- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
- Messages
- 12,099
- Reaction score
- 3,439
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I've never heard anyone ever suggest that as a good reason to not be armed. Not even once. Sounds like a straw man from cap to crocs.One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.
The gun control crowd never said that---------------your credibility is gone before you start......One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.
People on this very forum have said it.I've never heard anyone ever suggest that as a good reason to not be armed. Not even once. Sounds like a straw man from cap to crocs.
So you think you can concoct a thoughtful OP by bottom feeding some silly comment here on DP? Really?!People on this very forum have said it.
never saw it-------but even if it was posted doesn't mean it represents a "gun control crowd"...........................case closed......People on this very forum have said it.
It certainly represents some of the gun control crowd.never saw it-------but even if it was posted doesn't mean it represents a "gun control crowd"...........................case closed......
One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.
I have been armed for 60 years, and so far I have found no evidence that any of the deer, elk, moose, or caribou that I have shot have armed themselves. I don't care if someone else is armed or not, it will not stop me from carrying firearms. Compared to what I carry on a regular basis, the police are woefully under armed and wouldn't be of any use to me even if they were on the scene at the time.One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.
Your first paragraph says it allIt is indeed a spurious argument, individual on individual. How is a criminal to know if their victim is armed?
Generalized though, the argument does make sense. Committing a crime without a gun is a lesser legal risk, and if gun ownership was very rare then burglars and muggers would be far less likely to carry. And that would be good, because fewer people would die.
Police not regularly carrying guns is worth considering as policy. If they didn't pose a risk to the lives of criminals, the latter would be far less inclined to shoot at them. In 2021, 73 officers were murdered, but 1,055 members of the public were killed by police. It's pretty obvious who is shooting first.
But if we don't advertise that schools are "Gun Free Zones" how will the nutjobs know that it is safe for them to slaughter children en mass?Your first paragraph says it all
“Society is safer when criminals don’t know who’s armed”!
/thread
Your first paragraph says it all
“Society is safer when criminals don’t know who’s armed”!
/thread
But they are armed, particularly the moose, they've got these big heavy horns, you wouldn't want to be rammed with them.I have been armed for 60 years, and so far I have found no evidence that any of the deer, elk, moose, or caribou that I have shot have armed themselves.
Police have their strength in numbers, in man power. Where there's one police officer there's more, many more.I don't care if someone else is armed or not, it will not stop me from carrying firearms. Compared to what I carry on a regular basis, the police are woefully under armed and wouldn't be of any use to me even if they were on the scene at the time.
It isn't their antlers that concern me. It is their attitude and their size that concerns me. Moose are psychotic, and will attack without cause. A full grown bull moose will also weight more than 1,500 pounds, since they are the second largest critter on the North American continent, just after the bison. More Alaskans are killed by being stomped to death by moose than are killed by all other wildlife combined.But they are armed, particularly the moose, they've got these big heavy horns, you wouldn't want to be rammed with them.
As the adage goes, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away." If people had to rely on the police to protect them there would be many more dead than there are now. The police are also ill-equipped to deal with large game. Their shotguns are loaded with non-lethal ammunition, not the .65 cal. slugs that I use.Police have their strength in numbers, in man power. Where there's one police officer there's more, many more.
And police officer do have extra fire power, they keep bigger guns in their squad cars.
One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.
Did DebateChallenge say where? As in concealed carry or having a firearm at home and you've heard ad nauseam about that one, so where was he talking about that dumbass reason?I've never heard anyone ever suggest that as a good reason to not be armed. Not even once. Sounds like a straw man from cap to crocs.
So why are the anti gunners always pissing and moaning about being armed in any fashion? Concealed, at home where ever.The gun control crowd never said that---------------your credibility is gone before you start......
Not exactly word for word but close enough that DebateChallenge nailed it.I don't know if people are saying that exactly but I do believe we live in an age of plenty where people are more than happy to outsource their own personal safety.
"Silly comment" I won't go back and show all the threads and post's where the usual suspects go on and on about it, that's your job since you're the one pissing about it. You say "silly comment" like it was a one off thing.So you think you can concoct a thoughtful OP by bottom feeding some silly comment here on DP? Really?!
So I would definitely say moose are "armed."It isn't their antlers that concern me. It is their attitude and their size that concerns me. Moose are psychotic, and will attack without cause. A full grown bull moose will also weight more than 1,500 pounds, since they are the second largest critter on the North American continent, just after the bison. More Alaskans are killed by being stomped to death by moose than are killed by all other wildlife combined.
To the best of my knowledge the police use shells with buckshot in their shotguns which makes sense as such shot can penetrate car doors which police sometimes have to do. For less lethal weapons (yes its less lethal not non lethal since practically anything can kill) they use stuff such as teargas and tasers.As the adage goes, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away." If people had to rely on the police to protect them there would be many more dead than there are now. The police are also ill-equipped to deal with large game. Their shotguns are loaded with non-lethal ammunition, not the .65 cal. slugs that I use.
Extremely few if any like that. Most of them just want common sense regulations on assault weapons, etc...... I know of no one who wants "no guns" at all......................So why are the anti gunners always pissing and moaning about being armed in any fashion? Concealed, at home where ever.
Indeed. Not only have I never met anyone who wants "no guns at all", it's not even an achievable goal. There are literally millions of guns across the country that authorities don't even know about, and even if you could account for them, you could never get law enforcement to take them away. The government coming to take people's firearms away is nothing but ridiculous paranoia on the part of gun owners.Extremely few if any like that. Most of them just want common sense regulations on assault weapons, etc...... I know of no one who wants "no guns" at all......................
What are "common sense" regulations on "assault weapons"?Extremely few if any like that. Most of them just want common sense regulations on assault weapons, etc...... I know of no one who wants "no guns" at all......................
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?