Do You Think I Handled This Correctly?


PDA






LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
April 24, 2012, 10:49 PM
Hello guys!

I posted a status on Facebook today because I found a picture I took in my LGS that stated:

"Why Do I Carry A Gun?"
"Because you're not QUALIFIED to carry one. You haven't the skill, the judgement, the sense of responsibility, nor the courage to carry one!"

In said status, I quoted the above statement, and erred on the side of bad and added:

"And I believe this is true for those who are anti-gun."

Well one of my friends that I've known for a bit, but never known his stance on firearms comments:

No they are anti- gun because of the sheer facts

To which I replied:

Facts? Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people. A gun WILL NOT go off on it's own. But me saying I believe this is true for those who are anti-gun, what I am saying is that they don't meet the qualifications in the quotation marks.

You take away guns, the bad guys are still going to find a way to get a hold of them, and there are a lot of things you can use to kill somebody that isn't a firearm.

He shot back with:

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36

Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07

Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10

Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04

Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10

Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10

France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49

England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03

Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02

Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0
Facts
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm weird copy and paste here is the site.

Gun Facts
www.gun-control-network.org
Behind all the statistics are the actual incidents that result in the suffering of innocent people and animals. These lists reveal the consequence of the continued misuse of firearms.

I replied back stating:

All crimes committed by PEOPLE. Guns are merely a tool. Guns CAN NOT kill people of their own accord. PEOPLE are the problem. Not firearms.

He replies:

Why do you buy a gun?

I answer his question with:

Why do I buy a gun? Recreation is my primary use for my firearms. All eight of them. Secondary function is home/self-defense.

He comes back with:

Home/self defense. Which means intent to kill if provoked. Without the gun you would probably use a bat or knife usually not fatal. So that being said guns are bought to kill things even deer (recreational use). That being said guns kill.

I returned his argument with:

No, actually it doesn't. Home/self-defense means to protect mine and my own. I don't intend to kill anyone. I don't WANT to kill anyone. But if it comes down to it, and someone is in MY house trying to kill ME or MY family, they'll find themselves at the business end of one of my pistols, or my shotgun. I'm not going to shoot anyone trying to take my television. Won't shoot them if they try to take my car. But the second that the life of one of my family members, on my own is threatened, I will let their God sort them out in the end.

Guns were made so MANKIND could kill. Yes. That is what their original purpose was for. They are merely a tool to aid in that intent. You can still kill a deer, or a human if you're that far mentally diminished, with a bow, a knife, a spear, a pencil... Household chemicals, wrongfully cooked food. All merely methods of making killing easier. But not one of these things can kill on it's own, without the intervention human presence.

To which he replies:

From what you just said you proved my previous statement.

And I answer:

You will actually find yourself wrong. I proved no one else's but my justifications on the subject. You have this crazy notion that guns kill. No. People kill. Guns are merely just a tool.

He comes back with:

Really you can't fall onto a knife or a pencil and die? There is also no possible your cat knocks off a bottle of bleach thats on the counter and it breaks open and your baby crawls through it and actually drinks it? No possible way a gun goes off in the glove box in the car because you hit a bump too hard or it got the bullet to hot and it goes off?

Btw the facts I showed you earlier were compared to countries that had laws against guns

To which I answer (primer information may not be fully correct. Read this somewhere, and it's all that came to mind, google-fu was not among this):

The likelihood of a pencil, or a knife standing on end and you fall on it is nil. Let me rephrase that, without intervention of anything LIVING will any of these things harm/kill you. Firearms today are designed to completely ELIMINATE a bump setting them off. Even dropping them on MOST models made today. My Glock has three safeties, but only one of them is directly linked to human manipulation. The trigger-bar safety. Without pulling the trigger, the Glock pistols WILL NOT go off. Most of the firearms today are the same way. There are some older designs out there that have the POSSIBILITY of doing so, but the forces to cause this would have to be pretty extreme. The standard primer will only set off the round when there is ~12 p.s.i. of pressure applied in a split second. There isn't much chance of anything but a released firing-pin/striker/hammer to set it off. And no, you need some extreme temperatures to cook off a round. Temperatures you wouldn't find naturally, or inside a hot car ANYWHERE in the world.

I know what those statistics were for, I see them everyday.

He comes back with this statement:

There are faulty guns out there you can search it and find quite a bit of gun mishaps with premature discharge.

Now mind you I am for guns, but unlike you I see why people want to get rid of them. The reason I'm arguing with you is because I dislike people like you who are completely closed minded when people try to take away your toys.

I feed him some information in my response:

All the nature of HUMAN interference. If a part isn't made to specs, it's because a HUMAN didn't input information into the computer right. Or if they're doing it by hand, they took away TOO MUCH material. Accidental discharges and Negligent Discharges, for which we'll refer to AD's and ND's for this topic, are two different things, though they can be misinterpreted. AD's are a manufacturing defect. Caused by parts out of spec, improper materials, or let's face it, even a quirk in the machine. Cars do it to. ND's are the sole product of human interaction. Or, in the rare instance, animal interaction, as there's been a few cases last year where a dog shot it's owner, simply because the owner didn't secure the firearm the proper way, and didn't engage the safety.

About 99.1% of the discharges that occur unintended are ND's, caused because of improper gun-handling skills and procedures. You must always treat a firearm as if it were loaded. And there's a statement used by the gun-folks, that states "There is no such thing as an unloaded gun." Proper way to handle a firearm:

Take firearm, point in a safe direction.
If it has a detachable magazine, take it out/off the gun.
Keep firearm pointed in safe direction.
Manipulate the action of the firearm (Bolt, slide, etc.) to make sure there is no round chambered, and to clear rounds if necessary (this is depending on the design of said firearm).
Check chamber, visually and physically, sticking your pinky in the chamber. If you feel no round chambered, your firearm is safe to handle, but one should NEVER cover anything with the firearm's muzzle that one does not wish to destroy.

I am far from closed-minded. I believe in my rights. I know firearms are dangerous tools, ones to be taken seriously. I'm in full knowledge what they are capable of in the HANDS of an individual.

He hasn't responded after this comment, but another friend of mine chimed in, and though some comments were not HighRoad material, he did defend the right to bear arms.

Do you guys think I handled this correctly, for the sake of nothing but a good, heated debate?

If you enjoyed reading about "Do You Think I Handled This Correctly?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Fred_G
April 24, 2012, 10:56 PM
Why do you choose to argue with someone you will not, can not really have a conversation with.

"Home/self defense. Which means intent to kill if provoked. Without the gun you would probably use a bat or knife usually not fatal. So that being said guns are bought to kill things even deer (recreational use). That being said guns kill."

Don't accept the premise here. Being provoked is a whole lot different from someone willingly breaking into a home that is occupied. What is the person who breaks in going to do? Spread good cheer?

SouthernBoy
April 24, 2012, 10:58 PM
Looks like you kept a cool head judging from your postings. Never works for us to get into a pissing contest with anti's which is what they want to happen, anyway. Emotion rules their arguments, not facts and common sense.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
April 24, 2012, 11:11 PM
Why do you choose to argue with someone you will not, can not really have a conversation with.

He's a friend I went both to High School and Trade School with. In my opinion, it was a conversation, but to each his own.

Don't accept the premise here. Being provoked is a whole lot different from someone willingly breaking into a home that is occupied. What is the person who breaks in going to do? Spread good cheer?

That's what I'm basically saying. The likelihood of bringing good cheer is non-existent.

Looks like you kept a cool head judging from your postings. Never works for us to get into a pissing contest with anti's which is what they want to happen, anyway. Emotion rules their arguments, not facts and common sense.

Well, as he said, he was for guns, but could see and accept the anti-argument. I'm thinking he's on the fence. Hard to say.

musicman10_1
April 24, 2012, 11:16 PM
Opinions man - everyone is allowed to hold whatever beliefs they choose to hold. It is really hard to change someone's beliefs.

Tommygunn
April 24, 2012, 11:17 PM
"Because you're not QUALIFIED to carry one. You haven't the skill, the judgement, the sense of responsibility, nor the courage to carry one!"~~I'm a bit confused as to who said that and why, but it seems highly presumptuous and even insulting. How does he know you don't have the skill, judgement, or responsibility?

It's probably best not to get imbroiled in an argument like this .... after awhile people will probably be unable to tell who's the fool and who's not.....:confused:;)

dcarch
April 24, 2012, 11:18 PM
I barely post anything on facebook anymore. I'm sick of getting in these myself.

jerkface11
April 24, 2012, 11:23 PM
I'm not friends with anti-gunners.

chhodge69
April 24, 2012, 11:29 PM
The choice to own a gun is a personal one not a statistical one. It sounds like you let him drag you down the wrong road. Point-counterpoint is not productive when both parties have dug in their heels.

Take another road - ask him what he would do if his family were threatened? "You don't like guns because criminals do bad things with them.. I get that. So how will you protect your family and could you do it with whatever blunt instrument you've chosen to arm yourself with? Think it through - are you prepared?"

odds are he'll say "phone" and now you have the upper hand.

hogshead
April 24, 2012, 11:31 PM
Never wrestle with a pig you will both get muddy and the pig will enjoy it.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
April 24, 2012, 11:32 PM
Opinions man - everyone is allowed to hold whatever beliefs they choose to hold. It is really hard to change someone's beliefs.

Wasn't as much as trying to change his, more of defending mine.

~~I'm a bit confused as to who said that and why, but it seems highly presumptuous and even insulting. How does he know you don't have the skill, judgement, or responsibility?

It's probably best not to get imbroiled in an argument like this .... after awhile people will probably be unable to tell who's the fool and who's not...

I'm not actually sure who said that. I just seen it in my LGS, liked it, and shared it. I've a few friends on FB that are pro-gun and knew they'd like it if they'd seen the statement, that's why I posted it.

Well, hopefully they deem him the fool and not me. I didn't throw out some ridiculous things of happenstance trying to defend firearms as I seen them.

I barely post anything on facebook anymore. I'm sick of getting in these myself.

Actually, this is really my first run-in with anyone outside of my mother. At first she was against me having firearms, but I was able to ease her misgivings.

I'm not friends with anti-gunners.

I'm friends with an adverse bunch of people. It's in my nature. That said, I really don't hang out much with the Antis.:cool:

pintler
April 24, 2012, 11:39 PM
When people want to discuss rates by country, it's worth looking here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

note that many countries with laws more restrictive than the U.S. have higher rates. Also note the low rate of the Czech Republic, despite quite liberal laws. Overall, there isn't a strong correlation between laws and rates. Also note Finland and Switzerland, which have very low homicide rates but fairly high suicide rates. And there is Japan, with a suicide rate much greater than the U.S., but essentially no gun suicides.

Fewer guns, or more restrictive laws, just don't correlate well with fewer gun suicides or homicides.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
April 24, 2012, 11:42 PM
When people want to discuss rates by country, it's worth looking here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate

note that many countries with laws more restrictive than the U.S. have higher rates. Also note the low rate of the Czech Republic, despite quite liberal laws. Overall, there isn't a strong correlation between laws and rates. Also note Finland and Switzerland, which have very low homicide rates but fairly high suicide rates. And there is Japan, with a suicide rate much greater than the U.S., but essentially no gun suicides.

Fewer guns, or more restrictive laws, just don't correlate well with fewer gun suicides or homicides.

That and the homicide rate in the US has gone down, hasn't it?

sleepyone
April 24, 2012, 11:56 PM
Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still...

and FaceBook, Twitter and other social media are helping to ensure that all intelligent and informed discourse of crucial matters is relegated to sound bites or pithy remarks of 144 characters or less.

RBid
April 24, 2012, 11:59 PM
Gun vs bat debate path & points:

"If you don't have a gun, what do you do if somebody breaks into your home?"

Their answers:

"I grab a baseball bat."
- this means resorting to violence.

- if the assertion is that this is because bats are potentially less fatal, then ask them to clarify if their specific goal is to fight to not-kill/fight to injure. If they are fighting to injure a person who has a) broken in, and b) continued to advance, when faced with a bat, then they are making the choice to risk the deaths of themselves and their family, to save the life of someone who has demonstrated extreme will to harm them.

- bats are easier to take away than guns (they involve entering physical contact distance, can be grabbed easily, etc)

- bats can be very fatal, even on accident

- "where is your bat, right now?" (safe bet... Nowhere that is quickly accessible, if they even know where it is)

- bats are less likely to deter an assailant WITHOUT injury or need-to-use than a bat. IE, presenting a firearm is often enough to prevent escalation. Presenting one reduces the chance of any injury to you, your family, OR THE CRIMINAL from happening, UNLESS the criminal is so committed to harming you that he/she does not stop, even when faced with a threat of death.

- given that only truly determined criminals continue to advance when facing a firearm, how does the bat option seem, when facing a criminal who would advance despite threat of death?

- what if the bad guy has a gun? How does that bat look?

- how does a bat look, against multiple bad guys?

- "would you rather scare someone away with a gun, or be forced to beat them with a bat? Which would you rather have your kids see?"
- likely response: "I'd rather they see me hit him with a bat, than shoot him?"
- yours: "...again, what if the bad guy has a gun?"
- "how would you feel about your family seeing you get beaten to death with the bat?"
- "how would you feel about being overwhelmed by 2 or more bad guys, who would likely run from a gun, and seeing your family beaten, shot, stabbed, raped, etc?"

- "what if you injure the bad guy, and THEN he leaves, and says that you hit him while he was trying to escape? Are you ready to get sued? Is that better than scaring him away with a gun?"


Bottom line: the only bad guy who will engage a man with a gun, is the kind who needs to be dealt with using extreme force.

Cal-gun Fan
April 25, 2012, 12:07 AM
I think he's got a good point to be honest. Guns aren't perfect. They provide an extremely easy way for people to commit crimes and kill people. You can't kill someone with a knife or baseball bat as efficiently as you can a gun. You can also kill more people at once. This has been proven time and time again with shootings. The argument over the "guns kill people" "people kill people...with guns" wording is petty and doesn't really matter to be honest. Guns make it easy for people to kill people.

That being said, I feel that there are plenty of benefits of having guns in a society that, overall, outweigh the negatives. However, its foolish to delude ourselves into thinking that there are absolutely no negative things about guns; we sound stupid when we do. Instead, we should look to the positive things they provide in a society.

smalls
April 25, 2012, 12:39 AM
Ever heard the quote "you can't fix stupid"?

Stop arguing with anti gunners.

Invite them to go shooting. If that won't convert them, they're a lost cause.

Cal-gun Fan
April 25, 2012, 12:46 AM
Ever heard the quote "you can't fix stupid"?

Stop arguing with anti gunners.

Invite them to go shooting. If that won't convert them, they're a lost cause.
They could easily apply that argument to those of us who blindly deny any downside to having guns in a society. They aren't stupid. To them, the negatives outweigh the benefits. Its a matter of opinion, not black and white. I've got lots of very good friends who disagree with me on the whole gun issue. I don't think they're stupid, "socialist", or "communist (words that are oft misused on gun forums) and they don't think I'm a dumb gun-toting hillbilly :)

RBid
April 25, 2012, 01:17 AM
The key is not to argue with 'them'. Fear most often stems from misunderstanding, or incomplete understanding. Be gentle, be rational. Help them understand how guns operate, and how responsible gun owners think and behave.

Make 'them' into 'us'.

pockets
April 25, 2012, 07:18 AM
My eyes glazed over after the first few 'he said, then I said, then he said'.
Seriously, trying to carry on a meaningful conversation with FB postings?

Thanks though, this did remind me why I closed my Facebook account a couple years back.


.

beatledog7
April 25, 2012, 07:21 AM
Best way I have found to argue with an anti-gun person:

Offer to take him or her to go to the range with you and put a few rounds through a couple of your favorites. The worst that can happen is that he or she will decline. The best that can happen--and probably will--is that the person will be surprised that you are willing to put your position to the test.

My point is simple: Invite an anti-gunner into our world, and show that person why we enjoy owning guns, how firearms works, etc.

The anti will not be able to make a parallel offer to you; thus, you have won.

Lex Luthier
April 25, 2012, 07:32 AM
Just a suggestion, but we should not use FB as a viable medium to express our 2A positions. Some of my friends do it, albeit subtly. My experience is that when I post a photo or chat about anything firearm related the antis come out of the woodwork and sometimes even unfriend me. It is better to keep that intel close to the vest, allowing one to keep a nice close view on the antis. Have you noticed the increase in firearm related adverts in your sidebar after doing such things? The great interweb marketing robot is tracking you.

Walther P99
April 25, 2012, 07:42 AM
I still don't understand why people need to advertise their lives on social media.

Like others have said, you probably won't sway an anti to our side with just words just like they won't sway us to theirs.

I would ask if guns are so dangerous, why don't we just send guns to war instead of soldiers and why aren't guns patrolling the streets instead of police officers.. ;)

TurtlePhish
April 25, 2012, 07:52 AM
LJ, you presented good arguments and kept your cool, probably handled the conversation/argument/whatever the best you could have. Doesn't seem like your friend really understands anything about guns or the reasoning behind them, nor do they make any effort to..
Not to offend you or them, but they don't seem like the most accurate round in the magazine, if you catch my drift.

shuvelrider
April 25, 2012, 08:02 AM
Let your friend live in his fuzzy soft world of make-believe and unicorns, he has drank the kool-aid of the liberal mindset his whole life. You wont change it anytime soon either, he will learn the hard way (sadly) when his life becomes threatened at some point. You cannot talk reason when a thug is intent on doing you harm or worse, at that point you can tell your friend "To bad So sad".

GunnyUSMC
April 25, 2012, 08:10 AM
You called this guy a friend. Why? Is he really a friend or just an aqquantince?

I know that people use the word friend to describe (label) people they know, when the person they are refering to are really not true friends.
I have always said, If you can count your true friends on more then one hand, one will be stabing you in the back.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying not to be friendly with people you know, just know who your real friends are.
Now back on topic. You did pretty good, but you let it go on too long. He showed that he was closed minded, but you allowed him to call you closed minded. This is the Anti's trick. Once they have labeled you, tag, your it. I would have just told him that he really needed to check his facts and not from just anti-gun sites, and to agree to disagree.

Oh! What is this FaceBook?:rolleyes:

12gaugeTim
April 25, 2012, 08:15 AM
Tell him your guns, as animate objects, read the comments on that post and now dislike him greatly. Warn him if he comes near your house they will likely run out onto the driveway and begin malfunctioning towards him.

Manson
April 25, 2012, 08:35 AM
LJ. A couple of quick points. You can't fix stupid and you can't fix crazy. That is why anti's are after the tool. They are well intended but wrong. And remember what is said about statistics. There are lies, damn lies and statistics. The stats presented to you are meaningless. More gun deaths in countries with more guns? Wow. More people are probably killed by sheep in Scotland than the US. Care to guess why.

ETA: I disagree with those who would question the value of an anti as a friend. I think there is more value in a gentle education than a swift kick out the door.

danez71
April 25, 2012, 08:50 AM
"Why Do I Carry A Gun?"
"Because you're not QUALIFIED to carry one. You haven't the skill, the judgement, the sense of responsibility, nor the courage to carry one!"


I dont like that quote at all. It implies that one that carrys a gun is better than one that doesnt and degrade those that dont.


Aside from that, he's wrong with Switzerland. From wiki:

. The personal weapon of militia is kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[1]

In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.[3]


The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).

Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.



The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia.


Recreational shooting is widespread in Switzerland. Practice with guns is a popular recreation, and is encouraged by the government, particularly for the members of the militia.[12] Swiss firearms-related rights are supported by the organization ProTell.

200,000 people attend the annual Feldschiessen weekend, which is the largest rifle shooting competition in the world.[4][13]





And thebest part for your arguement with your friend...



Gun crime


Police statistics for the year 2006[14] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s.



Thats right... in Switzerland, more killings and assults were with knives than guns and yet Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates iin the world.

vaupet
April 25, 2012, 08:53 AM
His figures do prove something: in Switserland, virtualy no homicides, and all this while there is a select fire weapon available in 60% of the homes (the other 40 has a main battle rifle).

You can bether link the number of homicide in a society with 'socialist' care, because that largely takes away the motivation for crime.

In the UK al handguns are banned and since then the number of incidents involving handguns dramaticaly dropped. The total amount of 'incidents' left unchanged.

I could send you a nice study (in dutch) by the 'Flemisch Peace Institute' , hardly an advocate of weapons, in which they conclude that there is no link between crime and weaponpossession in a western-european society.

here is the link: http://www.vlaamsvredesinstituut.eu/index.php/onderzoek/wapenhandel-a-productie/vuurwapens

O, this study also states that in Australie, 9.4% of the incidents involved legally kept firearms, for the Uk this was 15%, for New Sealand 20%, so the figures produced by your friend only show that a lot of vilains keep guns.

303tom
April 25, 2012, 08:57 AM
I never argue with someone on Facebook.....................

SabbathWolf
April 25, 2012, 10:13 AM
I deleted my Face Book account.

TacoMalo
April 25, 2012, 10:38 AM
You handled it pretty well, I agree it's impossible trying to reason with someone that's dead set on wanting to be unreasonable.

RaceM
April 25, 2012, 10:39 AM
Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level & beat you with experience.

bobalou
April 25, 2012, 10:43 AM
never discuss politics or religion

medalguy
April 25, 2012, 12:05 PM
One other possible response to his posting might be to ask him how he would respond to 6 armed thugs breaking down his front door at 3 AM and all he has to defend himself and his family with is a baseball bat or a four inch kitchen knife. Oh well I guess he could hand the bat to his wife and he could use the kitchen knife. Wait, I forgot about the sharpened pencil in the desk drawer. That ought to be good for something.

Me, I'll take my 1911A1 any day.

smokey30725
April 25, 2012, 12:31 PM
Yet another reason I deleted my facebook account. My wife told me how much fun it would be to catch up with old friends. Found two things. Number one, some of these folks have way too much spare time. Number two, idiocy only increases with age. I deleted my account not long after I opened it. You might consider reading a book called Nation of Cowards. It is a collection of arguments against guns and ccw with educated rebuttals to counter the antis. Buy it, read it, and lend it to your friend.

smalls
April 25, 2012, 12:56 PM
They could easily apply that argument to those of us who blindly deny any downside to having guns in a society. They aren't stupid. To them, the negatives outweigh the benefits. Its a matter of opinion, not black and white.

It's not black and white, but from my experience, most are uninformed, and refuse to become educated on the matter. If you're ignorant, and refuse information, that makes you stupid.

I've got lots of very good friends who disagree with me on the whole gun issue. I don't think they're stupid, "socialist", or "communist (words that are oft misused on gun forums) and they don't think I'm a dumb gun-toting hillbilly

Well, I should hope not. I'd hate to be friends with people who I thought were communists, or if they thought I was a hillbilly!

I'm not saying you shouldn't have friends with opposing views. But if my friend was trying to sway my opinion with actual facts, and I refused to listen, I'd hope he kicked me. That's a good friend ;)

Cal-gun Fan
April 25, 2012, 01:03 PM
It's not black and white, but from my experience, most are uninformed, and refuse to become educated on the matter. If you're ignorant, and refuse information, that makes you stupid.



Well, I should hope not. I'd hate to be friends with people who I thought were communists, or if they thought I was a hillbilly!

I'm not saying you shouldn't have friends with opposing views. But if my friend was trying to sway my opinion with actual facts, and I refused to listen, I'd hope he kicked me. That's a good friend ;)
That sword cuts both ways, though. Its a fact that many countries that have stricter gun laws have lower overall homicide rates and much lower gun involved suicide/homicide rates. Its also a fact that in the US, guns stop plenty of crimes and prevent people from being harmed or killed. Facts need to be embraced on both sides of the spectrum.

CoRoMo
April 25, 2012, 01:17 PM
I deleted my Face Book account.
I've read that you can't delete a FB account; it remains eternally.

Anyway, I have no use for FB.

Skribs
April 25, 2012, 02:32 PM
Let your friend live in his fuzzy soft world of make-believe and unicorns,

So if I turn in my guns, I get a unicorn?

That sword cuts both ways, though. Its a fact that many countries that have stricter gun laws have lower overall homicide rates and much lower gun involved suicide/homicide rates. Its also a fact that in the US, guns stop plenty of crimes and prevent people from being harmed or killed. Facts need to be embraced on both sides of the spectrum.

It is a fact that there is no correlation between gun ownership and suicide/homicide rate, or even homicide rate with guns, as posted above. It is also a fact that 100% of people killed with their own gun owned guns. Guns are merely the tool, the violence, I believe, is associated with the virtues and justice system of the society, as opposed to the rate of gun ownership. Thus, you can argue against the belief that more citizens with guns means more crime with guns.

You can't argue against the fact that if I pull a gun, I am very likely to deter a criminal. And if I don't deter him, I am much more likely to defend myself with a ranged weapon than a melee weapon. This is especially true for me because of my small size and stature.

Others in this thread have said it, but you can't go about debating statistics, because stats are often accrued in a biased manner. I could give you a survey which states that 85% of the people randomly selected at this location are pro-gun. I am of course neglecting to mention in the survey that the place that I work has 70% ex-military folk working here.

Ask how the person feels regarding:
-A 20-year-old petite female college student weighed down by a back pack containing $1500 worth of laptop, graphing calculator, and books, when approached by a large, athletic man weilding a knife. Her options, without a gun, are to run (weighed down by her bag), drop her bag and run (he gets the back, and he can still chase after her), comply, or attempt to fight (which he will probably win).
-Multiple assailants
-Assailants who have ranged weapons

In any of these scenarios, "call the police" means that the perp(s) have 6+ minutes to beat/stab/bludgeon (or do other things) before the police arrive. Forget scewed statistics. Forget all the fearmongering that gun owners are rabid killers, simply by pointing out how many people you know own guns and how many have killed someone outside of the military. Ask those three situations, what would need to happen in order for that person to survive without a gun. What would it take for the victim to survive with one. That is why I am pro-gun.

sdlsaginaw
April 25, 2012, 02:39 PM
I just love the argument "countries with fewer guns have fewer gun related deaths". You could say the same thing "countries with fewer hippos have fewer hippo related deaths". Obviously nobody dies in countries devoid of hippos. Ugh.

Pilot
April 25, 2012, 02:44 PM
I shoot Unicorns. :evil:

SabbathWolf
April 25, 2012, 02:45 PM
I've read that you can't delete a FB account; it remains eternally.

Anyway, I have no use for FB.


Really?
Well that sucks.
I hit the button that said "Delete Account" or something like that.
It was fun for a while, but then I just grew bored with it.
It served no useful purpose anyways.

Cal-gun Fan
April 25, 2012, 02:47 PM
I just love the argument "countries with fewer guns have fewer gun related deaths". You could say the same thing "countries with fewer hippos have fewer hippo related deaths". Obviously nobody dies in countries devoid of hippos. Ugh.
....you do realize that is the entire point, right?

Skribs
April 25, 2012, 02:48 PM
I just love the argument "countries with fewer guns have fewer gun related deaths". You could say the same thing "countries with fewer hippos have fewer hippo related deaths". Obviously nobody dies in countries devoid of hippos. Ugh.

What you'll find is a lot of people in this world are not capable of analyzing information. If the case is, let's say randomly the following information:
2009: 60 murders with knives, 60 murders with guns
2011: 90 murders with knives, 30 murders with guns

You can say "murder with guns went down!" But murder stayed the same. On the other hand,

2009: 60 murders with knives, 60 murders with guns.
2011: 60 murders with knives, 30 murders with guns.

Well in this scenario, murders did fall overall, specifically in the realm of gun related. Then, you have to look at why that happened. We're assuming this is an anti stat, so probably in 2010 there was a gun control law passed. But what else happened? Was there a mass shooting in 2009? Were people in 2011 accused of manslaughter instead of murder? Are people in 2011 still on trial, and thus haven't been convicted of murder? Were there other events, such as neighborhood watch being put up, which would reduce the murder rate?

And last, if there was a gun control law that supposedly banned all guns, why are there still 30 murders with guns? (A coworker of mine tried using a chart comparing US to UK per capita, I was like "if they don't have guns in the UK, how'd they commit these murders with them?")

You also can't compare country-to-country, because different cultures have different ways of handling things, different methods of reporting, etc.

In the first scenario, the antis are just reporting the gun deaths, and not the overall trend. In the second scenario, the articles only report statistics, but the reason why things happened is more important.

Cal-gun Fan
April 25, 2012, 02:52 PM
So if I turn in my guns, I get a unicorn?



It is a fact that there is no correlation between gun ownership and suicide/homicide rate, or even homicide rate with guns, as posted above. It is also a fact that 100% of people killed with their own gun owned guns. Guns are merely the tool, the violence, I believe, is associated with the virtues and justice system of the society, as opposed to the rate of gun ownership. Thus, you can argue against the belief that more citizens with guns means more crime with guns.

You can't argue against the fact that if I pull a gun, I am very likely to deter a criminal. And if I don't deter him, I am much more likely to defend myself with a ranged weapon than a melee weapon. This is especially true for me because of my small size and stature.

Others in this thread have said it, but you can't go about debating statistics, because stats are often accrued in a biased manner. I could give you a survey which states that 85% of the people randomly selected at this location are pro-gun. I am of course neglecting to mention in the survey that the place that I work has 70% ex-military folk working here.

Ask how the person feels regarding:
-A 20-year-old petite female college student weighed down by a back pack containing $1500 worth of laptop, graphing calculator, and books, when approached by a large, athletic man weilding a knife. Her options, without a gun, are to run (weighed down by her bag), drop her bag and run (he gets the back, and he can still chase after her), comply, or attempt to fight (which he will probably win).
-Multiple assailants
-Assailants who have ranged weapons

In any of these scenarios, "call the police" means that the perp(s) have 6+ minutes to beat/stab/bludgeon (or do other things) before the police arrive. Forget scewed statistics. Forget all the fearmongering that gun owners are rabid killers, simply by pointing out how many people you know own guns and how many have killed someone outside of the military. Ask those three situations, what would need to happen in order for that person to survive without a gun. What would it take for the victim to survive with one. That is why I am pro-gun.

The greater the availability of guns in a society (and by this I don't only mean legal ownership, I mean the propensity for them to be stolen or otherwise found/gained), the greater number of crimes that will be committed with them. That is a fact. Having as many guns as the US does in our society is a dangerous thing. However, not having those guns could be just as dangerous. I completely agree with what you pointed out. But we have to understand and accept that the mass availability of firearms in a society is also a danger, because it makes it easier for bad people to get them, or for somebody to make a bad choice with one.

Cal-gun Fan
April 25, 2012, 02:57 PM
What you'll find is a lot of people in this world are not capable of analyzing information. If the case is, let's say randomly the following information:
2009: 60 murders with knives, 60 murders with guns
2011: 90 murders with knives, 30 murders with guns

You can say "murder with guns went down!" But murder stayed the same. On the other hand,

2009: 60 murders with knives, 60 murders with guns.
2011: 60 murders with knives, 30 murders with guns.

Well in this scenario, murders did fall overall, specifically in the realm of gun related. Then, you have to look at why that happened. We're assuming this is an anti stat, so probably in 2010 there was a gun control law passed. But what else happened? Was there a mass shooting in 2009? Were people in 2011 accused of manslaughter instead of murder? Are people in 2011 still on trial, and thus haven't been convicted of murder? Were there other events, such as neighborhood watch being put up, which would reduce the murder rate?

And last, if there was a gun control law that supposedly banned all guns, why are there still 30 murders with guns? (A coworker of mine tried using a chart comparing US to UK per capita, I was like "if they don't have guns in the UK, how'd they commit these murders with them?")

You also can't compare country-to-country, because different cultures have different ways of handling things, different methods of reporting, etc.

In the first scenario, the antis are just reporting the gun deaths, and not the overall trend. In the second scenario, the articles only report statistics, but the reason why things happened is more important.

See, those statistics don't work though. The US has an overall higher homicide rate, doesn't matter with what, than the UK. As for your 60/60 90/30 scenario, that doesn't work either. If somebody who would commit a murder with a gun does not have access to a gun, it significantly decreases their ability to commit that murder and thus their likelihood of committing it. The gun lets you kill somebody from far away with little danger to yourself and with little evidence (no fingerprints/dna on a knife etc).

Steve CT
April 25, 2012, 03:15 PM
I have a FaceBook account. I use it to see the latest pictures of my Grand Daughter, and to keep track of interesting events and interact with nieces, nephews, friends, family, etc.

I have Shooting Forum accounts to talk about shooting, guns, RTKBA, 2A, etc.

I would no more discuss shooting on FaceBook than I would share the latest about my niece's baby daughter on THR.

Hardware
April 25, 2012, 03:16 PM
Home/self defense. Which means intent to kill if provoked. Without the gun you would probably use a bat or knife usually not fatal. So that being said guns are bought to kill things even deer (recreational use). That being said guns kill.

Hysterical! Use a knife or bat in self defense in the wrong state and you'll get charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon.

allaroundhunter
April 25, 2012, 03:17 PM
Personally, I don't get into discussions about firearms on facebook. If someone wants to talk with me about the "problems they cause" we usually go out to lunch or something. I don't see a point in arguing behind a computer screen because it just makes it easier for them to go find false anti-gun propaganda to post.

If they want an honest opinion, I sit and chat with them. I have been through it with 3 of my friends, each lunch date ended with a follow up at a shooting range, and each of those 3 friends now own firearms.

RBid
April 25, 2012, 03:18 PM
Facebook is a powerful tool.

If people see that you're kind, courteous, respectful, thoughtful, and supportive of friends and family, it goes a long way toward creating opportunity to help anti-gun people understand that their idea of "gun owners" is way off base. Facebook gives us a very convenient medium with which to model the real face of "gun owners", and to make 'us' less scary to 'them'.

I have converted some 'liberals' from Portland into gun owners, just by being approachable, and having respectful conversations. Facebook has been a catalyst, each time.

JustinJ
April 25, 2012, 03:24 PM
I think we need to quite saying "guns don't kill, people do" because we look like we are missing an obvious point. Those who oppose guns do not believe guns will grow little gun legs and run around pulling their own triggers. They believe that guns enable people to kill and kill larger numbers more effectively and that killers are at times encouraged to murder because guns make it easier to do so. Nuclear weapons and suicide vests don't kill without being actuated by humans either but i certainly don't want my neighbors to own either. There are much better arguements for gun rights so let's let this one go because it is convincing nobody. My response would have been along the lines of "yes, there are certainly people who misuse guns as there are those who misuse vehicles but that does not mean i should lose my ability to defend myself".

oldgold
April 25, 2012, 03:41 PM
Since your buddy likes facts;


A LITTLE GUN HISTORY



In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million..

SabbathWolf
April 25, 2012, 03:44 PM
Lots of people die every year in alcohol related car crashes too...
But that doesn't make every drinker an irresponsible lush either.
And history showed that prohibition didn't work either anyways.

allaroundhunter
April 25, 2012, 03:44 PM
And don't forget Mexico....how come there are so many killings with firearms if they are illegal to own?

Cal-gun Fan
April 25, 2012, 03:44 PM
That history is fairly irrelevant as we are talking about modern, 1st world nations here, not oppressive totalitarian regimes.

allaroundhunter
April 25, 2012, 03:47 PM
That history is fairly irrelevant as we are talking about modern, 1st world nations here, not oppressive totalitarian regimes.

Our 1st world nation's government gave weapons to 3rd world criminals which were in turn used to kill our 1st world Border Patrol agents. Regardless of living conditions and government structure, if guns are illegal, criminals will still get them and use them.

ForumSurfer
April 25, 2012, 03:57 PM
because I dislike people like you who are completely closed minded when people try to take away your toys.

Delete and ignore former friend

My patience has worn thin over the years. I prefer to be happy and I'm not going to argue with someone that convinced because I will just end up frustrated. Pointless and silly for me. If I want to make myself upset, I'll just go stump my toe...it will take less time and be over faster.

Arguing on facebook is even more pointless than arguing on a forum. You won't change his mind by arguing on facebook, so why bother? I know you want to convince your friend of the facts, but what you've got going on is an internet water-sport contest. I had a coworker who wanted to get into a debate like that over pictures of my eldest shooting his first centerfire. She posted a negative comment, I simply deleted the comment and her. She has her heels dug in as deeply as I do, so there isn't much point in a discussing something that will just get heated.

SabbathWolf
April 25, 2012, 03:59 PM
That history is fairly irrelevant as we are talking about modern, 1st world nations here, not oppressive totalitarian regimes.

Lol.....
History is never irrelevent.

Cal-gun Fan
April 25, 2012, 04:02 PM
Lol.....
History is never irrelevent.
Of course its not irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. However, for this specific topic and the scenarios it addresses, it is irrelevant.

allaroundhunter
April 25, 2012, 04:10 PM
Of course its not irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. However, for this specific topic and the scenarios it addresses, it is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment is to provide for the security of citizens of the US. That includes a security from a government that wants to hold more power. I am not saying that our government does, it is just what the amendment is there for. The 2nd amendment was a step taken by the founders of the Constitution based on previous experiences in history that they obviously knew were not irrelevant.

As soon as the government takes away guns, it can lead to an oppressive, totalitarian regime, like the ones that you say are irrelevant. It is very relevant because history repeats itself. Guns might kill, but they also protect. And they protect a whole lot more than some people understand.

Cal-gun Fan
April 25, 2012, 04:33 PM
The 2nd amendment is to provide for the security of citizens of the US. That includes a security from a government that wants to hold more power. I am not saying that our government does, it is just what the amendment is there for. The 2nd amendment was a step taken by the founders of the Constitution based on previous experiences in history that they obviously knew were not irrelevant.

As soon as the government takes away guns, it can lead to an oppressive, totalitarian regime, like the ones that you say are irrelevant. It is very relevant because history repeats itself. Guns might kill, but they also protect. And they protect a whole lot more than some people understand.

I agree with everything you say-my point was just that we were talking about crime rates in 1st world countries with the primary variable being the ease of obtaining a firearm, and the 20th century totalitarian regimes didn't factor into that discussion.

DCoke
April 25, 2012, 04:36 PM
Like Larry the Cable Guy said (and I paraphrase here) ....if you can blame guns for killing people .... does that mean I can blame my pencil for spelling mistakes?....your friend is uneducated about guns....and statistics....by his own statistics (and faulty logic)... we have about for times the homicide by guns rate as Itally....but we have millions of times as many guns. They still have deaths where guns are not allowed.....if he were to look at the statistics that Italy has for knife murders, suicides, etc....he'd find it higher....if guns aren't available then the perpetrator will use whatever tool is available...and the criminal will still try to obtain the gun and have one when the law-abiding citizen won't. You're friend is an ideologue with what he thinks and feels and no true understanding of guns and real statistics.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
April 25, 2012, 04:39 PM
Seems like I kicked over an ant hill.

I probably won't delete the kid, and won't delete my Facebook, because it's a means to get ahold of some friends who have moved out of state and some family that I don't see often.

He was a buddy from school, and I just never known his stance on firearms. We'll probably shrug it off and carry on like usual.

Cal-gun Fan
April 25, 2012, 04:41 PM
Like Larry the Cable Guy said (and I paraphrase here) ....if you can blame guns for killing people .... does that mean I can blame my pencil for spelling mistakes?....your friend is uneducated about guns....and statistics....by his own statistics (and faulty logic)... we have about for times the homicide by guns rate as Itally....but we have millions of times as many guns. They still have deaths where guns are not allowed.....if he were to look at the statistics that Italy has for knife murders, suicides, etc....he'd find it higher....if guns aren't available then the perpetrator will use whatever tool is available...and the criminal will still try to obtain the gun and have one when the law-abiding citizen won't. You're friend is an ideologue with what he thinks and feels and no true understanding of guns and real statistics.

Its not about blaming the guns for the murder. The gun gives people increased ability to kill. Without that increased ability, its quite possible that they wouldn't commit the murder.

Skribs
April 25, 2012, 04:51 PM
Personally, I wouldn't want to be friends with an anti. If I am in a situation where me and my friend are attacked, I'd rather have my friend be at-worst a non-carrier who is willing to let me defend myself. I wouldn't want to be hanging out with someone who would beg me to comply with whatever demands my assailants had without conflict.

Cal-Guns, you bring up some good points. However, here's what happens if you make guns illegal: less criminals will have guns to commit crimes, and no law-abiding citizens will have guns to defend themselves. Even if they don't have guns, if there's more of them and they're bigger than me, they're going to win.

The homicide rate was per capita, not overall.

You also bring up the more guns, the more crimes that will be commited with guns. What about crimes that aren't? Do they go up or down? Statistics which look at all countries, and not just cherry pick, say it doesn't make much difference. It also depends on what a crime is. Like Old Gold brought up, in the US, disagreeing with the government isn't a crime punishible by death - it's encouraged in the constitution. However, in Germany 1939, it was apparently a violent crime to be Jewish. Once that went into effect, I'd say the amount of crime in Germany went up a smeg-ton.

As to a gun letting you kill someone from far away, from my understanding most murders - even with guns - happen in close quarters. The exceptions I see are snipers, drive-by shootings, and mass shootings. It would be just as easy in most cases of a robbery, mugging, or home invasion, for the perp to use a knife or blunt instrument, especially if they know that a law-abiding citizen will not be armed.

The famous "that's not a knife" scene from Crocodile Dundee just popped into my head.

ETA, posted while I was writing:

Its not about blaming the guns for the murder. The gun gives people increased ability to kill. Without that increased ability, its quite possible that they wouldn't commit the murder.

If I have a gun, and a 6'3" athletic thug has a gun, it is harder for him to murder me than if I am unarmed and he has a baseball bat, for the simple reason that I have an equal opportunity to defend myself.

holdencm9
April 25, 2012, 04:56 PM
Its not about blaming the guns for the murder. The gun gives people increased ability to kill. Without that increased ability, its quite possible that they wouldn't commit the murder.

I have read that some experts at one point did a study, and determined that a very very small fraction of murders committed with firearms would have not been committed had a firearm not been readily accessible. I can't find a link right now, and maybe some confirmation bias at work, but it stands to reason that if someone really wants to murder someone, they may CHOOSE a gun if possible, but the absence of a gun won't deter them from finding another way to do it.

Cal-gun Fan
April 25, 2012, 05:25 PM
I'd be hiiiiiighly skeptical of that. The gun just affords so much more capability than any other type of weapon. You shoot somebody in the head or the chest with the right ammunition, and they're pretty much guaranteed to die. With a knife or baseball bat, its so much different.

I'm not of the mind that guns should be illegal at all, and like I've said, the benefits of self defense and having an armed population far outweigh the negatives.

SabbathWolf
April 25, 2012, 06:03 PM
I don't see how the whole (1st World Country) thing even figures into this really...as far as gun availabilty goes.
Ever been to Africa?
Not only can you get guns even easier there, but you can get GOOD guns with happy switches too.
:D

JustinJ
April 25, 2012, 06:05 PM
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million..

The common theme in all those scenarios is totalitarian governments. There are numerous european and asian countries that have gun control, some for quite a while now, that haven't experienced such things. The soviet union and china had just fought civil wars. Don't get me started on why it happened in Cambodia. How these things happened is extremely complex and saying guns would have prevented them is awfully optimistic.

VA27
April 25, 2012, 06:24 PM
Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level & beat you with experience.

^This^

JSolie
April 25, 2012, 06:32 PM
:scrutiny: :scrutiny: Internet Argument! :scrutiny: :scrutiny:

Doctors vs. Gun Owners
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are: 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is: 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is: 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is: .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Cal-gun Fan
April 25, 2012, 06:37 PM
Thats a bad comparison of statistics. Doctors and surgeons can be cutting into people, working inside their organs, and one tiny slip up or mistake can cause death, and often they're working with people who are already badly injured or in bad enough shape to warrant their insides being worked on. You can't logically compare that to guns.

Hacker15E
April 25, 2012, 06:50 PM
Arguing on Facebook is retarded, no matter how righteous the cause. There's never a 'winner', but there are sure a lot of losers.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
April 25, 2012, 07:00 PM
Points taken. No more arguing, I'll just respect his beliefs and not defend him if he needed it. lol.

ClayInTX
April 25, 2012, 07:23 PM
I donít have, never had, Facebook.

I get pictures and news of family and friends all the time by plain email.

You donít need Facebook for conversation.

Using Facebook is like having a radio station tapped into your telephone line, or sending mail by using Letters to the Editor.

nofishbob
April 25, 2012, 07:28 PM
I am confused by the sign that started all this-

"Why Do I Carry A Gun?"
"Because you're not QUALIFIED to carry one. You haven't the skill, the judgement, the sense of responsibility, nor the courage to carry one!"

Is there a typo in this? It makes no sense to me as posted, and even less sense that the OP would like it enough to post it on FB.

Perhaps I just missed something.

Bob

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
April 25, 2012, 07:54 PM
Well, as it's written out is how it's posted at the LGS. I like it because in my opinion, if you're all for letting our government handle our safety, then you shouldn't be qualified to own a firearm anyway.

Husker1911
April 25, 2012, 08:08 PM
Don't forget, you are helping protect this person. Dare them to post a sign such as this on their premises or front door:

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c248/Husker1911/defense-free-crime-zone.png

loganb
April 25, 2012, 10:11 PM
LJ-We're missing a valuable piece of info.....what did you find at Der Jagerhof....aka the LGS? I'm assuming its that one as I've been in all the gun stores I'm aware of in CB and Omaha and thats the only one I've ever seen that sign in!

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
April 25, 2012, 11:01 PM
That's the sign I was talking about. I found it there.

danez71
April 26, 2012, 12:18 AM
The gun just affords so much more capability than any other type of weapon. You shoot somebody in the head or the chest with the right ammunition, and they're pretty much guaranteed to die. With a knife or baseball bat, its so much different.


I dont buy that at all.

How about a car?

Make a simple right turn and take out 20-30 people on a bus bench. And you get to keep going to the next one with even reloading.

The United States is home to the largest passenger vehicle market of any country in the world.[1] Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study.[2]



The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US.

Cars are readily availible; more prolific than guns. They are just as deadly IF someone chooses to kill.


The gun gives people increased ability to kill. Without that increased ability, its quite possible that they wouldn't commit the murder.

Nope. Guns only give an incease in quantity of options to use to kill.

If you eliminate guns, its quite possible, and proven to be true, that people will just choose another weapon.

Cal-gun Fan
April 26, 2012, 12:56 AM
I dont buy that at all.

How about a car?

Make a simple right turn and take out 20-30 people on a bus bench. And you get to keep going to the next one with even reloading.






Cars are readily availible; more prolific than guns. They are just as deadly IF someone chooses to kill.




Nope. Guns only give an incease in quantity of options to use to kill.

If you eliminate guns, its quite possible, and proven to be true, that people will just choose another weapon.

Cars are a necessity in today's society for many people. Guns aren't. Also, using a car to kill people isn't nearly as easy as you might consider it. First, if you run into something like a fire hydrant or a telephone pole, you're basically done. If you hit somebody, the car's velocity is going to decrease, making it less and less lethal. Depending on how you hit people, you may not even kill them. I've seen somebody get hit at my highschool's crosswalk by a car that was speeding and he got right back up. Broken leg, but not dead. Plus, hitting people with a car is basically a one-way trip. You can't ditch a car like you can ditch a gun, and your beat to hell car with blood all over it is going to be extremely easy to find.

Guns let you kill from a distance, remain concealed, almost certainly kill, and so much more.

allaroundhunter
April 26, 2012, 01:03 AM
Cars are a necessity in today's society for many people. Guns aren't. Also, using a car to kill people isn't nearly as easy as you might consider it. First, if you run into something like a fire hydrant or a telephone pole, you're basically done. If you hit somebody, the car's velocity is going to decrease, making it less and less lethal. Depending on how you hit people, you may not even kill them. I've seen somebody get hit at my highschool's crosswalk by a car that was speeding and he got right back up. Broken leg, but not dead. Plus, hitting people with a car is basically a one-way trip. You can't ditch a car like you can ditch a gun, and your beat to hell car with blood all over it is going to be extremely easy to find.

Guns let you kill from a distance, remain concealed, almost certainly kill, and so much more.

What you are giving an example of is an accidental hit. If someone is intent on killing with a car, it is just as easy as with a gun (if not easier). After hitting someone, the car's velocity will only decrease if you hit the brakes, if not, it will be like a speed bump. And you can most certainly ditch a car; it might not be hidden as well as a gun, but you can ditch it none-the-less.

And, hardly any gun-related murders occur from a distance (that being a relative term). Most all firearm murders are fairly close quarters. Also, a gunshot is most definitely not an almost certain kill. A bullet wound to the chest is much easier to treat than a body that has been hit by a car going upwards of 50 mph with 2 punctured and collapsed lungs, multiple broken ribs, a broken back, and a broken neck. My grandmother was a nurse and had saw both in one night, want to guess which victim survived?


.....I think living in Cali is getting to you.... ;)

holdencm9
April 26, 2012, 09:07 AM
I'd be hiiiiiighly skeptical of that. The gun just affords so much more capability than any other type of weapon. You shoot somebody in the head or the chest with the right ammunition, and they're pretty much guaranteed to die. With a knife or baseball bat, its so much different.

Actually something like 4 in 5 gunshot victims survive their injuries. Couple that with the fact that handguns are difficult instruments to effectively use, and COM or headshots are difficult even for those of us who train, and you have your reason.

Also, I don't think the doctor comparison is bad, but we should be comparing negligence on the part of doctors that leads to deaths, to accidental shootings, which is also a form of negligence. Guaranteed doctor related deaths due to negligence far outweigh gun-related accidental death.

Cal-gun fan, I get what you are doing, playing devil's advocate. It's a good thing to make sure there is a balanced view here, point-counterpoint is fun, but the only part of your argument so far I agree with is that handguns are easy to conceal, much moreso than a bat or a sword or a car. They do not offer near-guaranteed kills, MOST people CANNOT kill from any significant distance with one, and really, if someone is smart I don't think they'd use a gun because it leaves so much forensic evidence behind (especially autoloaders).

Back to the OP, I'd say he did fine, although on FB I wouldn't have let the conversation go that far, or maybe PM'd him to go to the range sometime.

bri
April 26, 2012, 09:27 AM
I think the quote you found at your LGS is pompous and extremely presumptive, not the type of thing I'd want to be associated with. This type of attitude is one reason why antis look down on pro-gunners.

pockets
April 26, 2012, 09:58 AM
Well, as it's written out is how it's posted at the LGS. I like it because in my opinion, if you're all for letting our government handle our safety, then you shouldn't be qualified to own a firearm anyway.
You mean to tell us that the only reason for anyone to own a firearm is for safety (defense)?
And that we all have to meet some intangible qualification to even own a firearm?
Seriously? Do you really believe that? Did I miss that part of the 2nd Amendment?
All that 'qualified' me to own dozens of firearms was cash in hand (and a background check in some cases)).
When you plunked down $89 for a Mosin, did they ask for your qualifications? Did you have any qualifications to produce if they did ask?

That 'gun shop sign' verbiage is one of the silliest things I've read lately.


.

DammitBoy
April 26, 2012, 10:22 AM
FaceBook, Twitter and other social media are helping to ensure that all intelligent and informed discourse of crucial matters is relegated to sound bites or pithy remarks of 144 characters or less.

I use all my social media to promote responsible gun ownership, the 2nd amendment, the shooting sports/collecting, and to dispel myths and lies about guns.

At every social forum I post at I post pictures of my firearm collection with background info on the gun and why I like it and how i use it.

I deal with the negative comments with supportable, verifiable sources of facts and stats in a calm non-confrontational method.

I've found this to be a great tool to change some opinions on many occasions.

usmarine0352_2005
April 26, 2012, 10:40 AM
.
http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-washington-sees-a-sharp-increase-in-concealed-weapon-permits-20120425,0,175360.story


.
But others worry about the trend, including Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn.

“If somebody has a gun in their house for whatever reason, the likelihood of somebody in that household being injured by a gun goes up dramatically,” said McGinn. “I’m concerned that there are some myths out there that having a gun will make you safer.”
.



Reminds me of this comment.


First, guns don't injure people, people using guns do.


Secondly, if guns don't make you safer why do cops carry them?



Also, guns have been used in many self-defense situations, so obviously they will help make you safer. Even if for just peace of mind for most people.
.

Gordon_Freeman
April 26, 2012, 10:51 AM
This is why I am not on facebook. The quote that is posted at the gun store is not going to help people understand our second amendment rights.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
April 26, 2012, 11:54 AM
Taking my post clearly a different way than I actually said it.

If you're a part of this country, through what this country has gone through, if you're willing to let the government handle everything, then why WOULD you keep a gun? Why SHOULD you keep a gun? That's what I'm trying to say. These anti's are more than happy to rely on someone else when it comes down to an emergency, and more likely than not, it's us gunowners who can handle it ourselves if it gets that bad.

coalman
April 26, 2012, 12:38 PM
Guns are in fact a tool with one fundamental purpose: to put holes in things. Denying this purpose is incorrent IMO. Regardless, tools do in fact require an operator.

M.Weier
April 26, 2012, 02:50 PM
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless if it is correct on our/your eyes. That being said the entitlement to ones own opinion would be non existant if it were not protected by the 2nd amendment........food for "Facebook" thought.

SabbathWolf
April 26, 2012, 07:16 PM
Cars are a necessity in today's society for many people. Guns aren't. Also, using a car to kill people isn't nearly as easy as you might consider it. First, if you run into something like a fire hydrant or a telephone pole, you're basically done. If you hit somebody, the car's velocity is going to decrease, making it less and less lethal. Depending on how you hit people, you may not even kill them. I've seen somebody get hit at my highschool's crosswalk by a car that was speeding and he got right back up. Broken leg, but not dead. Plus, hitting people with a car is basically a one-way trip. You can't ditch a car like you can ditch a gun, and your beat to hell car with blood all over it is going to be extremely easy to find.

Guns let you kill from a distance, remain concealed, almost certainly kill, and so much more.

Cars are not a necessity, and never have been.
We survived just fine without cars for thousands of years.
That's a silly statement.

Point of fact though, is that we (man) have had a need for weapons for much much longer and probably always will in one form or another.
We've had weapons since before we even discovered Fire or the Wheel.

Skribs
April 26, 2012, 07:36 PM
Sabbath, the thing about cars is that we use cars everyday for their intended purpose (to get around). I don't use my gun everyday for its intended purpose (self defense).

SabbathWolf
April 26, 2012, 08:00 PM
Sabbath, the thing about cars is that we use cars everyday for their intended purpose (to get around). I don't use my gun everyday for its intended purpose (self defense).

LOL.....

We use cars for work and pleasure both.
Same with guns.
We used guns to hunt and survive with for a long time too.
We didn't always have a grocery store with a meat freezer.
But the "frequency" of something we use is sort of irrelevant.
I mean I don't use a hammer or a saw every day either, but I sure own a few.

Cal-gun Fan
April 26, 2012, 08:25 PM
LOL.....

We use cars for work and pleasure both.
Same with guns.
We used guns to hunt and survive with for a long time too.
We didn't always have a grocery store with a meat freezer.
But the "frequency" of something we use is sort of irrelevant.
I mean I don't use a hammer or a saw every day either, but I sure own a few.

Sabbath, in modern society plenty of people use cars to commute to their jobs or get to the grocery store etc. They are a modern necessity for many people. Guns aren't.

holdencm9
April 26, 2012, 08:33 PM
Sabbath, in modern society plenty of people use cars to commute to their jobs or get to the grocery store etc. They are a modern necessity for many people. Guns aren't.

Car insurance is a modern necessity. I haven't ever needed to use it but I keep it anyway.

I agree the frequency of use does not correlate to importance or "necessity."

If you carry a gun your entire life, and use it once to save your life, is it still less important than the car you drove to work every day, when mass transit would have sufficed? If you never use your gun does that void its importance? If you never make a claim on car insurance, was having it a mistake? (And can I get all my premiums back?!? :) )

All rhetorical questions of course.

allaroundhunter
April 26, 2012, 08:36 PM
I think holdencm9 nailed it.

DammitBoy
April 26, 2012, 08:39 PM
Guns are not a modern necessity? News to me...

SabbathWolf
April 26, 2012, 08:44 PM
Car insurance is a modern necessity. I haven't ever needed to use it but I keep it anyway.

I agree the frequency of use does not correlate to importance or "necessity."

If you carry a gun your entire life, and use it once to save your life, is it still less important than the car you drove to work every day, when mass transit would have sufficed? If you never use your gun does that void its importance? If you never make a claim on car insurance, was having it a mistake? (And can I get all my premiums back?!? :) )

All rhetorical questions of course.

Thank you!
It's really nice to actually read a rational post such as yours right here.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Swampdragon/smilies/529eb8d6.gif

SabbathWolf
April 26, 2012, 08:49 PM
Sabbath, in modern society plenty of people use cars to commute to their jobs or get to the grocery store etc. They are a modern necessity for many people. Guns aren't.

I am beginning to think you've lived quite a sheltered life, and cannot honestly determine the difference between a "wanted convenience" and a "necessity."

Next you'll be telling me a TV and an XBOX is a necessity too, just because in modern society plenty of people use them.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Swampdragon/smilies/b53ddb2d.gif

I have a few Amish neighbors down the road who have never owned a car, a TV or an XBOX either in their entire lives...and they seem to get by just fine.

allaroundhunter
April 26, 2012, 08:51 PM
Necessity: Food, water, oxygen

Luxury: Vehicle, television, THR ;)

Cal-gun Fan
April 27, 2012, 12:01 AM
I am beginning to think you've lived quite a sheltered life, and cannot honestly determine the difference between a "wanted convenience" and a "necessity."

Next you'll be telling me a TV and an XBOX is a necessity too, just because in modern society plenty of people use them.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Swampdragon/smilies/b53ddb2d.gif

I have a few Amish neighbors down the road who have never owned a car, a TV or an XBOX either in their entire lives...and they seem to get by just fine.

Sabbath, feel free to think up as many misconceptions as you want about me :) I'm 15, and I haven't grown up sheltered. I have no issues distinguishing what is a convenience and what is a necessity. My father is a police lieutenant, and while he still loves and shoots guns, he has dealt with plenty of people who use guns for bad purposes. If there were no guns on the streets, there would be certainly be less crime, less of a danger to police officers, and less of a danger to society as a whole.
That said, if there were no guns, we would also lose out on the fundamental ability to defend oneself and those dear to them as efficiently. We would lose a proud part of our heritage. We would lose the strength that comes with having an armed populace. We would lose an incredibly enjoyable recreational activity. So, guns have their place in society, but they aren't a necessity. Your Amish argument actually works against you. I know plenty of people who have not and will never touch a gun in their life, and they get along just fine. Are guns a good thing for society? Yes. Do I think people should be allowed to have guns? Yes. Do I think guns are totally awesome? Absolutely! I even wrote about them in my Highschool newspaper. But they aren't a necessity, not by a long shot.

SabbathWolf
April 27, 2012, 12:56 AM
Sabbath, feel free to think up as many misconceptions as you want about me :) I'm 15.......

Enough said right there.
I rest my case.
I was already in the army and being shot at by people before you were even born.
You have nothing left to tell "me" at all until you grow up, move out on your own, support yourself, gain a WHOLE lot more wisdom and life experience, and start wearing big-boy pants first.

allaroundhunter
April 27, 2012, 12:57 AM
If there were no guns on the streets, there would be certainly be less crime, less of a danger to police officers, and less of a danger to society as a whole.

Really? There would be less crime, and less danger to police officers? Have you looked at what is going on in Mexico? Guns are not legal there, and they average over 200 murders per day...Do you understand that police officers and their families are still being brutally executed by that are obtained illegally?....


I think the California media is getting to you...in theory, yes, if there were no guns on the streets there would be no murders by firearms. But there is no way to keep criminals from getting them illegally. Having guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens actually decreases the danger to police officers and innocent civilians (but again, that California media won't tell you that).

SabbathWolf
April 27, 2012, 01:08 AM
Really? There would be less crime, and less danger to police officers? Have you looked at what is going on in Mexico? Guns are not legal there, and they average over 200 murders per day...Do you understand that police officers and their families are still being brutally executed by that are obtained illegally?....


I think the California media is getting to you...in theory, yes, if there were no guns on the streets there would be no murders by firearms. But there is no way to keep criminals from getting them illegally. Having guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens actually decreases the danger to police officers and innocent civilians (but again, that California media won't tell you that).

We are arguing with somebody from Komifornia.
And not only that, but somebody not even old to buy or event rent a firearm.....let alone be even remotely qualified to discuss them....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Swampdragon/smilies/b53ddb2d.gif

Cal-gun Fan
April 27, 2012, 01:10 AM
Enough said right there.
I rest my case.
I was already in the army and being shot at by people before you were even born.
You have nothing left to tell "me" at all until you grow up, move out on your own, support yourself, gain a WHOLE lot more wisdom and life experience, and start wearing big-boy pants first.

SabbathWolf:
Ok. I can understand that. I don't have the experience you do and can only speak from my experiences and research. I greatly appreciate your service to our republic, and that of all who do so.

@Allaroundhunter: I feel like we can ALL agree that the US and Mexico are far different situations. There are plenty of countries around the globe that completely outlaw guns and have terrible crime rates. However, those countries have far greater problems going on that contribute to that. The best comparison remains the United States and Britain.

Finally...lay off on the Cali bashing :) We have bad gun rights, I get it. We've got a bunch of liberals, I get it. ************...PRK...**********...whatever you want to call it, its my home, and the home of a lot of other gun owners, patriots, and good Americans. Its beautiful country and I've got a great deal of memories and friends here. Guns aren't everything.

Scott W.
April 27, 2012, 01:15 AM
Here is one of my fav, E Mails that My Doctor sent to me (Alarming stats...

A. The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
B. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
C. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171
(U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Then think about this:
A. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000 (yes,
eighty-million!).
B: The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
C: The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is . 0000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR

Cal-gun Fan
April 27, 2012, 01:17 AM
Here is one of my fav, E Mails that My Doctor sent to me (Alarming stats...

A. The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
B. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
C. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171
(U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Then think about this:
A. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000 (yes,
eighty-million!).
B: The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
C: The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is . 0000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR
If you'll look back to page 3, that already got posted. Here's what i wrote in reply:
Thats a bad comparison of statistics. Doctors and surgeons can be cutting into people, working inside their organs, and one tiny slip up or mistake can cause death, and often they're working with people who are already badly injured or in bad enough shape to warrant their insides being worked on. You can't logically compare that to guns.

allaroundhunter
April 27, 2012, 01:24 AM
Thats a bad comparison of statistics. Doctors and surgeons can be cutting into people, working inside their organs, and one tiny slip up or mistake can cause death, and often they're working with people who are already badly injured or in bad enough shape to warrant their insides being worked on. You can't logically compare that to guns

Actually, you can. And that number is low, it is closer to 200,000 deaths per year, and those are due to errors. That means that a doctor failed in an aspect that they have trained for, or blatantly failed to follow protocol on an operation (and yes, I have had a family member die from this).

RBid
April 27, 2012, 01:26 AM
Off topic:

It begs to be said that the 'kid' is conducting himself with dignity, and has been respectful to all participants. He has yet to make personal attacks, and deserves respect. His opinions or beliefs may not line up with yours (universal 'yours', not specific to a poster), but neither differing perspective, nor age, warrant disrespectful replies.

Given that he's 15, it should be immediately evident that he didn't make the call to live in California. Even more relevant, when dealing with other California residents: making assumptions about someone, because of geography, is silly. We, the gun community, have many brothers and sisters, who happen to live in places where they are fighting an uphill battle, locally.

Further, when dealing with youth, do not brush them off. Cali is young... Right now. He is only 3 years away from voting eligibility, and is here because he wants to interact with others in the gun community. This guy, and other young people, are our future. They will have a tremendous impact in our future legal landscape. When they show up, we should take it as an opportunity to help provide perspective, and to welcome them.


Cali-

Kudos, for your diplomatic posts. That is rare to see from anyone, much less any guy south of 28-30.

Cal-gun Fan
April 27, 2012, 01:34 AM
Off topic:

It begs to be said that the 'kid' is conducting himself with dignity, and has been respectful to all participants. He has yet to make personal attacks, and deserves respect. His opinions or beliefs may not line up with yours (universal 'yours', not specific to a poster), but neither differing perspective, nor age, warrant disrespectful replies.

Given that he's 15, it should be immediately evident that he didn't make the call to live in California. Even more relevant, when dealing with other California residents: making assumptions about someone, because of geography, is silly. We, the gun community, have many brothers and sisters, who happen to live in places where they are fighting an uphill battle, locally.

Further, when dealing with youth, do not brush them off. Cali is young... Right now. He is only 3 years away from voting eligibility, and is here because he wants to interact with others in the gun community. This guy, and other young people, are our future. They will have a tremendous impact in our future legal landscape. When they show up, we should take it as an opportunity to help provide perspective, and to welcome them.


Cali-

Kudos, for your diplomatic posts. That is rare to see from anyone, much less any guy south of 28-30.

Thanks RBid, I appreciate that very much :) I enjoy these discussions a great deal though, for multiple reasons, but mainly because playing devils advocate helps me personally to understand why that side is incorrect, which allows me to debate from my real point of view more efficiently in the future and be more sure of myself in said discussions.

I don't have the life experiences that you all do. I concede that willingly. That being said, I do strongly believe that the doctor scenario doesn't correlate with guns. In the doctor scenario, they are directly affecting your health and well-being, whereas a gun is not unless you are foolish and unsafe with it.

SabbathWolf
April 27, 2012, 02:13 AM
Your Amish argument actually works against you. I know plenty of people who have not and will never touch a gun in their life, and they get along just fine. Are guns a good thing for society? Yes. Do I think people should be allowed to have guns? Yes. Do I think guns are totally awesome? Absolutely! I even wrote about them in my Highschool newspaper. But they aren't a necessity, not by a long shot.

Oh yeah, my Amish example does not work against me.
That's just another example of your apparent lack of knowledge.
Amish are pacifists...that's true.
But they still use guns quite regularly to hunt.
You know not what you speak of child.

Please just stop while you are so far way behind and stop embarrassing yourself.


http://amishamerica.com/do-amish-use-guns/

RBid
April 27, 2012, 02:14 AM
Cali,

No need to thank me. If anything, I feel that I should thank you. When discussions like these play out 20 years from now, you are very likely to be taking the other side.

Based on your lack of willingness to accept a discussion point, simply because it lines up with your actual feelings, I have a hunch that you will grow into a strong voice for us, even if that voice doesn't speak from a podium, pulpit, or screen.

Our task, if our goal is REALLY to protect our 2A (and carry!) rights, is to convert as many 'anti-gun' people as possible. To do so, we need to be able to understand their thinking, so that we can help explain our own views in a way that will resonate with them. In sales, this is referred to as 'overcoming objection'. The best salesmen know what objections they have to overcome, before they are brought up. Despite your relatively limited life experience, you seem to be well ahead of the curve in figuring that out.


As far as the doctor relation goes... I won't say whether I agree that it fits, or not. Why? Because it's not an ironclad comparison. That particular talking point is very likely to produce debate over it's own merit, which detracts from the goal of advancing the point of the person attempting to use it.

The bottom line, to me, is that I will not use an argument against an anti-gun person, unless it can not be rationally debated.

SabbathWolf
April 27, 2012, 02:21 AM
Off topic:

It begs to be said that the 'kid' is conducting himself with dignity, and has been respectful to all participants. He has yet to make personal attacks, and deserves respect. His opinions or beliefs may not line up with yours (universal 'yours', not specific to a poster), but neither differing perspective, nor age, warrant disrespectful replies.

Given that he's 15, it should be immediately evident that he didn't make the call to live in California. Even more relevant, when dealing with other California residents: making assumptions about someone, because of geography, is silly. We, the gun community, have many brothers and sisters, who happen to live in places where they are fighting an uphill battle, locally.

Further, when dealing with youth, do not brush them off. Cali is young... Right now. He is only 3 years away from voting eligibility, and is here because he wants to interact with others in the gun community. This guy, and other young people, are our future. They will have a tremendous impact in our future legal landscape. When they show up, we should take it as an opportunity to help provide perspective, and to welcome them.


Cali-

Kudos, for your diplomatic posts. That is rare to see from anyone, much less any guy south of 28-30.

It's not an attack Sir to state that a kid is a kid.
Nor is it an attack to state the experience level of a kid is pretty low compared to an experienced adult.
It just a statement of fact.

RBid
April 27, 2012, 02:43 AM
Sabbath,

I never said that it was an attack. My reply was an open call to be patient with him, to respect that he has conducted himself with dignity, and to help him gain understanding.

"I have more life experience than you" is less helpful than, "I see what you're trying to say. Consider this point of view, which I have gained because of (examples of experiences)". Wouldn't you agree?


Sabbath, I enjoy my Second Amendment rights. I am a Concealed Handgun License holder, and a full time (every waking minute, everywhere I go) gun carrier. I live in a predominantly 'liberal' state. I do not feel that we, the gun community, have the luxury of alienating or dismissing anyone who is willing to enter a peaceful discussion about our views. Gun owners currently represent about 30% of our eligible voters. If we can disprove media-, and fear driven stereotypes, we can increase that number, and gain support in our efforts to protect our 2A rights.

Where you see a 'kid', I see a level-headed, articulate, future voter, who has clearly stated that his goal is to leave here armed with more and better arguments in our favor.

holdencm9
April 27, 2012, 09:15 AM
Cal-Gun Fan, let me fix this for you:

" If there were no guns on the streets in the hands of criminals, there would be certainly be less gun crime, less of a danger to police officers, and less of a danger to society as a whole. "

I think overall you make a lot of good points, and I have enjoyed discussing this topic with you. In reality we probably see eye to eye on most of these things, but one thing you must do is always quantify and qualify statements, or else others can punch holes in them, or else they seem disingenuous. I agree there are negative aspects to guns, anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial, but to protect our RKBA we have to fight against the types of people who do the very same thing you just did, which is make a blanket statement based on presumption. Although what you said is not necessarily incorrect in the strictest sense, the likely followup any anti would make is, "okay, great, so the next logical step is to increase gun control!" Whereas you and I both know, gun control only affects the law-abiding. I am sorry for your gun rights you live in Cali, but I won't knock the state overall, it is very beautiful in some places.

Cal-gun Fan
April 27, 2012, 09:52 AM
Cal-Gun Fan, let me fix this for you:

" If there were no guns on the streets in the hands of criminals, there would be certainly be less gun crime, less of a danger to police officers, and less of a danger to society as a whole. "

I think overall you make a lot of good points, and I have enjoyed discussing this topic with you. In reality we probably see eye to eye on most of these things, but one thing you must do is always quantify and qualify statements, or else others can punch holes in them, or else they seem disingenuous. I agree there are negative aspects to guns, anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial, but to protect our RKBA we have to fight against the types of people who do the very same thing you just did, which is make a blanket statement based on presumption. Although what you said is not necessarily incorrect in the strictest sense, the likely followup any anti would make is, "okay, great, so the next logical step is to increase gun control!" Whereas you and I both know, gun control only affects the law-abiding. I am sorry for your gun rights you live in Cali, but I won't knock the state overall, it is very beautiful in some places.

Ok, I get that. My statement was stemming from the idea that if there were fewer firearms available to criminals, whether by purchasing them or by stealing them (which are both things that could be impeded by gun control), there would be less crime, due to the fact that without a gun people lose a significant amount of ability to commit a crime. As I said earlier, Britain is a great example. They have fewer available guns, lower gun crime rate, and a lower homicide rate. I'm talking lower proportionally here too; it wouldn't be fair otherwise as we have so many more people.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
April 27, 2012, 09:58 AM
Mods, please delete this post. I don't condone attacks on someone through their age, place of residence, or lack of experience.

Cali, you've shown some incredible maturity for someone your age. Fending off such personal attacks that Sabbath has dealt, and keeping a cool, level head; kudos. While you may not be as old as most of us here, and I myself being 23 this year, you've shown maturity, integrity, and wisdom that I would EXPECT to see out of someone twice, thrice, or more of your age.

Keep up the support, buddy. Where I tend to disagree with the guns aren't everything (they aren't, but I believe them to be a vital necessity to free-life), you seem to know where you stand with our political issues.

Glad to see you're a member of The High Road, because you are at least taking The High Road in your posts.

Sam1911
April 27, 2012, 10:09 AM
Closed per request.

[EDIT: As a general principle, "You're young, I'm old. I have experience, you don't." does not actually pass muster as a defense of a premise or a refutation of a contrary opinion. If your opinions and assertions are valid, the relative ages of the debators don't refute them. If your opinions and assertions are invalid, the relative ages of the debators can't buoy up your argument.]

If you enjoyed reading about "Do You Think I Handled This Correctly?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!