The anti-gun people should name why they are so afraid of guns.

[Tim01]

I can't understand it. So help me see your point of view. If you make a valid argument I will listen.

With the very large number of people who have permits to carry concealed, most of you have certainly come into contact with armed people very frequently. So, since you already have lots of experience with people carrying handguns, please name the incidents which have caused you to become afraid of those guns.

My fear of criminals comes from them trying to rob me a few times, and from them raping, hurting, and killing people not far from where I live. I can name dead people within walking distance of my house. That is why I fear violent criminals. That is why I arm myself.
Just about everybody can go online and find there are multiple sex offenders within a few miles of their house, those are the people who got caught. Lots more are still out there who haven't been caught.

A person with a can of gasoline COULD kill lots of people and burn up the evidence in the process,but they don't. Nobody is terrified of gas stations. People are not afraid of cars, or rat poison. So, "could" doesn't count at all.


So please list the actual incidents you have experienced which have caused you to fear guns.

[abluelady]

1. Actually, I am Afraid of Gas Stations

I only to to full serve so I don't have to handle gas.

[MineralMan]

2. I'm not afraid of firearms, and hold a Minnesota CCW permit.

But I'll tell you about an incident that happened to me:

I was returning to my parked vehicle at a supermarket. When I got there, a man started yelling at me about my Veterans for Obama bumper sticker. As I usually do, I laughed at him. He slowly and deliberately pulled back his jacket, exposing his armpit holster and pistol. His intent was quite obvious. He wanted to impress me with his armed state, so I'd stop laughing at his nonsense.

Instead, I pulled my cell phone and called 911. That didn't bother him and he continued to rant at me about Obama. Cops came. I explained what had happened. He got disarmed and put into the cop car. I feel quite confident that he doesn't have a CCW permit any more.

Now, I'm not afraid of armed assholes in parking lots very much. He was a dipshit and a coward. However, had it been my wife driving the car with the Veterans for Obama sticker on it and had he started his obscene rant at her, I guarantee she would have been frightened.

And there you have it.

I have no problem with CCW. I have a problem with some of the assholes who do it.

[Tim01]

10. Holy crap!

Good job on keeping your cool. That would be enough to cause me concern.

[MineralMan]

15. Yah, well....freepers are freepers whether they're armed or

not. I figured there was zero chance that asshole would actually pull his firearm. He apparently believed that just showing it to me was going to intimidate me. On the contrary...it didn't have that effect. Now, he doesn't have his CCW any more.

While I think that CCW is an important right, I also know that there are some assholes who do it to compensate for their own cowardice. Those are the ones likely to use their firearm to intimidate others. Most CCW permit holders would never do such a thing...just the freeper ones.

Such incidents do, however, occur. When they do, it's rare for the intimidated party to report it, so the number of such incidents is unknown.

For 2nd amendment advocates to claim that no such things happen is deliberately naive.

[AlinPA]

56. The law should be that hiding guns is a crime,and people should wear them out in the open. I would

rather see a gun and know who has them rather than wonder about who's hiding one. Plus, we have a right to guns, why hide them?

[Tim01]

57. The reason to conceal them is that if they can be seen they can be grabbed.

People who want to steal a gun would have a easier time of it if they can just hit you from behind and take your gun. You have also lost any element of surprise you had.
And the local gangster may choose you to start a fight with to show his homies how macho he is.

[AlinPA]

71. If one is carrying guns they would be alert anyway because that's why they would carry it,

to be ready. On the local gangster, the gun carrier has the advantage so again, that's why you have the gun - for protection.

[Statistical]

84. I have to think their are easier methods to obtain a firearm

VA has open carry law. I carry both way open & concealed depending on the situation.

When I am coming to/from the range I often open carry. If the wife calls me and asks me to get some milk I will grab it.

Never have I been afraid someone would try and lift my weapon. I mean of all the crimes you likely are going to get shot committing, stealing a firearm from a loaded person has to be #1.

Of course a good retention holster is always a must when open carrying.

[Tim01]

85. I open carry when I have to, Virginia tuck. Very rare.

I've trained force on force with people who are more skilled than me and I have seen them flub the draw from retention holsters when they are trying to go real fast. I actually shot one of them in the balls with my airsoft when he failed to get his gun out. I don't think I would have done as well against him if we had equal gear.

About the gun being snachted. When I was in some over seas shit hole, I think it was Spain this is what happened to one of our guys.
He was just walking down some average street just after sunset. Some guy stepped out from behind a corner and just punched him full force right in the mouth. Just after he got clocked someone behind him snatched his wallet. His wallet was gone in seconds.
And that is exactly how a gun would be removed from you.
I don't know about you, but if I wanted to steal somebodys exposed gun I would hit them in the head first. Then take their gun. If I had a buddy I would get the buddy to chat with him for just a second so I could hit him in the head with a rock from behind. Then I would just take his gun.
It is really really tough for the average joe to recognize when a bad guy has chosen him to be the victim, and what to do to extricate himself from that situation.
If a person gets to arms length ("Hey man, can I get a cigarette from you?") and you don't have your gun already pointed at him you can forget it. You are now struggling for control of your gun. If there is more than one guy they are going to disarm you unless you are well trained AND very strong.

I can only remember 1 guy with a gun prevailing against 2 guys. He is big, and very aggressive.

[spin]

59. While many gun owners would like to see open carry legalized...

others prefer concealed carry.

The biggest drawback to open carry is that it makes the individual a target.

Question: What’s your opinion on open carry. Do you think it makes you a “target” in sticky situations and do you think it’s dumb to let all the world know you’re armed. Also when carrying open or concealed is it always best to carry loaded and ready for action with the pull of the trigger?

Answer: My answer to the first two questions would be “yes” and “yes”. While completely legal in Arizona and supported by many of our ‘gun rights’ oriented residents, open carry has some disadvantages. First, as you mention, it would make you the ‘primary target’ for anyone bent on armed mayhem. If you are the only person visibly armed and a criminal is bent on commiting their crime, you will be the first target. On the other hand, there are those that would also say that by seeing you carrying a firearm openly, it would discourage such criminal behavior. There is an element of logic in both arguments, but if you are carrying openly and are not aware of the impeding criminal act, you are at a disadvantage and at grave risk. Personally, I would rather be carrying concealed and keep the tactical advantage for myself.
http://arizonaccwpermit.com/2009/03/03/open-carry-of-a-firearm-advantages-and-disadvantages/

[AlinPA]

68. It's about trust. I would trust someone carrying gun openly because they are not afraid

to show it. With guns in the open, people would get used to them being around and wouldn't be fighting about gun grabbing and and all the politics around them. It would go a long way to de-sensitizing people to guns. I don't think it's dumb of one to let people know one is armed. (I'm not talking of walking into K-Mart with a loaded gun in your hand or walking into a convenience store with a loaded shotgun, rather, weapons should be in a holster)

[spin]

75. That's the other side of the argument...

and it also has valid points.

A lot depends on where you live. Years ago in Mississippi, it wasn't at all uncommon to see a hunter with a holstered side arm in a convenience store. Currently Mississippi is listed as a "Anomalous Open Carry State" by Wikipedia which is defined as a state where "open carry is generally lawful, but the state may lack preemption or there may be other significant restrictions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry

IMO Florida (where I reside) would be opposed to open carry as it might scare tourists away. Probably few tourists from areas that have draconian gun laws are unaware of how many Floridians have firearms in their vehicles or carry concealed. Out of sight is out of mind. However there is a movement to legalize open carry in Florida. http://opencarryflorida.org/

The biggest benefit of open carry that I can see is that it would allow a person to carry a larger handgun. Concealing a full sized weapon such as a .45 auto is difficult, especially in the Florida heat. But it can be done as my daughter proves. She sometimes carries a 4" model 66 S&W 38 special revolver in an inside the waistband holster. My daughter is only five foot two and weighs slightly over 100 pounds.



As you point out, if more people carried firearms on their belt, it might eventually desensitize people and eventually make people more accepting of guns. Initially it might cause a lot of concern. There is the case of the "pistol packing mom" in Pennsylvania which illustrates the point.

The case of a Pennsylvania woman who insisted on openly wearing her holstered pistol to her daughter's soccer games is being scrutinized by a federal judge in Harrisburg.

At issue Friday in U.S. District Court is Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo's motion to dismiss a lawsuit against him by Melanie Hain.

When other parents complained about Hain wearing the loaded weapon, DeLeo revoked Hain's concealed-weapons permit, even though she did not need one as long as she wore the gun openly.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/206/2009/may/01/sheriff-seeks-dismissal-of-gun-permit-lawsuit.html




This lady attracted a lot of attention, much of it negative for her actions. Had she chosen to carry concealed, her life might have been easier. Looking at her picture, it would have been very easy for her to conceal the weapon.

This issue is one that probably should be decided by individual states.

[X_Digger]

76. Not questioning your encounter, but..

.. do you know he had a concealed carry permit, or did he just claim to? (Carrying concealed without a permit is a crime, but doesn't stop some from doing so anyway..)

[rl6214]

100. An asshole is an asshole

Doesn't have to belong to a party to be one. I'm glad you called and got him picked up. He's a bad image to have out there for us CCL holders.

[RaleighNCDUer]

110. And there you come to the crux of it -

I believe lethal firearms should be extremely tightly controlled - not banned, but regulate all the shit out of them.

If a person can pass numerous hurdles, tests and qualifications, fine. If someone is too stupid or too crazy to be able to pass those hurdles, he is too stupid or too crazy to safely own a firearm.

A gun is just a chunk of metal. No rational person is afraid of guns. My problem is with the many, many, MANY people who are too stupid or crazy to be trusted with a gun, yet have them anyway.

[TankLV]

3. You said it: YOU'RE A FUCKING SCARED COWARD!!!

"My fear of criminals..." "I fear violent criminals"

WE are not at all SCARED EVERY FUCKING MOMENT OF OUR LIVES OVER SOME BOGEY MAN OUT TO GET US "NEXT DOOR" OR "DOWN THE STREET"!!!

YOU, a fucking COWARD, lives his life in CONSTANT FEAR - BY YOUR OWN WORDS!

WE don't.

Make more guns available, THEY WILL BE USED.

It's that simple.

Don't have an abundance of guns available, THEN THERE WILL BE LESS GUNS USED!!!

Seek help...

You're a fucking walking PARANOID COWARD who's afraid of every "dark" shadow around every corner...!!!

[virginia mountainman]

6. Yea!! It would be easy!!!

Just like banning Alcohol, except many view owning guns as a civil right......

Tank, will YOU, be the one going Door to Door, demanding "Mr and Mrs America, turn them in?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. Where does he use the word "coward" in his post? n/t

[TankLV]

44. He said it himself - he's SCARED of EVERYONE and EVERYTHING...

read the fuckng OP...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

53. To be scared is not equal to being a coward. No need to be rude

[cherokeeprogressive]

81. SINCE YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY IS BROKEN, I THOUGHT I'D SCREAM ALONG WITH YOU

I READ THE FUCKING OP AND THE WORDS "EVERYONE" AND "EVERYTHING" DIDN'T FUCKING APPEAR ONE FUCKING TIME. MAYBE YOU SHOULD FUCKING READ THE FUCKING OP AGAIN YOUR FUCKING SELF.

[Hoopla Phil]

97. NOW THAT WAS A FUNNY POST!!!!

[Tim01]

13. Please stop screaming. It's really annoying.

Being afraid of house fires, or cancer, or violent criminals is just seeing reality for what it is.

Pretending house fires, or cancer, or violent criminals don't exist is just foolish.

Insults don't get you points.

[TankLV]

43. BECAUSE YOU'RE FUCKING SCARED OF EVERYONE & EVERYTHING!!!

You are a poster child for COWARD!!!

[Tim01]

55. You're going to make me raise my voice or something.

Get back on your meds.

[spin]

63. A man without fear is a fool...

The OP stated:

My fear of criminals comes from them trying to rob me a few times, and from them raping, hurting, and killing people not far from where I live. I can name dead people within walking distance of my house. That is why I fear violent criminals. That is why I arm myself.

In this case, the OP experienced "situational awareness". I also lived in a large metropolitan area and several people were killed, robbed or raped in my neighborhood. I wasn't terrified or afraid of being attacked, but it was a possibility. Being aware of the situation, I took steps to safeguard myself and my family. I obtained a dog and a burglar alarm. I purchased a handgun and went to the pistol range on a regular basis with my wife and daughter to practice. My daughter attended judo classes at an excellent martial arts school and my wife, myself and my daughter participated in the self defense courses (Jiu Jitsu).

One night the burglar alarm was sounding. My daughter went to reset the alarm and found a man forcing the sliding glass door of our kitchen open. She pointed a large caliber revolver at him. He left.

Because I had experienced "fear", I took steps to adequately respond to a threat. My daughter's judo training and the familiarity with firearms allowed her to prevent a bad situation from turning into a tragedy.

"Fear" is an emotion that serves a purpose. Soldiers and police officers experience fear as part of the job.

Last night, I was taking to a local police officer who is a friend. He told of a call he had recently responded to. A fight was happening and one of the participants was reported to have a firearm.

He was the first officer on the scene. He said, "You can bet I was scared as I walked up to the fight. I didn't know who might have had a weapon". At first, he planned to use his TASER, but since it was a newly issued weapon, it was so tight in the holster that he was unable to withdraw it. He decided to draw down on the two fighters with his service pistol. He had them both get down on the ground and waited for backup to search them for the weapon.

So he experienced fear. Was he a coward?

The definition of a coward is:

a person who lacks courage, esp. one who is shamefully unable to control fear and so shrinks from danger or trouble.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/coward

Nor is the OP a poster child for COWARD!!! Realizing a threat, he took actions to be prepared. I would say he made a considered rational response.

Obviously, you would not have armed yourself if you found yourself in his shoes. That's fine, it doesn't make you a hero nor does it make you a coward or a fool. Perhaps, you would have decided to move from that neighborhood. I would also consider moving a rational response.

As a side note, when I first bought the house in the incident I described, I noticed a poorly maintained hurricane canal just past the back yard. I talked to my neighbor about the threat of flooding and he assured me that he had lived in his house for many years and had no problems. He shrugged off my fears and merely laughed.

I did purchase flood insurance. One spring, our area experienced 13 inches of rain in four hours. I was the only person in the neighborhood with flood insurance. It sure came in handy.

[MineralMan]

21. Lighten up, there. You're getting all histrionic on the OP.

There's no point to that. If you have an incident to write about, as the OP asked, then write about it. Screaming doesn't create the effect you apparently want to create. It only make you look silly.

Fearing violent criminals is a normal thing. If one has to go into places where such people may be present, it only makes sense to arm onesself. Indeed, that is the only time when I carry a firearm. It is very rare for me to have to make a foray into one of the Twin Cities dangerous neighborhoods, especially at night, but the occasion does arise from time to time. When it does, I take advantage of my CCW permit to go there armed.

Most CCW permit holders do the same. Very few go about armed on a daily basis. In fact, it is extremely unlikely that there will be a legitimately-armed person when something happens. It almost never happens, which makes the claims made by some invalid.

If, by some poor fortune, you are accosted by an armed criminal, it is extremely unlikely that an armed person will be there to render assistance. Vanishingly unlikely.

[TankLV]

45. Because he DESERVES it!!!

Gun nuts IRRATIONAL FEAR of EVERYONE and EVERYTHING because they MIGHT meet someone someday...!!!

[Hoopla Phil]

50. There is definitely someone being irrational today. Wow. Lay off the caps already.

I may have to revise my thought on gun ownership. There are definitely SOME that should now be in possession of guns. LOL

[MineralMan]

51. Wow! Still screaming and shouting. Never mind.

I think I'll just not bother.

[virginia mountainman]

79. I think TANKLV..is

Paul Hemike's DU Handle...

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. You absolutely prove the point that "gun nut" doesn't only describe people who support RKBA. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Coward?

So, I carry a CPR shield, and keep my training up to date, because I'm afraid I might be the only, or first responder to a medical emergency someday, and I want the tools to respond correctly.

Exactly how much of a coward does that make me, in your estimation?

State law permits me to draw a weapon in response to any observed felony, and we have justifiable homicide statutes for not only self defense, but defense of others, as well as justifiable homicide in the course of aiding a police officer.

So far the only thing I've had to do is assist a police officer in stopping a drunk driver, but if need be, I want the correct tools to respond in a life threating situation. Does that make me a coward as well?

[Caliman73]

72. Nice rational argument there...

Isn't it against DU forum rules to make personal attacks against a poster?

[Euromutt]

89. See, here's what I don't get

Why is someone who possesses firearms a "coward," "scared <...> over some bogey man" while every gun control advocate who worries about gun owners "just snapping" and shooting a spouse, neighbor or some random stranger in a fender bender is expressing a well founded and rational concern, and not in the least bit cowardly?

Make more guns available, THEY WILL BE USED.

Define "used." Used to hunt? Used to shoot clays? Used to punch holes in paper? Because that's what an overwhelming majority of firearms in private hands in this country are used for. Fewer than a third of a percent of privately owned guns are used in the commission of a crime every year, and maybe 0.06% are used to commit a homicide. There are probably more privately owned guns used to avert crimes than there are used to commit crimes.

Don't have an abundance of guns available, THEN THERE WILL BE LESS GUNS USED!!!

Indisputably true, but not very meaningful. See, I don't see much point in reducing violent crime involving guns if it's replaced by an equal or larger amount of violent crime using means other than firearms.

Crime isn't caused by the availability of firearms; it's caused primarily by socio-economic inequality. And once a reason for crime exists, those committing it will avail themselves of whatever means they can acquire. If guns are available, they'll use guns. If they can't get guns, they'll use knives or clubs. If anything, an absence of firearms actually gives the criminally inclined an advantage, because it takes an investment of time and effort to become effective with a melee weapon, which is worthwhile for a criminal, but not for your average citizen. That's one of the great things about guns: they allowed a barely trained peasant--who never had the money to buy expensive weapons and armor, or the time to learn how to use them--to readily defeat a professional martial parasite like a knight or samurai. Similarly, they reduce the advantage a career criminal has over the average citizen who has neither the time nor the inclination to become proficient in melee combat.

[tekisui]

4. I don't have a 'fear of guns'.

I do, however, have great concern for children having access to loaded weapons. Far too many children and other innocent people are accidentally killed by people or other children solely because the gun owner was careless with their weapon.

[Tim01]

7. That's actually justified.

No argument from me.

I sat next to somebody in school who was killed because kids were playing with dads gun. They thought it wasn't loaded.

Of course,the lady 60 miles up the road killed 5 little girls because they were playing in the trunk of her car. Horrible. I have no answer for that.

[Taitertots]

73. Your concern is unwarranted

More children are injured and die from falling down than accidental shootings. You would be better serving children by having them wear a helmet, keeping them out of the car, and making them eat right. With falls, car accidents, and poor health killing dramatically more people especially children.


Not to mention the only group doing anything to mitigate this danger is the NRA. If you were more concerned about children shooting by accident then you should join the NRA. Their large scale gun safety training and distribution of trigger locks is arguably the single greatest contributer to the decrease in accidental shootings.

[Euromutt]

90. Not "unwarranted," exactly, but misplaced

As Taitertots rightly notes, way more children are killed by falls than by firearms. Other causes of death that far outweigh firearms include drownings (mostly in swimming pools and bath tubs), poisonings (mostly from unsecured household chemicals, and to a lesser extent medications), and house fires. And then there's the big one (also noted by Taitertots): motor vehicle accidents. Keeping your kids out of the car isn't the answer either: fewer children are killed by firearms than are killed by inattentive parents running them over while backing out of the driveway.

[Laelth]

5. Anti-gun? Is that like anti-life?

Being "against" guns would be insane. They are part of American culture. They exist, and they're real. It would be like being "against" oxygen. I refuse to box myself in by saying I am "against" guns.

But I nearly shot a friend once, as a teen--standard deal, thought it was unloaded, pulled the trigger. My father-in-law, a strong gun rights advocate, has shot up his own house on accident many times. Mercifully, he never hit anyone in his family. Ultimately, my concern about the usefulness of our 2nd Amendment rights boils down to this--the likelihood of a dangerous accident is far greater than the likelihood that the gun you own will ever be used to "defend" anyone. Plenty of countries get by just fine without all the guns we have here in the U.S., and their crime rates are universally lower.

I am not anti-gun any more than I am anti-oxygen, and, as a Democrat, I prefer for us not to pursue gun control. We have bigger fish to fry. Being pro-gun control is not a winning position for us, politically, at this time, but there are very good arguments that people have advanced for gun control and regulation.

:dem:

-Laelth

[TheWraith]

34. Actually, that's not really true.

"the likelihood of a dangerous accident is far greater than the likelihood that the gun you own will ever be used to "defend" anyone."

Not so. There's only about 800 fatal firearms accidents per year, and even if you stipulate the "dangerous accident" number to be ten times higher, defensive uses of firearms number in the millions.

"Plenty of countries get by just fine without all the guns we have here in the U.S., and their crime rates are universally lower."

Also not exactly accurate: there is no observable correlation between availability of guns, and crime rate. Britain has almost no guns, and a huge violent crime problem. Switzerland has 600,000 fully automatic machine guns sitting in people's homes, and almost no violent crime. There IS, however, a very provable link between violent crime and poverty.

[Euromutt]

91. Actually, it's more like "anti-abortion"

That is to say, much like "anti-abortion" is a more accurate description of the stance of most self-styled "pro-life" activists, "anti-gun" is a more accurate description of the stance of most self-styled "pro-gun control" activists.

It's all a matter of framing: if you call yourself "pro-life," you're implying that your opponents are "anti-life." Similarly, if you call yourself "pro-gun control" you're implying that your opponents are "anti-gun control." In reality, nobody involved in the abortion debate is "anti-life," and nobody involved in the gun control debate is entirely "anti-gun control." Even the most hardened GOA member will concede that it might be a good idea to prevent the mentally ill from acquiring firearms, and that we might want to think twice before letting someone with multiple convictions for violent felonies acquire a firearm.

At the same time, those who are actually active in pushing increased restrictions on private firearms ownership have a curious tendency to say of every gun control measure that gets passed "it's a step in the right direction" or words to that effect. What could they mean, if not the desire to eliminate legally held firearms from private hands to an extent comparable to the UK or Japan?

Ultimately, my concern about the usefulness of our 2nd Amendment rights boils down to this--the likelihood of a dangerous accident is far greater than the likelihood that the gun you own will ever be used to "defend" anyone.

It's amazing how that one has become distorted. The research upon which that assertion is based originally concluded that "a gun kept in the home is 43 times as likely to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill an intruder." Closer examination showed that the research data didn't actually support that conclusion (for example, it wasn't established that in all cases, the gun used in the killing of a household member was the gun kept in the home). Moreover, out of every 43 deaths of a household member, 37 were suicides, and while it's plausible that someone who is suicidal and has a gun available will use it to commit suicide, suicide statistics from other countries show that not having a gun available does not form an insurmountable impediment to suicide.

The biggest objection to the conclusions based on the findings, however, was the notion that the effectiveness of a firearm as a defensive implement can be measured only in the corpses of intruders, as if instances of intruder driven to flight or surrender without being killed were somehow not effective defensive uses of a firearm. That's like measuring the effectiveness of a police force by how many people they kill in a given year.

That particular study was discredited to such an extent that lead author, Arthur Kellermann, in subsequent studies forestalled criticism by refusing to publish his research data. Remarkably, the medical journals that published those studies took no issue with this.

[Statistical]

92. You don't need more gun control you need more gun control

As in personal control (safety & self control) of firearms.

http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html

1. All guns are always loaded (until you establish whether they are or not).
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. Keep your gun pointed in a safe direction at all times: on the range, at home, loading, or unloading.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target (and you are ready to shoot).
4. Be sure of your target. Know what it is, what is in line with it and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you haven't positively identified.

You violated rule #1 ("I thought it was unloaded" the weapon is ALWAYS loaded).
Also violated rule #2 unless you are willing to destroy your friend.

How would regulation make you more safe with firearms? If you father in law really has shot up the house MULTIPLE times I undestand where your lax attitude towards personal responsibility comes from.

You can change it though (no need for Uncle Sam)
It is asimple concept. 4rules follow them. To kill someone you must violate AT LEAST 2.

[Mugweed]

9. LAME

1) You've designated those in favor of stricter gun control as "anti gun". This is a sweeping generalization that is most often a right-wing tactic. Watch Fox "News" and you'll see what I mean.

2) You've designated those in favor of stricter gun control to be "afraid of guns". I have lost my tolerance for false-bravado from terrified cowards who feel it necessary to carry a gun everywhere they go. You are the one who is afraid, and admitted it in your post. Go hide under your bed.

You know what frightens me? Idiots. Especially idiots with guns, because it's usually their resource of first choice in any conflict resolution.

[noamnety]

16. Well stated.

By framing it as "fear" the OP is trying to portray those in favor of gun CONTROL as emotional rather than rational, and thus doesn't seem to be interested in reasonable debate so much as belittling those with opposing opinions.

I favor gun control. I'm a former SGT, and am not "afraid" of weapons. I imagine a lot of police officers are also not "afraid" of weapons and even own private ones, while also favoring stricter gun control laws.

[rl6214]

102. It's been stated here quite often

That most beat cops are not in favor of stricter gun controls.

[TankLV]

46. Thank you. Exactly as I said.

Only I'm not as patient or tolerant or gracious of COWARDS as you are...

[cherokeeprogressive]

83. You are "Keyboard Courageous".

All you have is name calling. That's all.

[Euromutt]

77. Nice double standard you've got going there

Yeah, people who carry in public are obviously giving in to irrational fears, but your fear is perfectly rational and justified. No need to explain why, it just is, right?

1) You've designated those in favor of stricter gun control as "anti gun". This is a sweeping generalization that is most often a right-wing tactic. Watch Fox "News" and you'll see what I mean.

I believe that's known as the "Bad Company" or "Guilt by Association" fallacy. Just because some particularly odious person or group agreed with a particular point of view doesn't necessarily make that point of view wrong. Good example: the first major public anti-smoking campaign in history was operated by the Nazis; in fact, they came up with a variant of the "tobacco smokes you" slogan as early as 1941. Is being opposed to smoking evil, just because the Nazis shared that opinion? (I don't think so, and I'm a smoker.)

[Merchant Marine]

78. Crime Rates

Anyway, lets compare crime rates.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph /

Murder Rates
US:0.042/1000
UK:0.014/1000

Burglary Rates (Interestingly enough, "Gun Control" Australia leads this category with 21.745/1000)
UK: 13.832/1000
US: 7.099/1000

Car Theft Rates (Again, Australia leads with 6.923/1000)
UK: 5.604/1000
US: 3.879/1000

Assault Rates (Virtually Identical)
US: 7.569/1000
UK: 7.459/1000

Rape Rates (Australia leads with 0.777/1000
US: 0.301/1000
UK: 0.142/1000

Robbery Rates:
UK: 1.574/1000
US: 1.385/1000

Total Crimes Per Capita
UK: 85.5517/1000
US: 80.0645/1000

In terms of overall crime the UK is worse than the US. They lead us in Burglary, Car Theft and Robbery and tie in Assault. We beat them at Murder and Rape, likely due to our inner city ghettoes. Gun Control has really resulted in a safer society over there, hasn't it?

[Tim01]

80. You should give this its own thread. Just straight up facts.

[Laelth]

93. Fundamental English common law says ...

... you never have the right to use deadly force in defense of property. Guns wouldn't help against the kinds of crimes that are more prevalent in the UK, and the statistics show they have not helped in the US for the kinds of crimes for which a gun can be used (personal defense), i.e. rape and murder.

As the poster above said, just straight up facts.

Welcome to DU!

:dem:

-Laelth

[Tim01]

94. And what you are suggesting isn't exactly accurate.

In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property. In lots of other parts of the country if a person breaks into an occupied dwelling the occupant is allowed to assume the worst and shoot that person.

But the most misleading part is suggesting that even a tiny percentage of the girls who get raped are armed. The girls who armed don't get raped. The fact that there is a tiny number of armed women does nothing to the number of women in this giant country who are raped.
The gun matters to the woman who DOESN'T get raped because she is armed. I actually know one 21 girl who falls into that category. She also falls into the very big category of people who tell the bad guys to go away and then don't report the event for fear of getting in trouble. Her case would be added to the defensive use of a hand gun statistic. I personally know of 4 such cases.

And the numbers drastically change if you discount gangsters shooting other gangsters over drugs.

The numbers already look pretty good for our country. If you add the stuff I mentioned it changes a lot more in our favor.

[Merchant Marine]

98. The English

Have legislated away their citizen's rights to defend themselves with any object. They have arrested and prosecuted citizens for carrying quarterstaves late at night after they had been threatened by gang members. I remember one article about a 60 year old bank executive who got 5 years in prison for using a sword cane on a youth who was strangling him in a subway. The youth was released after 5 months. Law abiding Englishmen have no self defense rights.

It's interesting to note that "Live" home invasions (Residents Present)make up over half of the burglaries in England, whereas in America they make up less than 1/3rd of all Burglaries.

[rl6214]

101. Anti RKBAs is more accurate.

And a great many who are in favor of stricter gun control HAVE stated that they are indeed "afraid of guns". Read these very forums a little more often.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

11. I am not afraid of guns.

I am afraid of those who might use and carry them. Case in point:

A drunken guy came into the bar where I was bouncing. Short dark hair, wearing a fringed black leather motorcycle jacket. He was already 3 sheets to the wind. He identified himself(I carded everyone) with a West Orange NJ police ID. My boss, the bar owner, had a "thing" for cops and let him in. The chooch only proceeded to get drunker, and he was driving.

Then, this little wimpy kid in a tie-dye tshirt came up to me. Said he had a gun stuck in his ribs 9 times. By whom, you might ask? Why the drunken cop! The kid described a large-frame semi-auto. I told the kid to go to the phone and call 911. Yes, I was shit-scared.

Drunk cop gets wind. Staggers out to his truck, takes off jacket. Takes off shoulder holster with either a Beretta or Star in it. Rolls it up and puts it behind passenger seat. Puts jacket back on and dons look on face like butter would not melt in his mouth.

State cop comes. They sent a Sergeant. Sergeant proceeds to browbeat kid into NOT signing charges. It was as fine a display of "protecting their own" as I had ever seen. I told the cop that there was a large-frame semi in a shoulder behind the passenger seat of the truck. The fucking state cop, at no time, made a move towards the truck. He was too busy threatening the kid with the 10 pounds of shit bulging in the seat of his pants. And rightfully so.

Later, we found that the drunk was the son of the West Orange chief, was a handful and was fired from the force. Eventually.

Is this mutt indicative of anything? Yup. He is indicative of humans and their frailties. Add to those frailties a gun, because those frailties have not been recognized or diagnosed, and someone is gonna get hurt. Someone who does not deserve to get hurt.

Just because you qualify for the permit ain't exactly the same as saying you are qualified to walk around strapped.

Your arguments are so full of false equivalencies and logical fallacies I just cannot screw up the interest in dismantling them, one by one, piece by piece.

[liberalmuse]

12. I don't fear guns. I dislike them.

My dad blew his brains out with one, for starters.

I had a co-worker who just married her longtime boyfriend. They had a toddler and a brand new baby. They went to visit relatives on their honeymoon. They pulled up to the house and the first thing the husband did was take out his gun to show his brother. It accidentally discharged and killed the baby, still in his car seat. That beautiful baby she used to bring into work.

One of my co-workers, an ex-police officer was showing us his guns, which he kept locked up in a safe. All his kids knew the combination. He is one of those responsible gun owners. My daughter was fascinated and wanted to hold one of his guns. I asked him if he was sure there were no bullets in it and he assured me there weren't. I asked him to please look in the chamber as my daughter was going to be handling it. There was a bullet in the chamber. Goddamnit. Even responsible gun owners can be lax at times.

There are a handful of gun owners I can somewhat respect. For instance, I do know people who own hunting rifles. They hunt for food in season and use just about every part of the animal they're hunting, because they need to supplement their grocery bill, and not just to blast holes in animals. On the other hand, there is that family friend who is a fearful older woman who listens to Rush Limbaugh and sleeps with her handgun under her pillow. A good watch dog would suffice.

It seems many of the people who own guns are very fearful, and too many of in this particular group are not very responsible. I'm sick of reading about suicides, or kids blowing away other kids by mistake, or parents accidentally killing their kids, or trigger happy hunters shooting at anything that moves. I remember seeing my friends shot up truck after they tried to out run some asshat hunters when they went camping.

I was in the military and know how to disassemble, clean and shoot rifles and hand guns. I just don't personally have any use for them, or understand why some people have what appears to be an unnatural fetish towards something so deadly and created solely to snuff out another life. It's pathetic that some human beings feel this need to own a piece of metal in order to feel empowered. I don't fucking get it. And the people who usually need to own guns are kind of...scary and sad. They talk about their guns like they're fondly talking about their dick. TMI. I won't even get into the irritating personality types who seem to be the ones touting gun ownership. There's something lacking, there.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Gun vs Dog -

You have to clean up after dogs ALL the time.

You never have to clean up after a gun - except when you DO, and then, with THAT clean up, you'll wish you'd had a dog instead.

[liberalmuse]

28. Granted, guns don't crap on the lawn, but...

they also don't greet you like you are the most important person in the universe when you come home after a rough day at work. You can't pet them. Then again, there are people who have closer relationships with their guns than some of us can understand, so I could be wrong about that, LOL.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Like Steven Colbert and Sweetness -

a truly deep relationship there.

[rl6214]

104. Many kids attacked by dogs annually

Yet we don't want to ban dogs.

[RaleighNCDUer]

109. We don't?

I've been hearing about bans on (in my lifetime) German Shepards, Doberman Pinscers, Mastiffs, Presa Canario, Alaskan Malamutes (they look so much like WOLVES!), Rottweilers, and of course, Pit Bulls.

There are idiot dog owners, just like there are idiot gun owners - which of the two are responsible for 20,000 lives every years?

[Tim01]

52. Fair points.

I can tell you that at my house people don't points guns at other people ever. When you are holding a gun you have to point it somewhere, there are plenty of places where people are not. Mistakes happen, but it is really hard to shoot a person without pointing a gun at them. This rule takes care of most problems about whether the gun is loaded or not.

It is still true that a person who wants to kill them self has a better chance with a gun.

[Euromutt]

74. On suicide and dogs

If you father had hanged himself, would you have an active dislike of rope? Would you be in favor of "rope control"?

And as far as "a good watch dog" sufficing for protection, well, I'm actually more concerned about negligent handling of dogs than I am about negligent handling of guns (which is not to say I'm not concerned about the latter). Domestic dogs bite over a million people every year in the United States, 60-70% of them children; and even though the number of fatalities is comparatively small (20-25), that number does not reflect lasting disfigurement. Then there's the fun fact that an estimated 50% of domestic dogs aren't vaccinated against rabies, even though that's required by law in every state. My entire city is a "dog control zone" (no dogs off-leash in public) but there's an awful lot of dog owners in my neighborhood who ignore that ordinance and just leave their gates open, making it possible for their dogs to wander onto the street. In fact, I ran into a couple of such dogs while taking a stroll around the neighborhood with my two year-old, including one "good watch dog" that took its job so seriously it threatened my kid even though we were a good hundred yards from its house. Loose dogs, frankly, are the main reason I feel compelled to arm myself on the streets of my own neighborhood; the handgun is in case the pepper spray turns out to be insufficiently effective.

In fact, much of your complaints about certain gun owners can be fairly leveled at dog owners as well, though at least guns can't scamper off onto the public thoroughfare and menace passersby of their own accord.

[rl6214]

103. 12 entire posts for the dick comparison.

[RandomKoolzip]

14. I hate guns because I abhor violence.

I don't "fear" guns. I'm not in favor of any kind of gun control.

But don't hang out with me and show off your gun. I will leave the room and think you're an asshole. Keep your stupid fucking weapons away from me. Violence and weaponry and war and hunting are not phenomena I find at all interesting or attractive. I want to live a peaceful life.

People in America worship the gun - they're still in love with some romantic ideal about the Wild West. They still think their weapons confer power and dignity and safety.

People also have some fucked=up paranoia that there's criminals under their beds, that there's a mugger around every corner. It's simply not true.

[virginia mountainman]

69. I also abhor violence..

So I carry a gun, to protect my loved ones from violent people.

The best way to deal with violence, is to STOP the person doing it, quickly, and efficaintly...I do not plan on letting someone, "continue violence" against, me, my loved ones, any other Innocent bystanders, until the police (with their guns) arrive, to put a stop to it.

The Violence, will be stopped as soon as possible.

[blue neen]

17. I'm not "anti-gun" as you put it.

We have guns in our home, locked up in a security vault. My husband hunts. I honestly wish I knew more about using the guns we have...as a matter of my own safety.

That being said, I don't see a need for AK-47's or guns that have only purpose: to kill people. Here's what just happened in our area:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm

That man was on a mission to kill those policemen. Why? Why? Why?

The saying goes, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." I happen to believe that those police officers lives wouldn't have been so easily taken if Mr. Poplawski had been armed with hunting rifles.
The entire neighborhood was in danger because he was actually using "war weapons" (my words).

IMHO, there is no need for that type of gun in our everyday lives.

Please don't flame me, because I'll admit that I don't know all the laws. You asked my opinion, and I gave my honest answer.

[Tim01]

24. Fair enough.

It is possible less police would have been killed with hunting rifles, but really, it is equally likely it would have changed nothing if he had a pump shotgun instead. I can get about 1 accurate shot per second with a pump shotgun.

The "war weapons" are actually not. The gun he had was a semi-auto rifle that looked like a fully auto assault rifle. Fully auto rifles, what most people call "machine guns" are really really rare in this country and very tightly controlled. I've never seen one.

[rl6214]

105. Not war weapons

A war weapon is fully automatic, his was not. Big difference. His was just a glorified hunting rifle.

[one-eyed fat man]

111. As a Pa resident you should ask.....

Why your civic leaders are screaming for new gun laws when they let the scumbags walk on the carloads of gun violations. Think about it, what could be easier? All you have to prove is the thug is a crook and was carrying a gun. The asshole has a 23 page rap sheet, the cops took a Glock from his pants pocket. Send the bastard away for 20 years, "NEXT!"

As tragic as the shootings in Pittsburgh, remember he ambushed the first cop with an ordinary shotgun. Very few weapons are more effective in close quarters. On the other hand, far many more cop-killings are like this one in Philadelphia. Philadelphia certainly qualifies as big city, look at how the big city handled the three assholes that killed Sgt. Liczbinski.

Howard Cain was the trigger man. You can see his fifteen page criminal record here.Howard Cain
Look at all the violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act that Cain has been arrested for. Keep in mind, these are only gun charges. Over Cain’s criminal career he had thirteen arrests for unlawfully carrying a firearm, that were listed "Nolle Prossed," meaning the prosecutor chose not to bring charges. In a further eleven arrests for violations of Pennsylvania’s firearms laws, the charges were either withdrawn or dismissed. In only three cases was he prosecuted and either plead guilty or was found guilty. On weapons charges alone, he could have done 12 years in prison, in which case he would not have been on the streets to kill a police officer.

You can find Levon Warner’s criminal record here. Levon Warner
His is only six pages. Warner is facing three charges for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and for unlawfully carrying firearms, in his latest arrest for conspiring to murder a police officer. Do you think Ms. Abraham’s office will make them stick this time? Previously, the Philadelphia DA’s office thrice declined to prosecute Warner for gun law violations. The Philadelphia judicial system chose not to try him for six other violations of Pennsylvania’s gun laws.

And last, but certainly not least, Eric Floyd.Eric Floyd
Again, hopefully this time, he’ll actually face weapons charges, in addition to the murder charges. But again, in 1994, he was arrested for robbery, and the prosecutors declined to prosecute him for carrying firearms illegally in two counts. Also in 1994, the courts declined to try him for two counts of carrying firearms illegally.

Now keep in mind, this is only weapons charges. The rap sheets of these scumbags total twenty six pages, and contains all manner of things that should have kept them off the streets for good. Maybe you should look at about how absolutely and utterly broken the City of Philadelphia’s criminal justice system is.

So now Governor Rendell is grandstanding to deflect attention from a system that is currently not using the laws already in the books in prosecutions. Don't you think you deserve better from your political leaders? You going to chime in with the chorus of witless supporters fighting hard to pass more gun "restrictions" the crooks won't obey and your publicity-seeking prosecutors REFUSE TO ENFORCE?

[barbtries]

18. you have made up your mind

i have made up mine. i don't think any of this will make one whit of difference to you. but i'm taking the time anyway don't ask me why i cannot answer that.

http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/01/25/article/nc_at_student_killed_by_gunfire

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20090512_Her_sister_killed_by_gunfire__she_pleads_guilty_to_shooting_witness.html

http://rochesterathome.com/dct/62/id/338808/mid/315/Rochester-Man-Killed-By-Gunfire.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/nyregion/19dead.html

http://www.topix.com/city/bartow-fl/2009/05/accidental-shooting-death-case-being-reviewed-by-prosecutors

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2009/02/hunter_pleads_no_contest_in_fr.html

http://krmg.com/localnews/2009/03/owasso-teen-charged-with-accid.html

http://videos.cleveland.com/plain-dealer/2008/04/brother_charged_in_accidental.html

http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/3299042.php?

http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-girls-accidental-shooting-death-mourned,0,4005122.story

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/302308/

http://www.wjbf.com/jbf/news/state_regional/georgia/article/teen_charged_in_accidental_shooting_death_on_i-20/10615/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/nyregion/07wesleyan.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/world/americas/06mexico.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/29/cop.shot/index.html

needless to say the stories go on and on and on and on.

but i don't expect any of this to shake your stand on the issue. i don't appreciate your assumption that the only reason i oppose guns is fear. fear is the reason you give for making sure you are armed. guns make it too easy to kill. how many mass murders have happened this year alone? how many of those did not involve gunfire? i can think of one: a man in MO killed his family by strangling them. but how much easier it would be to just pull a trigger. for most of those tragedies if no gun had been involved no life would have been lost. that is why i oppose guns. you give me no reason to change my mind. my daughter was the victim of a violent crime: she was run over with a car and she died. it did not change where i stand with regard to guns. a friend of my son's, 16 years old, was depressed, so he shot himself in the head. no gun and he would most probably still be alive. guns make it too easy to kill. it should not be that easy to kill.

[Tim01]

29. Unarmed criminal attacks and kills police officer is your last story.

After he being unarmed attacked and beat senseless an armed police officer, he took her gun away and shot her. I'm sure you see the irony in an unarmed criminal killing an armed police officer. But that is beside the point.

Guns make killing easier, no argument from me.

The rest, I think we can agree to disagree.

In my own experience, we have fewer drug dealers in town. It has to do with direct involvement by local citizens. The police had said they could do nothing.

[DrCory]

114. Then Why Bother to Reply?

Other than to establish your "moral superiority" :eyes:

[cosmik debris]

19. Guns serve no purpose in civil society

And bringing guns into civil society makes it less civil.

[MineralMan]

22. And you'll find this "civil society" where, exactly?

I'd sure like to find such a place. So far, I have not encountered one.

[cosmik debris]

27. I've never found a need for a gun.

I've never found a problem that could best be solved with a gun.

Perhaps it is because I choose to associate with people who hold those same views. We don't have those kinds of problems.

[MineralMan]

30. Lucky you. I've never had to use a firearm to settle a

problem either. I do, however, have to go to places where people who do not hold those views sometimes victimize people who do. When I must go there, I go armed. So far, that has not been necessary, but there has been more than one occasion when the place I have just left is the location of a violent crime not long afterwards.

You're lucky to be able to control the situations where you encounter people, and to choose the people with whom you associate. Not everyone is in that enviable position. though.

It is naive to assume that everyone has the same options you have. It's naive to assume that solutions that appear to work in your environment are the same solutions that work in other environments.

Would that we lived in a society free of dangerous individuals. We do not. Next time you come to the Twin Cities, I'll be happy to give you a tour of areas you would be well-advised to avoid.

[cosmik debris]

32. I never made those assumptions.

And it is not all luck.

Most of it is a result of conscious decisions I made.

[MineralMan]

36. Again, lucky for you.

Not everyone has complete control of where they go and with whom they associate. You are very lucky.

[cosmik debris]

37. Making the right decisions is not luck. n/t

[MineralMan]

58. Have it your way.

[Tim01]

60. Plenty of people get attacked in places where they thought they were safe.

And also I am guessing that what you say means you avoid bad areas.

If everybody does the same as you the only people left in bad areas are bad guys and people who can't get out for whatever reason.

Criminals like a neighborhood? All they have to do is hang out in it for a while and everybody will run away. Then the neighborhood is theirs. They can have any mall or subdivision they want because nobody will stand up to them.

I like my neighborhood the way it is, not a high crime area. If criminals try to move in, they will meet resistance.
And that is why it is not a high crime area.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. You choose to live in a society where people bear arms on your behalf

Even the sanest, most civilized society at some level has armed police and/or military.

Some people have the opportunity (and Constitutional right) to not outsource their personal protection
and choose to do so

[rl6214]

106. You conciously choose not to go shopping

or out to eat, out on a date or just for a drive on a nice evening because that's all the places that violent crimes can and do happen.

[jeepnstein]

108. Some people have a false sense of security.

You pay people like me to "keep you safe" but in reality that's not the way the world works. The state is under no obligation to protect private citizens individually. I'm glad that you can afford to live in a way that makes you less of a target but do not kid yourself about how quickly that can change.

There are monsters out there among us. I've seen them and their work first hand.

[pipoman]

96. Wow, you sound very much like these people, huh?

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/classics/carr_brothers/index.html

Happened less than 2 miles from my house.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Turn it around.

You are far liklier to be killed by a car than by a criminal - why AREN'T you afraid of cars?

It's about a feeling of lack of control. When you have your gun you have the illusion of safety and control, despite the fact that there is no such thing as either safety or control. What I worry about, even with law-abiding citizens who have CC, is that people who NEED to be in control become unpredictable and dangerous when a situation reveals itself to be out of their control.

I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of people who NEED their guns.

[Tim01]

35. I wear my seatbelt.

I try not to follow too close. I carry jumper cables. In the winter I keep a winter care package in my trunk.
I prepare as best I can then I get on the road and get the job done.

If I'm doing tree work I wear a safety harness then I climb the tree and try not to fall.

I make sure I don't get too tired if I am running a chainsaw.

I have been saved from a fall off a 3 story bldg by a harness. I have been bitten by a chainsaw twice.

I keep medical insurance, I carry a gun. Then I get on with my life.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. But -

you don't need a gun to jump a battery.
You don't need a gun to drive in snow.
You don't need a gun to top a tree.

Taking sensible precautions for particular tasks is rational.

Taking precautions against the improbable is paranoid.

A gun is a tool - and the purpose of that tool is to kill. If you have no need to kill, you have no need of a gun, just as if you have no need to trim a tree you have no need for a chainsaw.

To always see a constant need for a tool you will probably never use, that's called paranoia.

[WonderingWhy]

47. All it takes is one time...

To need the weapon for self-defense & not have it.

Far better to be prepared than not to.

[Tim01]

48. Which is exactly the same as fire insurance.

Everybody has fire insurance. I personally know more people who have been victims of violent crime, and people who have used their carry guns, than the 2 people I know whose houses caught fire.

So having fire insurance is more paranoid than carrying a gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Unless you are a criminal

The purpose of a gun (as a tool) is to protect human life. Might be yours. Might be another person. You might have to render aid to a police officer, if you're the only other person on-scene. Rare? Sure. But violent crime isn't as rare as I would like, so I carry.

If you don't want to, you don't have to. I'm not going to knock you. Same thing if you don't get CPR training, or CERT, or First Aid, or outside skills, donate blood, etc.. It would be nice to have more law abiding citizens around, with these capabilities, but I've been a first responder more than once, and not many people around had the skills or tools to handle the situation.

As far as guns go, I've been carrying since 2001, never have I once had to draw the weapon. If I can keep that trend going the rest of my life, I'll be pretty happy. I still carry though, because you never know.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. I've been hit by four cars.

You bet your ass I'm scared of a couple thousand pounds of glass and metal. Being a pedestrian in Bellevue is a contact sport.

[ensho]

23. alcaholics with guns scare me is one reason, another is

guns kill and maime people everyday in the US. actually every hour. probably every minute.

[The River]

25. Why Are You So Afraid Of Life

that you feel you need to carry a gun?
What's it like to be that fearful?

[MineralMan]

31. How naive your point is!

Where do you live? Where do you go?

95% of my time is spent in places that have no real threats. The other 5% is spent in places where gangs are prevalent. I am not fearful 95% of the time. I'm very wary the other 5%. At those times, I carry a concealed weapon. The rest of the time, I do not.

Life's safe enough if you stay in safe places.

[onehandle]

33. I'm anti-gun culture. It's a breeding ground for Republicans and the next McVeighs.

The recent NRA convention turned into a GOP rally. Gun shows have a sub-culture of hate.

[rl6214]

107. So DU is a breeding ground for republicans

and the next mcviegh(his name does not deserve to be capitalized)? Because 50% of Duers own at least one weapon.

[depakid]

112. "50% of Duers own at least one weapon." LOL

And you got that where?

from a DU poll?

[Shagbark Hickory]

40. I don't even trust my own self with a gun.

I guess people are scared of different things.
You are scared of people coming to get you and rape you and all of that and I am scared of guns getting into the wrong hands, and machos taking guns to places like schools or stores (like they already do here in georgia) to look cool and feel tough.

We can't handle guns. Our crime rates have confirmed this.

And I will be the first to admit that I don't even trust my own self with a gun. I don't have a short fuse or exceptionally bad temper but if I was sitting in traffic and someone cut me off and I had a gun, there's no telling what I would do if I had a momentary lapse of judgement.

[spin]

61. First, you must know yourself,

your own strengths and weaknesses.

[Tim01]

62. Have you ever smashed someone else with your car?

No? You've never even smashed up another persons car in a fit of rage in traffic. Yet you think you would be capable of pre meditated murder over a traffic incident. Not really consistent. I don't believe at all that you are capable of the murder you think you are. Almost all people are better than you give them credit for.
There is the occasional person though, he has trouble with violence almost as long as he has been alive. He is the one to watch out for.

[DrCory]

113. A Motor Vehicle...

Can as easily, under the right circumstances, be used as a weapon as a firearm. Having admitted to fearing a lack of self-control, why do you still operate one?

"I don't have a short fuse or exceptionally bad temper but if I was sitting in traffic and someone cut me off and I had a gun, there's no telling what I would do if I had a momentary lapse of judgement."

For the welfare of society, you should not be allowed to drive a motor vehicle. Or do your selfish desires supersede our safety?

[slackmaster]

41. Clearly they are all afraid of a black President

:rofl:

[virginia mountainman]

42. LOL!!!

:spray:

[slackmaster]

67. I have adopted that canard as my favorite answer for everything

:hi:

[WonderingWhy]

49. His Skin Color is Not the Issue...

at least, not for me.

It's about the ideology, the associations, the voting record, the actions.

Don't play the Race Card; that's such a tired strategy.

[spin]

99. Remember his political roots...Illinois...

One of the most anti-gun states in the union.

The chances of a pro-gun politician making it very far and hailing from Illinois are pretty damn slim.

Now that he is the President, he may be able to implement policies that will reduce gun violence and actually accomplish something.

He is quite possibly the best tactical politician in our lifetime. He managed to overcome long odds and defeat the coronation of Queen Hillary as the Democratic Presidential candidate during the primaries.

To win his second term, he needs to pull away from the extremely liberal portion of our party that favors draconian gun laws. There's plenty of room for him to maneuver on the gun issue. He can merely enforce existing laws or call for strengthening the background check system by allowing or requiring private owners to utilize the NICS system to insure that honest citizens buy the weapons they have for sale. He can improve the NICS system so as to eliminate the legal sale of firearms to those with severe mental conditions. Many good approaches to the problem exist, none of which infringe on the ownership of current firearms or ammunition.

There's many really intelligent improvements he could support that will make our gun laws and their enforcement more effective. Truly effective changes will meet with the approval of responsible gun owners. Some of these ideas will gain the support of the NRA, some will not.

He can easily distance himself from those who view gun control laws as a series of small steps leading to the total disarmament of citizens. These groups really have no interest in truly effective laws being passed. They hope to pass "feel good" laws followed by more "feel good" laws that fail to solve the problem. Their end objective is confiscation and the banning of civilian ownership of firearms. They do manage to convince well meaning many people who have little understanding of the issue to support their "reasonable" ideas.

Unfortunately for the "gun grabbing" group, the citizens of this country are far from stupid and tire of constant lies.

For those who really are truly concerned with reducing violence and gun violence but support groups such as the Brady Campaign, be aware that most responsible and honest gun owners desire the same.

We can all work together to solve or substantially reduce the problem of gun violence in our country.

[Captain Hilts]

54. It's the paranoid people that carry them. nt

[spin]

64. Occasionally you read of incidents where a person successfully...

used a concealed weapon for self defense

Would you call him paranoid or wise?

[virginia mountainman]

70. It useless Spin..

Only paranoid carry spare tires, fire extinguishers, and first aid kits...

WATTTTER WATER!!! FEEL IT HELEN KELLER!!!!

[MichaelHarris]

66. I once said

I'm 51 years old and have never needed a weapon to defend myself, no one I know has either. I've lived in places with high crime rates and low crime rates. Reading this post made me rethink my history, there was an incidence back in Texas. A man with a CCW permit pulled his pistol on me in a Academy parking lot because he said I took his spot during Christmas. A friend on mine who recently died, a Texas City policeman was in the lot, saw what happened and arrested the guy. So to sum up, the only time I ever had a weapon pulled on me was by a "good" citizen with a CCW. I walk down the streets in major cities with a camera, never once needing gun:



Fear? Nawww, got no time in life for it, too busy enjoying living instead of worrying about dying.

[ensho]

95. now that we have answered your question?

nt