I tried, tell me what you think (long)

This is a discussion on I tried, tell me what you think (long) within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by pogo2 I don't think it is useful to debate anti gun people because this only treats the symptoms of the disease, and ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: I tried, tell me what you think (long)

  1. #31
    Member Array xsquidgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by pogo2 View Post
    I don't think it is useful to debate anti gun people because this only treats the symptoms of the disease, and not the cause. The cause is a fundamental mistrust of individuals and their rights, and excessive reliance upon the state and its power.

    Personal ownership of a gun represents a small bit of personal power. Anti gun people believe that all power (and all guns) should reside with the state, and individuals should do as they are told by the state. Anti gun people can also be called liberals, socialists or communists, depending on the fashion of the times. But they all share a belief in subordinating individual rights to the "common good". And they will determine the common good, since they are more enlightened and intelligent than the masses.

    One's feeling about guns is generally a good litmus test for your overall political beliefs regarding individual vs. the state.

    I absolutely agree. Been having similar frustrations with basically most of my wife's family and friends. Not to politicize things, but they ALL think certain things (firearms, education, paying for healthcare) should be reserved exclusively for the state.

    The same people who say derogotory things about home-schoolers say the same things about people who decide to own a firearm for protection, that basically you the individual are egotistical for thinking that you can do something for yourself rather than letting the government do it. People like that will not accept your arguments or facts because their minds are already made up, and they really in their heart of hearts believe in being sheeple as some people on this board put it.

    There are reasonable people around but unfortunately almost all of the "reasonable" people I meet are actually committed sheeples.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member Array Rob72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,468
    I skipped most of the mid-thread replies, so this may have been addressed:

    This board is where I saw a Mod stating that a hunter using a 7mm mag was using something "that would vaporize an elk...."....?!?!?

    As stated, either the group, as a whole, doesn't get out of their backyards, and their Beeman-pellet-stop-ranges, or they are a front.

    Not to sound overly paranoid, but these are the kinds of people to "keep lists", in the hopes of being Good Citizens, when the country is firmly set on The Right Path. I'd simply stay away.

  4. #33
    Member Array BushidoMarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Kawasaki, Japan
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by 4my son View Post
    And their reply


    Quote:

    Mike,

    As you saw, most of the letters we get from pro-gun advocates sound the same, and yours is not much different (less cursing than most, which is nice). Unfortunately we don't have time to respond to everyone all the time, but in the
    interest of being good neighbors, we'll give your points a quick once over.


    Reason 1:
    Criminals will always have weapons.

    This is not true. ...Will some criminals always have weapons? Yes.
    So which is it, "Gun Guys"?!? The fact that some criminals will always have weapons is not true....except for the fact that some criminals will always have weapons!!

    Score: Common Sense 1 - "Gun Guys" 0

    People will always murder each other as well-- does that mean we should not make it illegal?
    Um... Guys...It already IS illegal, and the victims are no less dead whether they are shot, stabbed or bludgeoned with your great Aunt May's 20lb fruitcake.

    Reason 2:
    The Police can't be everywhere all the time.

    ...We agree that you should not depend on law enforcement to rescue you from every situation.
    So you shouldn't depend on LEO's bringing their guns to protect you, and since we shouldn't *depend* on LEO's, we should depend on...the kindness of the nice, gentle rapist/robber/murderer?!?

    Score: Common Sense 2 - "Gun Guys" 0

    The police are there to serve and protect and keep order when they can. They help, but there are...no guarantees
    So, since a 5'0" 100# woman can't always rely on the police to protect her and her child from 6'4" 250# rapists, she should rely on...??

    Score: Common Sense 3 - "Gun Guys" 0

    Reason 3:
    Police are not responsible for the individual citizen. (you and me)

    Who else should they be responsible for? We pay their salaries,

    Actually, since police officers pay federal, state and local taxes just like the rest of us, you could say they are self employed!
    Also, their FIRST responsibility is to end their shift in the same state of good health as they started it!


    if we call they should show up.
    Agreed...they "should". Just like they "should" have showed up during the Kitty Genovese murder, the L.A. Riots, and during the Katrina looting. Wait...what's that? You mean that despite their best efforts (or not so best efforts for a thankfully few number of officers) the police WEREN'T able to get there in time?!? Sorry Gun Guys, but until such time as your "should" becomes a 110% "WILL", the rest of us "SHOULD" keep our basic human right of effective self defense intact.


    Score: Common Sense 4 - "Gun Guys" 0

    If someone's in trouble, and the police can help, they should. If not, we need to put new police officers in place.
    Your own words impeach you, Gun Guys:

    Reason 2:
    The Police can't be everywhere all the time.

    ...The police are there to serve and protect and keep order when they can. They help, but there are...no guarantees, no matter how many cops are on the beat.
    So there is no guarantee of police protection, no matter how many are on the beat, but we should still put more officers on the beat to protect us, even if by your own admission, it is impossible for them to protect everyone all of the time. Man...the whiff of STUPID is getting awful strong here...

    Score: Common Sense 5 - "Gun Guys" 0


    Based on the rest of your reasoning, it seems like you meant to say police should not be the only ones responsible for the individual citizen-- that people should take their own responsibility into their own hands. And we couldn't agree more with that one.
    Score: Common Sense 6 - "Gun Guys" 0

    You should be doing everything you can to keep yourself and your family safe. We do.
    Is that a fact, Gun Guys? SO if you are doing "everything" to keep your family safe, you have followed the following chain of facts to its logical conclusion:

    Violent crimes against innocent people, that result in serious injury or death, happens. -> Violent crime can happen anywhere, at anytime, to anyone. -> Like all living things, we have the natural right and instinct to protect ourselves from injury or death. -> Since humans have no natural tools such as armor, fangs, claws, stingers, poison, etc. to use for self preservation, we use our brains to make effective tools for this purpose. -> At present, the most effective tool humans have for self protection, one that is the best compromise of reliability, usability by people of widely varying physical conditions, effectiveness, and portability, is the firearm. So, since you are "doing everything to keep your family safe"...how many do you own, Gun Guys?

    Score: Common Sense 7 - "Gun Guys" 0

    Unfortunately, keeping a gun isn't keeping your family safe. A gun in the house is always, always, always a danger to anyone living there. The stats prove it
    OK, let's see here:

    Estimated number of firearms in the U.S. = 290 million
    Estimated U.S. population = 300 million

    So we almost have one firearm for every person in the U.S. More accurately, there are fireamrs in an estimated 110 million homes. So by your reasoning there should be either 110 or 290 million shootings a year in these always, always, always dangerous homes.

    This (anti-gun biased) site http://www.helpnetwork.org/frames/20...20Injuries.pdf shows 104,453 total firearm injuries and fatalities for 2000. Any firearm injury is unacceptable, but 100,000 does not equal 110,000,000, therefore your premise that 1 firearm = 1 injury has no basis in fact or common sense.

    Score: Common Sense 8 - "Gun Guys" 0

    the stories prove it, and the news, every single day of the week, proves it.
    They certainly do.

    More proof

    Score: Common Sense 9 - "Gun Guys" 0
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
    - Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC

  5. #34
    Member Array soundwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    356
    I had time, so I decided to send them an Email as well...
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I just read your response to a person named "Mike in Richmond, VA" (yes, it was published online). I'd like to take up part of the debate as well, as I see that on your WordPress site you don't seem to have comments enabled as well as a host of other "interactive" features that come with it.

    The thing that absolutely aggravates me when it comes to both pro- and con-gun debate as well as politics is the extremes that people come to in supposed "rational thought". People tend to talk in absolutes or complete extrapolation of a realistic norm comparison. In the Email sent to you from Mike he started his first point by stating that criminals will always have weapons. He continued to state that if firearms were removed that the remaining weapons would continue to flourish if not exceed in their current usage. Your reply was that, if outlawed, criminals would not have the weapons they currently have.

    The example that you gave to prove your point was that criminals did not have rocket launchers or tanks because they are outlawed for civilian use. While that may be true (don't remember ever seeing those laws, personally), I think you're forgetting that rocket launchers and tanks are exceedingly expensive and many -- if not most -- civilians could not afford it. These weapons cost thousands to millions of dollars. Comparing the two would be similar to a fighter jet to a Cessna. I don't recall fighter jets being illegal for purchase by civilians, either -- they can't afford to pay millions of dollars on an item like that.

    Later in your response you argued that because people would continue to murder each other that we should not make that illegal, either. I would think this is another extreme response to a discussion of something very more meek in context. Stronger guns laws work to make it harder for people to acquire guns. I said "people", not "criminals", please make note of that. Laws, by their very nature, are rules made to enhance the civility of the people within their jurisdiction. Criminals, by their very nature, disregard laws. Your argument is that by passing stronger gun laws regarding the sale, possession and carry of guns would make it so that a criminal, who disregards laws regarding the sale, possession and carry of guns, would not have guns. That argument, sir, is defeatist.

    The second point Mike made regarding police not being everywhere all the time, you responded by agreeing with the statement. What, exactly, do you propose you should do in a situation where you are confronted by a robber (armed or not) when there are no law enforcement officers in the vicinity? I would suppose that your response would be to comply with their demands as hinted in a few commentaries on your own site. My question then would be if you have read the news articles of the past decade where, even if complying with their demands, you have an equal chance to be killed as you do to live. How would you improve your chances, exactly?

    Third and final point was regarding the absence of responsibility from the government (the police, specfically) to an individual citizen. Your response was that they should have that responsibility and that if they are not able to, we (as a country) should get more officers. That's a very flattering response, however, not reality. I work for a law enforcement agency in the 7th largest county in the country with a population of over a million people. We have about 1,500 law enforcement officers for that over-a-million-people. If you know of anyone that is looking for a job, we pay pretty well and have a great benefits package.

    Seriously, the government indeed does not have a responsibility to each individual person of the country. We cannot be everywhere, therefore, we cannot be responsible for the protection of everyone that many be everywhere. It actually surprises me that you would agree to the second point (police cannot be everywhere) but that they should be responsible for it regardless (third point). The reality is that it is true, we do not have that responsibility for each citizen. If we have a higher priority incident, we respond to it. If we have a series of higher priorities, lower priorities will be handled when we have the available officers to handle them.

    If a call comes in about a prowler with a woman alone in a house and we have multiple priority incidents working, the prowler takes less priority. If the prowler call turns out to be a rapist that gets into the home, physically assaults the resident, rapes them and kills them -- no, it is not our responsibility. It is sad to say, but it is true. No realistic amount of officers are going to change that unless we have an officer at every street corner or every house which would not only be unrealistic and absurd, but unpractical. You, as a citizen, have the ultimate responsibility for your own safety. Whether that level of safety is locking your doors at night, adding extra locks, a car alarm, locking your doors in your car, being aware of your surroundings, or even a weapon whether it be a baseball bat, pepper spray or a firearm -- you have the responsibility to your safety.

    In your response you also took the time to point out the original author's view of firearms in his household. You stated that a firearm in a house would not keep your family safe and is actually a danger to those residents. I have yet to hear a statistic, story or news article of someone to takes responsible care of their firearms to have put their family in actual danger due to their presence. A responsible firearm owner does not stockpile their weapons around their house. Responsible firearm owners lock their guns either individually or in safes when not in current use. When locked, as you should well know, the guns are unable to fire or pose a threat other than any other object used as a improvised bludgeoning weapon. Keeping a weapon in working condition layed carelessly within a household is not the norm and is not accepted as such in the firearm community.

    Further, I am unaware of personal firearms that fire rounds automatically without intervention by a human operator. These firearms would indeed be a threat to residents within a household and should indeed be banned for personal use. However, the reality is that with responsible care and storage, a personal firearm cannot hurt or kill anyone without physical restrictions being removed, especially firearms that require human intervention to fire (e.g. finger on trigger). The mere presence of a firearm will not endanger the lives of people within the same residence if the owner is responsible as is consistent among the majority of gun owners across the country.

    This argument is also consistent with carry of a firearm, specifically concealed carry of a firearm. It has been argued many times that the presence of a firearm during a confrontation will result in a lethal encounter. This is not true. A law-abiding person who is carrying a concealed firearm legally is no more of a threat to the general public. In fact, persons that legally carry a firearm concealed are taught to avoid confrontations. Showing a firearm to someone to influence an argument is illegal (brandishing and assault). Pointing a firearm at someone to influence or end an argument is also illegal (brandishing, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and more). A person to legally carries a firearm concealed does not have the firearm to influence an argument in their favor, they attempt to avoid it. The firearm is carried to protect their life, not their reasoning in an argument and there is no reason at that junction to believe that their life was in danger.

    If a person is confronted by a second person who is harassing them, they are not in danger of losing their life, they are merely being harassed. If the second person demand money, a vehicle, or assaults the first person, they still have no reason to fear that their life is in danger. Should the second person produce a deadly weapon, their life is in danger. The results of such a situation vary depending on an entire host of variables. This would include such variables such as each person's speed, agility, health, determination, age, police presence, weapons available/involved, military/self-defense training, etc. In most circumstances, the first person (i.e. the victim) is at the mercy of the second person's intent, willingness to keep a witness/victim alive or not, as well as their ability to escape arrest if the police are even alerted to the situation.

    The introduction of a firearm into the hands of the victim is a protection measure. The production of a lethal weapon by an intended victim, when a criminal displays a lethal weapon, has the potential to end the incident at that moment and many times does with neither person using their weapon. The criminal realizes that the intended victim is not planning to submit to the show of lethal force from the criminal but, rather, repel it. Sometimes that would be enough, sometimes it is not. If the criminal is intent on continuing to engage the intended victim with lethal force then the intended victim is also intent on saving their lives with equal force -- this is the only time that an intended victim would use their firearm.

    The second person is already intent on using lethal force by displaying a lethal weapon in furtherance of a criminal act, thereby making the person a criminal. The actions of the first person (i.e. intended victim), without the display of lethal force by the second person, would be committing several criminal acts. The difference is the justification. An intended victim of any criminal act that puts their lives in danger has not only the justification to protect their life but the human right to do so. You will find that this is consistent throughout the world. Whether the first person's lethal weapon is a firearm, a knife or even a car, they are permitted in every court, in every country around the world to save their own lives as long as it does not endanger the lives of others. It seems that many of the arguments that I have read and heard seem to overlook such human right to continue their own lives and simply label the victim as a criminal without such justification.

    I look forward to your reply.

    Sincerely,

    Xxxxx Xxxxxx

  6. #35
    Member Array Cliffh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Az
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by TravisABQ View Post
    Does anybody out there think you'll "plant a seed of doubt" by talking with a neo-nazi, or a Jiahidist at Guantanamo?
    I don't. And writing to the head mucky-mucks at organizations such as Gun Guys probably isn't going to do much good at all.

    But....

    Every mid sized to large organization I'm aware of, and even some small ones, are not staffed by persons who are all of one mind. Some are 100% dedicated to the "cause" (whatever that may be), but some in the organization are there just "drawing a paycheck". In other words, they may not be 100% into the "cause" and may influenced by the appropriate facts/statistics. Think "soccer mom" volunteers who haven't been exposed to guns in real life, haven't done any research and only "know" what they've heard/read in the news media or seen in their kid's computer games. So, instead of writing directly to the boss man, address the letter so that someone else may read it prior to passing it on.

    Personally, I do think that writing letters (not emails) to anti-gun organizations (including the news media) is more likely to produce favorable results than sitting around the campfire discussing the matter with like-minded people.

    Get out and spread the word - it just might do some good. If it doesn't, what are you out, a few minutes and the cost of a stamp and envelope? If we don't, who will?

    To 4my son, Soundwave and any others who've taken the time to write ....

  7. #36
    Member Array bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Az
    Posts
    93
    These are the same people, that when the sh@# hits the fan,they will be looking for a place to hide. "NOT MY HOUSE"
    LIFES JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE "GRAVE" SAFELY ,IN A WELL PRESERVED BODY.BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY S@#$...WHAT A RIDE"

  8. #37
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637
    Thanks a lot everyone for your comments. I will try to reevaluate my initial letter, and send it out to other organizations, and probably even start sending it out to some politicians, especially the ones who seem to be leading the charge to remove our rights to self protection.

    I'm not an educated man, or wealthy, or get to hob nob with politicians or travel the country and visit these organizations in person at their functions, but I can write letters, and bug the SH** out of them. And let them know that it's not the silent minority that is pushing so hard to keep the 2A alive and kicking. It's a whole SH** pile of average Joes that help keep this country running, whom will not go silently into the night. And won't go down without a fight.

    Okay I borrowed the last part, but you get my point.

    Thanks again everyone.


    Soundwave, please do post any response, if you get one.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. How long will they last?
    By JeffMRC in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: February 17th, 2010, 11:38 PM
  2. How long ?
    By DaveT in forum Bob & Terry's Place
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 3rd, 2008, 11:50 AM
  3. Long term firearm storage for year long deployment to Iraq
    By ClosetCaseNerd in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2007, 09:53 AM
  4. How long in VA?
    By wht06rado in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: June 7th, 2007, 05:48 PM
  5. How long handguns - how long carry?
    By P95Carry in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: November 7th, 2005, 01:16 PM