans on holding up the restaurant is MORE or less likely to hold that restaurant up if he knows their are armed individuals in it.. or if he knows that they are not armed?

Your fear that simply having a gun is a threat to you, is irrational. Millions of americans carry openly and carry concealed and yet there are not bullets flying everywhere as you contend. However, we will never know how many criminals decided not to start something, not rape that woman, not mug that guy or car jack that car.. because of fear of the person being armed.

Studies show that of all deterrents, police, dogs etc.. the one that criminals state they most worry about is that their victim is armed.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146

It does not

It increases personal safety, period.

That is why people carry.

I know, I just wonder why he feels that he is in more danger if I have my gun with me?
Last I checked, my gun never just jumped out of the holster and started firing.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146

I know, I just wonder why he feels that he is in more danger if I have my gun with me?
Last I checked, my gun never just jumped out of the holster and started firing.

I'm sure you are probably asking a rhetorical question... but I thought it might be beneficial to answer it.

Having been around a lot of anti gun liberals (went to college with them.), I think I figured out why they are anti gun.

They really believe that the gun changes the persons mind, or that if you want a gun in the first place.. then something is wrong with you mentally.

Now.. when you considered the culture that many of these folks grow up in,, its not surprising.

Number one. in my experience, many of them only know two people that have guns. Police.. and the bad guys they see on television, or even have run into on the street. So.. in there minds.. if you want a weapon, you are either a wannabe cop/vigilante OR you are a criminal type.

It was amazing to me, how many would change their minds totally after taking them out to a range to shoot. Suddenly they see the gun as a tool instead of an animate object of evil

 

[mak2]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146

I have always thought anti gunners were almost always people who have never been around them, I too have seen the transformation after a day at the range. I have lots of liberal friends that are very well armed.

I'm sure you are probably asking a rhetorical question... but I thought it might be beneficial to answer it.

Having been around a lot of anti gun liberals (went to college with them.), I think I figured out why they are anti gun.

They really believe that the gun changes the persons mind, or that if you want a gun in the first place.. then something is wrong with you mentally.

Now.. when you considered the culture that many of these folks grow up in,, its not surprising.

Number one. in my experience, many of them only know two people that have guns. Police.. and the bad guys they see on television, or even have run into on the street. So.. in there minds.. if you want a weapon, you are either a wannabe cop/vigilante OR you are a criminal type.

It was amazing to me, how many would change their minds totally after taking them out to a range to shoot. Suddenly they see the gun as a tool instead of an animate object of evil

 

[PMZ]

Their rights do no trump mine.
What risk are they taking?
What power?
I have a right to defend myself and my family. IF they dont like it, they can leave the premises.

Or get the Constitution amended.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,1

Or get the Constitution amended.

Good luck with that.

 

[PMZ]

Good luck with that.

While such an Ammendment would threaten the existence of the NRA and would therefore put them on max volume it will happen someday. As their success will lead to the entire US becoming like ghetto Detroit there is a limit to American tolerance for such devolution.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,1

While such an Ammendment would threaten the existence of the NRA and would therefore put them on max volume it will happen someday. As their success will lead to the entire US becoming like ghetto Detroit there is a limit to American tolerance for such devolution.

You dont know much about the NRA do you?
You also dont know anything about the 2A.
And please tell me how me owning guns, is turning the US into a ghetto like Detroit.
This should be good.

 

[Surtr]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

This my entire problem (and I suspect many other's problem). I don't want someone who wants more gun control defining to me what is "responsible." I've had a gun in my hand since I was roughly 4 years old (bb gun, .22, .410 shotgun).

I don't want people who know absolutely nothing about guns to be legislating them, period. For example: "short barrel rifles". If the overall length/barrel length is under a certain measurement, you have to pay the man 200 bucks, and you're on a government **** list for life. By making/buying a short barrel rifle, you're taking a perfectly good rifle, and drastically reducing its effectiveness. Lower muzzle velocity and shorter effective range means you're making/buying a sub-par firearm with very limited utility. However, you can buy the same rifle without a stock, because then it's magically a "pistol". Same caliber, same barrel length, same action, same everything, except there's no stock on it. It's the height of bureaucratic stupidity.

I also don't like some gun control advocate telling me that "this one little measure" will reduce crime. They've been selling that same lie since long before Brady got shot in service of the nation and his wife had a hissy fit (cynical but true). I don't like it because I know more about firearms than the Brady idiots. As demonstrated by their attempted ban on "cop killers" and "plastic" guns. I know that I can handle any firearm put in my hands...safely.

You mean the ammunition that was specifically designed for police officers, and those Glocks and Steyrs that were supposed to somehow magically bypass the same airport security measures that can find a tiny shard of steel that's been lodged in my knee for years? Yeah, they're idiots. People who don't know a damn thing about firearms should have no voice at all when it comes to legislating them, because now we're stuck with gun laws and regulations that make no damn sense, and don't do anything to reduce crime.

Hell look over seas. They have warnings on the box for BUTTER KNIVES. Why?

To prevent lawsuits from idiots looking to scam a quick buck.

 

[PMZ]

The NRA has sold to their cult the image brand that they'll be armed and the bad guys won't. No evidence that it has ever worked that way.

Ever hear of an arms race? Mutually Assured Destruction works between countries but not individuals.

In many high murder rate ghettos today everybody is armed. And everybody's at risk. And the thugs and the innocents die at about the same rate.

As that spreads to the burbs America's tolerance will reach its limit and there will be nothing that the arms dealers and their ad agency the NRA will be able to do to stop an Ammendment.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,1

The NRA has sold to their cult the image brand that they'll be armed and the bad guys won't. No evidence that it has ever worked that way.

Ever hear of an arms race? Mutually Assured Destruction works between countries but not individuals.

In many high murder rate ghettos today everybody is armed. And everybody's at risk. And the thugs and the innocents die at about the same rate.

As that spreads to the burbs America's tolerance will reach its limit and there will be nothing that the arms dealers and their ad agency the NRA will be able to do to stop an Ammendment.

Having worked in some of the worst high crime rate urban areas of the country...I will personally tell you that not "everybody is armed"...in most of those places, the law abiding citizens are the ones that are unarmed

 

[PMZ]

In no way does my carrying a gun in public threaten you with violence. In fact that opposite occurs. Do you think a criminal that plans on holding up the restaurant is MORE or less likely to hold that restaurant up if he knows their are armed individuals in it.. or if he knows that they are not armed?

Your fear that simply having a gun is a threat to you, is irrational. Millions of americans carry openly and carry concealed and yet there are not bullets flying everywhere as you contend. However, we will never know how many criminals decided not to start something, not rape that woman, not mug that guy or car jack that car.. because of fear of the person being armed.

Studies show that of all deterrents, police, dogs etc.. the one that criminals state they most worry about is that their victim is armed.

I think that there will always be criminals and they'll do whatever they have to. The NRA is merely upping the ante but you'll never hear that from them. It would hurt gun sales.

 

[PMZ]

Having worked in some of the worst high crime rate urban areas of the country...I will personally tell you that not "everybody is armed"...in most of those places, the law abiding citizens are the ones that are unarmed

What does the word ''concealed'' mean to you?

 

[PMZ]

I know, I just wonder why he feels that he is in more danger if I have my gun with me?
Last I checked, my gun never just jumped out of the holster and started firing.

Some do apparently. Look at all of the ''innocent'' people in prison.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,1

Some do apparently. Look at all of the ''innocent'' people in prison.

So to you we are criminals whom own guns?
Or if we own guns you put us on the same level as criminals?
I see you provide no info other than a few troll posts.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,1

I think that there will always be criminals and they'll do whatever they have to. The NRA is merely upping the ante but you'll never hear that from them. It would hurt gun sales.

So your point is that shame on the NRA for helping to protect my choice to protect myself from those criminals that will do whatever they have to? That makes absolutely no sense.

What does the word ''concealed'' mean to you?

It means concealed from those whom you wish it. I worked closely with people in these communities. I got to know them.. and they are not "all armed"... the vast majority, though poor, are citizens obeying the law. (the urban areas I worked in, for the most part had very prohibitive gun laws).

In fact, for my self protection, I got to know who I had to be wary of in these communities.. and several of them WERE armed.. and illegally. That's one of the things that was so nuts... obviously, the criminal types had the weapons.. while the law abiding citizens had no means to protect themselves.

And just so you know.. concealed weapons are not that concealed to someone who knows what to look for. Not only can you see "printing" but carrying a weapon changes your body position and body habits. For example.. someone wearing a shoulder holster will swing one arm less (gun under the arm and stabilizing it) when crossing a street quickly. Or watch thugs on a street corner. A hand will inadvertently stray to a pocket or a waistband etc when a car comes up.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,1

Some do apparently. Look at all of the ''innocent'' people in prison.

Yeah.. I'd like to see the number of guys in prison claiming that the gun "just jumped out of its holster and started shooting"...:doh

Maybe an insanity plea...:lamo

 

[PMZ]

So your point is that shame on the NRA for helping to protect my choice to protect myself from those criminals that will do whatever they have to? That makes absolutely no sense.



It means concealed from those whom you wish it. I worked closely with people in these communities. I got to know them.. and they are not "all armed"... the vast majority, though poor, are citizens obeying the law. (the urban areas I worked in, for the most part had very prohibitive gun laws).

In fact, for my self protection, I got to know who I had to be wary of in these communities.. and several of them WERE armed.. and illegally. That's one of the things that was so nuts... obviously, the criminal types had the weapons.. while the law abiding citizens had no means to protect themselves.

And just so you know.. concealed weapons are not that concealed to someone who knows what to look for. Not only can you see "printing" but carrying a weapon changes your body position and body habits. For example.. someone wearing a shoulder holster will swing one arm less (gun under the arm and stabilizing it) when crossing a street quickly. Or watch thugs on a street corner. A hand will inadvertently stray to a pocket or a waistband etc when a car comes up.

Criminals are those who accept risk to do what they want to rather than invest their time and energy in earning it. It's an entitlement thing.

The NRA sells the notion that buying the guns that they are paid to sell will prevent crime. Eliminate criminals by raising the risk ante.

I don't know of any evidence of that.

Criminals will merely engage in the arms race and up their choices of violence to stay a step ahead of the game.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,1

Criminals are those who accept risk to do what they want to rather than invest their time and energy in earning it. It's an entitlement thing.

The NRA sells the notion that buying the guns that they are paid to sell will prevent crime. Eliminate criminals by raising the risk ante.

I don't know of any evidence of that.

Criminals will merely engage in the arms race and up their choices of violence to stay a step ahead of the game.

Seriously man.. that's not even close. First of all criminals don't "accept risk".. because they don't think they are going to get caught. and second.. criminals don't "up the ante to stay in the game"... you got that wrong... its the law abiding citizen that's behind, not the criminal. Law abiding gun owners are NOT vigilantes.. they are not out.. "eliminating criminals"... what they do want is that if and when a criminal threatens their life.. they want to have the means to defend themselves from being killed.

The NRA does NOTHING like you are talking about. Personal defense is only a small part of what the NRA is about. in FACT.. lobbying is only a small part of what the NRA is about. The NRA is and always has been about the shooting sports. Just about every public shooting range in this country gets financial support from the NRA. Safety instruction is also a huge part of the NRA as is Hunters Education. As is supporting competitive shooting sports. ..

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,1

Criminals are those who accept risk to do what they want to rather than invest their time and energy in earning it. It's an entitlement thing.

The NRA sells the notion that buying the guns that they are paid to sell will prevent crime. Eliminate criminals by raising the risk ante.

I don't know of any evidence of that.

Criminals will merely engage in the arms race and up their choices of violence to stay a step ahead of the game.

that's just plain stupid. criminals mainly want concealable guns. and the rant about the NRA is just idiotic

 

[PMZ]

I see that others don't have evidence either.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,1

I see that others don't have evidence either.

Very true.. the only objective evidence is on the side of the gun owners.

The anti gun crowd really has only emotion.