Who doesn't want You to have Guns? Frightened Cowards and "The Man"

Originally posted by bsbray11

And you think WE have lost touch with reality? You didn't even read the articles in the OP, did you? A town in Georgia passes a law REQUIRING every home to possess a handgun and ammo and breaking and enterings drop to next to nothing, murder almost unheard of. Yeah, I guess they're just making that up.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Yes, I have read the articles. I noticed you ask that a couple of times almost as if you you expect people to change their minds after reading your post. I'm sorry but you don't make such a convincing case.

Discussing our different points of view will, clearly, lead nowhere. Instead I would just like to ask a question to you. Other gun owners are welcome to join in.

I once heard someone say "If "they" come for my guns they will have my bullets first" or something to that extent. I was just wondering if you too would be willing to do that in order to defend your guns and your beliefs. I never had the chance to ask that to someone like you (that owns a gun and believe that every citizen has the right to do so, if they wish).

That will be all from me...

Originally posted by Fanatic

Originally posted by bsbray11
And you think WE have lost touch with reality? You didn't even read the articles in the OP, did you? A town in Georgia passes a law REQUIRING every home to possess a handgun and ammo and breaking and enterings drop to next to nothing, murder almost unheard of. Yeah, I guess they're just making that up.

Yes, I have read the articles. I noticed you ask that a couple of times almost as if you you expect people to change their minds after reading your post. I'm sorry but you don't make such a convincing case.

Then apparently facts don't make convincing cases for you, and I feel sorry for you. You suggested guns don't deter crime. What evidence did you post to support that? None. I said they DO deter crime. And I actually posted evidence. Do I care if it didn't change your mind? No. If you don't like us having guns, come try and take them from us and see what that gets you.



Would we actually fight to defend our rights? Well consider that the state I live in has revolted against its own government twice already (first against the British, even before the Revolutionary War even started, then again during the Civil War in defense of states' rights over federal authority, something many states are again moving back to today -- California, Texas, Montana, Vermont, etc.), three or four times if you count the Coal Miners' rebellions culminating in 1921 when mistreated coal miners spontaneously formed an army of some 7,000 - 10,000 men and marched on West Virginia. Also consider all the militias all over this country formed by veterans and others whose sole interest is protecting our Bill of Rights. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are about as "Holy" to Americans as you get without actual religion being brought into it. Yes, people would definitely fight to defend this right. If guns were outlawed, I doubt the feds would even be able to collect half of what is out there. If they didn't immediately face violence, they would start facing it as soon as they try raiding peoples' property in violation of the Bill of Rights. As has been consistently pointed out on this thread, we Americans definitely seem to have a more independent attitude towards our government than Brits and Chinese and all these other countries whose citizens have already had their balls broke. When we say we want our REPRESENTATIVES (remember that word?) to actually represent and respect us, we will only be pushed so far before the sentiments start changing. Trying to disarm us would definitely cause a LOT of violence from otherwise peaceful, law-abiding citizens. It is our culture.



Something else for you non-Americans. If you drive through states like Texas (larger than many/most European countries by itself) or Tennessee, you will see billboards all along the highways and interstates advertizing gun shows, gun sales, militias, and even reminding people to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. It is THAT ingrained into our culture.

Texas used to be part of Mexico and rebelled and formed its own country. Then joined the union with a clause stating it could leave the union whenever it wanted. Texans remember that, too, no matter what threats the feds make. Texas is an especially armed state and very vocal about its 2nd amendment rights.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by SuperSlovak
reply to post by bsbray11

 

wow you americans are so obsessed with guns you cant leave your house without one? thats paranoia, i wont succum to it. Why would you need a gun anyway unless you plan on using it? Vigilante eh?

[edit on 2-3-2010 by SuperSlovak]

no ...not paranoia at all, there are areas where crime is higher than others... that has nothing to do with being scared of things...it is a fact that you want to live a bit longer... see some bad guy really do not care if you are breathing when they are finished.... I intend upon making sure I am the one breathing when it is done...

In my home I have weapons , and God have mercy on some fool that breaks in... because ireally doubt that I would... so at home if the big ass dog does not eat you, or sharon does not shoot you.... I will...

I carry because of work and it is the nature of the beast....and I plan on using it in the line of self defense... now why is that considered paranoia?

perhaps because you do not understand one of two things... that the criminal element usually has a weapon of sorts..
or #2... and the gun does nothing without a human behind it...

reply to post by Fanatic


If the government came for my guns (which I don't believe would happen) I would not shoot back. Why? I would be killed. I am only an average shot. There are more of them than there are of me.

I hope your scenario never comes to pass. It would mean bloodshed. Not from me. But from somebody, perhaps a whole lot of somebodys. Not a situation that I would like to see. I am not big on the whole violence thing.

I keep guns for fun and self-defense. It is my right, and a fun right to exercise. Certainly more satisfying than voting.

Originally posted by Fanatic

Originally posted by bsbray11


I once heard someone say "If "they" come for my guns they will have my bullets first" or something to that extent. I was just wondering if you too would be willing to do that in order to defend your guns and your beliefs. I never had the chance to ask that to someone like you (that owns a gun and believe that every citizen has the right to do so, if they wish).

That will be all from me...

Yes. Absolutely. Without hesitation. But the thing that you fail to understand is that it is not to "defend your guns and your beliefs". It is to defend the Constitution. The Constitution is the highest law in this country and among many other things it guarantees that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

I am a former soldier and I take my oath to the Constitution very seriously. My reaction would be exactly the same if "they" attempt to use force to take my 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th etc amendment rights.

The Constitution is a hard stop. It may not be violated under any circumstance. Ever. To do so is a declaration of war by the federal government against the citizens of the United States.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Doc Gator]

reply to post by Sean48

Watch this, its a good preview into the mindset of responsible gun owners and ccw holders. Other good videos on his YT channel.

Just because someone chooses to carry a gun doesn't mean they will pull it out during a situation like the one that occurred on the bus. CCW is much more complicated than what you make it out to be.

www.youtube.com.../search/0/ei8OK4WdoW0

I don't carry a gun BTW, I choose not to, but respect and appreciate others that do.

reply to post by ahmonrarh


i don't have a crystal ball, but know this: we must take back our government from the local and state level. take over your towns peacefully and lawfully by becoming the local goverment. get elected into local positions. start small groups and get things done in your state that promote liberty and freedom.

I also know that if the government and MSM are attacking "patriot" groups every single day from the right and left, and no doubt they will state crisis and blame the liberty movement. BUT they know they cannot take us by force. Their trickery and lies are becoming harder for them to perpetuate, and there has been a great awakening in this country. people are starting to realize what we are really dealing with here in the states.

that said, it is your right and DUTY to protect your family, neighbors, and your country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

and keep your powder dry

If you have a gun that makes you more of a coward in logical terms.Anyone can pull a trigger in a critical moment of life and end another mans life.A true soldier uses his hands in a fist formation.Only If you have ever gottin in a street fight like me you no how to take pain in and out of your nerval system.I've gotten in a fight where I have broken a guys neck and gave him a brain concussion.He tryed to drop me,I took my hand grabbed his neck and broke his neck.He got the brain concussion from a punch I did on the back of his head when he tryed to escape.O yeah I didn't brake his neck really I just sprained it.But he came back to school with a neck brace!

[edit on 6-3-2010 by 4saken_gr8ness]

Originally posted by Sean48


It only make sense, that the need to carry weapons is an attempt to

compensate for a man to make up for his "shortcommings".

A real man should be able to stand up for himself, and his family, without

the aid of a weapon. If a gun is needed to feel "Manly" , perhaps the

problem is deeper, and medical help should be sought.

My .02

Remind me of that when some dirtbag breaks into your house one night and attacks you or your family members.

We'll see just who has came up "short".

The MANS job is to defend his family and possessions by whatever means necessary AND the most powerful method available. PERIOD!

Originally posted by 4saken_gr8ness
Anyone can pull a trigger in a critical moment of life and end another mans life.A true soldier uses his hands in a fist formation.Only If you have ever gottin in a street fight like me you no how to take pain in and out of your nerval system...
[edit on 6-3-2010 by 4saken_gr8ness]

First of all there is no such thing as a "nerval system." It is the nevous system. Second of all you do not remove pain from the system. You refocus your mind so that the pain is secondary. It doesn't disappear it changes in intensity.

I guess you are calling every soldier in the army a coward. They use a gun instead of fighting terrorist and insurgents with their fist. How about the Spartans were they cowards because they used swords and spears. They didn't curl up their fist and start swinging.

Why don't you take this pathetic trolling expedition up the road?

[edit on 6-3-2010 by MikeNice81]

I live in Canada which shares much of the same culture, media and influences as the US does, in fact we are inundated with them.

In Canada, there are strict gun control laws. Lets look at 2004 murder rates Crime stats

Canadian cities (just about all of them) homicide rate per 100,000 and North American
violent crime rank

22 Winnipeg, MB 4.9
25 Edmonton, AB 3.4
26 Vancouver, BC 2.6
27 Calgary, AB 1.9
28 Toronto, ON 1.8
29 Montreal, PQ 1.7
30 Ottawa, ON 1.1

Compare that to the top 7 US cities per 100,000

1 New Orleans, LA 56.0
2 Detroit, MI 42.1
3, Washington D.C. 35.8
4. Saint Louis, MO 33.7
5. Atlanta, GA 26.0
6. Philadelphia, PA 22.2
7. Dallas, TX 20.2

Winnipeg is the only Canadian city that had a highre murder rate than a US city (only Seattle and San Diego had lower rates) aside from that one flip every other US city had a higher murder rate that all of the Canadian cities.

The claim that more guns reduces violent crime, and murder in particular doe snot seem to be supported by this data.




[edit on 6-3-2010 by metamagic]

reply to post by metamagic


Those are meaningless statistics, because there are different factors at play. If you need evidence of that, compare Canada's murder rate to most rural areas in the United States. The results will be comparable in most cases, even though chances are, those rural folks are armed to the teeth.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by metamagic

 

Those are meaningless statistics, because there are different factors at play. If you need evidence of that, compare Canada's murder rate to most rural areas in the United States. The results will be comparable in most cases, even though chances are, those rural folks are armed to the teeth.

And what exactly are those factors and what exactly is their effect. Canadian cities are more like US cities that any other country and yet you say that you want to compare US farms in stead to Canadian cities? So you are basically saying "I've seen the evidence but my mind is made up so find me some new evidence!"

The game you are playing is pure intellectual dishonesty. I can do the same thing to claim that Texas is the stupidest place in the US (anyone from Texas, I just grabbed a state name out of the air here so this is not what I really think about you fine folks) But y I don't want to compare average IQs between state to state since I think there are "other" factors at play so I'll compare the IQ of prisoners in Texas with those of Doctors everywhere else. Now that's data I can believe in.

If you want to have a gun so you have a ability to shoot someone, that's your issue, but don't start spouting nonsense to try and make is seem like it's making those of us you might get shot by you safer.



[edit on 6-3-2010 by metamagic]

[edit on 6-3-2010 by metamagic]

reply to post by metamagic


Of course there are other factors at play. Why else do states like Wyoming, North and South Dakota and several other states with high rates of gun ownership have low rates of violent crime?

If Canada had the same gun laws as the United States, I'd guess that it would still have a much lower violent crime rate than we do. You have to remember something: this is a nation where almost 6,000 murders...roughly one third... occur yearly that do NOT involve a firearm. That rate alone is right at 2.0 per 100,000 all by itself and comparable to Canada's overall rate without even considering firearm related homicides.

The reason why your numbers misrepresent the situation is because you're taking seven cities in the US which are cesspools of violent crime by almost anyone's admission and you're trying to use them as a representative sample of the US as a whole. Considering that they're all SEVERAL times above the national average... in fact, New Orleans is eleven times the national average...obviously, it is not a representative sample. In Canada, the disparity is nowhere near that large and its much closer to the reality of the nation as a whole.


[edit on 6-3-2010 by vor78]

Originally posted by Everton
No country should have the public being eligible to access firearms in my opinion. Reason being is they cause harm/distress/souring crime rates and murder. Being armed to protect yourself is a silly idea, just use common sense and avoid gang infested streets at night. I dont see what good can possibly come from owning a weapon.

It is because I own a gun, that a would be thief is now behind bars. I live in a decent neighborhood. The crime was NOT in a dark street infested with gangs. Get your head out of your behind and think beyond the apparent box you live in.

Ive have a CCW and have carried a firearm on me for 5 years. According to some posters here people like me need to man up fight with my hands because people like me are apparently compensating for our short comings by carrying a firearm.

Let me tell you what im compensating for, Im compensating for the fact that people who wish to do myself or my family harm, hardened criminals are not going to put down their knife, bat or any other weapon and go bare knuckles just because i am.

According to you i should not be able to defend my self and family, from being beaten, murdered or raped by thugs. Why should i risk any bodily injury to my self or my family when i can end the situation in a matter of seconds?

Some people here think that the average citizen who carries a firearm is going out looking for trouble, on the contrary we are trying to avoid trouble, In 5 years ive only had to unholster my firearm once. That one time im sure saved my life. Just the sight of my firearm ended the situation.

Ive read posts about staying out of the bad parts of town and you wont have problems, this is BS. Criminals target people in upscale areas because they know they have money, my wife and i were attacked in an upscale area. As we were walking back to our car from a movie a car pulled along side of us following slowly, i already knew what was going to go down as soon as the doors opened and 3 guys jumped out. I drew my firearm. One guy had a damn kukri and another an telescoping asp. The moment they saw my firearm they fled. Had i not been armed who knows what might have happened to my wife and my self.

You say im compensating, i say im evening the odds. The odds of my survival.

Originally posted by Everton
No country should have the public being eligible to access firearms in my opinion. Reason being is they cause harm/distress/souring crime rates and murder. Being armed to protect yourself is a silly idea, just use common sense and avoid gang infested streets at night. I dont see what good can possibly come from owning a weapon.

I do, how about I break into your families house and they have no means to protect themselves because of traitors such as yourself who have generated delusional fears and gun control falacies.

Better to have and not need than need and not have!

I wanted to add something I posted elsewhere on the forums today. It is a compilation of two seperate post. However, I think it fits well in this thread.

You want stats I've got them.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics

In 2007 nly 15% of all violent crime occurs at school while over 1/3 occurs at home or near the home. 80.7% of the time the offender initiates the violence.

Here is the good stuff. 65% of the time when the victim uses self protective measures they help or improve their situation. The result of using self protective measures is the avoidance of injury or greater injury 52.4% of the time. 18.4% of the time it scares away the offender. That means that over two million victimizations are avoided or nuetraulized due to the ability to use force. 2.3% of those that resisted used a weapon.

That means more than 40,000 people protected their life with a weapon. Of the 40,000 people that used a weapon 13,920 used a fire arm. If you add in the 607 justifiable homicides in the same year you have conservatively 14,727 cases of firearms stopping violent attacks. That is a significant number more than the 10,129 lives taken with guns that same year.

That is my conservative reading using the statistics. I know some people that report higher numbers. I count only threatened with or attacked offender with weapon. Some people include things like captured, scared, or persuaded attacker. If you add in those numbers it gets to be hundreds of thousands of people. Because of the vauge nature of the reporting I feel those categories can not be included even though guns are some times used in those situations. (The number 40,000 makes my numbers even more conservative. However, it makes the math much simpler.)

So how does the simple truth that more people are saved by guns than killed strike you?


If I hadn't intentionally limited myself the number would be 88,147 people that sucessfully used a gun to defend their self or another person. That is found using the BJS data available here. Plus I added the number of justifiable homicides according to the FBI's statistics for the same year.

Also I only counted incidents with a single attacker. I completely forgot to add in the incidents with multiple attackers.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by MikeNice81]