LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
Member
Points taken. No more arguing, I'll just respect his beliefs and not defend him if he needed it. lol.
Do You Think I Handled This Correctly?
- Thread starter LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
- Start date
- Status
I don’t have, never had, Facebook.
I get pictures and news of family and friends all the time by plain email.
You don’t 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.
I get pictures and news of family and friends all the time by plain email.
You don’t 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
Member
I am confused by the sign that started all this-
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
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
Member
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
Member
Don't forget, you are helping protect this person. Dare them to post a sign such as this on their premises or front door:
LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
Member
That's the sign I was talking about. I found it there.
danez71
Member
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.
Cal-gun Fan
Member
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
Member
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....
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.
pockets
Member
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
Member
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
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
.
http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-was...cealed-weapon-permits-20120425,0,175360.story
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.
.
http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-was...cealed-weapon-permits-20120425,0,175360.story
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
M.Weier
Member
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
member
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.
SabbathWolf
member
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
Member
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
Member
I think holdencm9 nailed it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
