Do You Think I Handled This Correctly?

[DammitBoy]

Guns are not a modern necessity? News to me...

 

[SabbathWolf]

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.

 

[SabbathWolf]

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.


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]

Necessity: Food, water, oxygen

Luxury: Vehicle, television, THR

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

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.


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]

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]

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]

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....

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

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. California...PRK...California...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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]