Anti Caught Me Competely Off Guard

So, if a crime is committed with a seven round magazine its better than with a 20? The crime is the act, not the mechanism. Maybe seven rounds are twice too many to be allowed. Maybe it should be 20. How do we determine this? And when are criminals who commit heinous crimes going to follow "common sense gun safety laws" the Left helps us with by passing against our will, sometimes at 1 AM, without public debate!?

"Yup. Some eleven thousand people were killed with guns last year. That's pretty sad.
But you know what burns me up? More than thirty-two thousand people were killed by automobiles in that same time!
Those assault vehicles have got to go!!"

I would have told him to go French kiss Obamao. But, I do CC.

I have found that obviously over the top, sarcastic laughter, followed by ignoring the anti, throws them off in these situations.

Psychologists call this projection.

They fear there is something inside of them that means they can't be trusted with these things, and so rather than believe they are flawed they project the same failings onto everyone else in order to believe they themselves are normal.

They can accept the idea that police or military have had special training they don't have so they are ok with them having them but regular folks like themselves couldn't possibly be safe.

Click to expand...

And build on this.

" You think a LE with special training needs a 30rd magazine, but then you think that I, without special training, can do it with 5rds, all the while being the first on scene waiting for the LE with 30rds to show up? I'd say if he has special training and needs 30, Id better start shopping for a 50 rd."

My impulsive reaction would be to say loudly, "what an IDIOT...!!!" as he starts to walk away...

I believe this to be an accurate observation of a man who walks up to a dozen men trying to pick a fight...

I wonder if all the antis would still be anti if someone broke into their house and assaulted them?

the worst serial killers like ted bundy, john wayne gacy, Jeffrey dahmer ect never used a gun to kill any of their victims.

On Wed's at a local flea market there is one place that all the gun buyer/seller/traders congregate. Today while I was there we were all having a decent conversation when out of nowhere a man walked up and pointed to a 20rd mag for a SKS and went into a rant about why no one should have anything like that. He went on to say that only LEO's or military should have anything that could have more than 3-5 rds. I have always been able to think on my feet and at least defend a position or view point but this time it came out of nowhere and I was at a loss for words as was the other 12-15 men that were there. The guy finished his rant and just turned and walked away, then conversation went on like he had never been there. As an after thought I believe that my not saying anything to him was probably the best thing as when I look back at his attitude I do think it would have escalated to a worse situation. But at same time I am troubled by me not at least responding even in a simple remark.

Click to expand...

As he walks away, you say, "Poor fellow. He labors under the delusion that his feces is not odiferous."

Now I dont need that many rounds for the way I shoot, but it sure is nice to have the capacity for multiple shots when you need them. I dont think any soldier ever said he had too much ammo when the stuff hit the oscillating rotater.

WALKERs210 said:

He went on to say that only LEO's or military should have anything that could have more than 3-5 rds.

Click to expand...

Are there special criminals out there that only police face that victims don't? If the criminal didn't make someone a victim than they wouldn't be a criminal, would they? Since the police are going to face the exact same criminals that the civilian victim is, than why should there be a different standard for the police officer than the civilian victim?

In fact, aren't police so much better trained than the civilian victim? If that is true, than why do police need more firepower than the civilian victim would need? Wouldn't the fact that they are so much better trained mean they should be able to do with less?

Seems to me that since police face the same criminal, but are so much better trained to handle the same criminal, it is the police who should have the lesser magazine capacities. So if Joe Civilian victim only gets 3-5 rounds, then police should be able to get by with just 1 or 2. Right?

And studies show that innocent bystanders are, at a minimum, 7 times more likely to be shot by a police officer than by a civilian victim defending themselves with a gun, so shouldn't police have lesser capacity magazines than civilian victims for that reason too? Apparently all this special training that we are paying for police officers to have is a big waste of money if they need higher capacity magazines to deal with the same criminals that the civilian victim is facing and they are more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the civilian victim is.

well said ^^ NavyLCDR

Walker, dont feel bad. Altho the American public is used to it, *real* issues generally can not be summed up in one sentence sound bytes.

It's not likely you can sum up the importance of higher cap mags, etc in a way that will make sense with no knowledge of guns or gun fights, or the odds of survival, etc. And someone like that is not 'open' to actually listening to you right then anyway.

orionengnr said:

I wonder what would have happened if all 12-15 of you just started laughing at him...and didn't quit?

Click to expand...

I LIKE this response!

NEVER argue with an idiot, bystanders can't tell you apart!

9MMare said:

Walker, dont feel bad. Altho the American public is used to it, *real* issues generally can not be summed up in one sentence sound bytes.

It's not likely you can sum up the importance of higher cap mags, etc in a way that will make sense with no knowledge of guns or gun fights, or the odds of survival, etc. And someone like that is not 'open' to actually listening to you right then anyway.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know... Ask the anti-gunner if he really believes what he's saying. Ask him if he stands behind his convictions. Ask him for his address and if you can come by and put a small but brightly-colored "this is a gun-free house" sign on his lawn...

Watch the liberal attack you personally. Verbally if not physically. Or leave. Confused if not angry. Unable to express that all people must be disarmed to advance the Leftist agenda.

just for fun said:

NEVER argue with an idiot, bystanders can't tell you apart!

Click to expand...

Heh... that's probably true enough.

My wife and I used to sell hand made wooden instruments on a university campus during various annual events. In the summer months it gets hot so I kept a squirt bottle full of water to spray on us to help cool off. We used to get the weirdest people coming up to rant at us. When people were rude to us I'd change the setting from "mist" to "stream" and squirt them in the face.

It worked amazingly well, most often bystanders would cheer us and jeer the weirdo.

I never even talk to individuals like that. It would do no good because you will never change his attitude. Ignoring them is almost always the wisest move. Unless they get in my personal space I never react to them. They have their opinion and I have mine. See how easy this stuff is?

When he was done I probably would have smiled and said "Do you feel better now? Maybe you just need a nap."

Interrupting others for the purpose of having them witness your temper tantrum is the act of a toddler. If you act like a child, I will accommodate you by treating you as one.

Ignoring him was the best tactic.

Click to expand...

THIS.

Trying to argue with him or offer some counter-point would only have legitimized his negative behavior.

When they start rambling like that I just say "that's your opinion" and walk away. They aren't looking for logic. My approach is much different when I encounter someone who actually wants an intelligent conversation - but then usually those people don't need convincing anyway.

I am a retired psychologist and my temptation would to b**ch-slap him. I've had all sorts of training and experience in how to de-escalate situations, but when confronted by an idiot, especially an uninvited idiot, all bets are off.

Sometimes you just have to let irrational, hyper-emotional people just get it out of their system and let them walk away. Happens all the time. Arguing with a fool makes you one.