on guns - AnabolicMinds.com

on guns

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. New Member
    Mo250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation

    on guns


    "
    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a vali d method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

    People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

    People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

    The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

    - Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
    "

  2. Elite Member
    SilentBob187's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,851
    Rep Power
    11113

    Reputation

    Every word of that rings true. He's makes an amazing arguement.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "I am legally blind and if I can Squat,deadlift and over all get myself to the gym then anyone can get their a$$ in gear and get strong!!" - malleus25
    WHITE WHALE!
  3. Senior Member
    Nightwanderer's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,307
    Rep Power
    733

    Reputation

    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
    That argument might be flawed, true, but it's not completely invalid. The people who watch too many movies and think unarmed strikes to the head or internal organs only result in minor injury are also seeing in those same movies action heroes walking around and capable of fighting with 'superficial' gunshot wounds to places that in real life would have you immobilized and bleeding to death. Usually it's the leg or arm. there are major arteries in both that would be deadly to be shot through.

    The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
    Only part I care to seriously object to, mainly because of the huge if in the second sentence. Also, the 'weaker' defender is often the older, more frail defender, as might be the case in a mugging. The field might be more balanced, but it certainly isn't always level, even with two gun users. Age and illness tend to affect reflexes, timing, vision, and hand eye coordination. So, when a mugger attacks an elderly person, there's a good chance (note emphasis on chance)the mugger would be faster at the draw, more sure of their aim, and more physically capable of handling things like recoil in the case of higher caliber hand guns.

    The writer offers a passable argument, nothing worth clapping over IMO though. They state this 'leveled playing field' as too much of a fact without considering all the human variables that would cause it to simply be scaled up to a more potentially lethal outcome. The thing about guns vs melee is that pulling a trigger can be done in an instant and from a greater distance, with less fear of retribution from your victim because they'll most likely be incapacitated if not dead; whereas in melee the same variables such as strength/weight that a gun supposedly equalizes are the things that gives an attacker a reason to think and assess before harming you. A gun might help the meek defender negate physical prowess, but it also encourages the impetuous offender not to worry about those stronger than him.
    •   
       

  4. Elite Member
    SilentBob187's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,851
    Rep Power
    11113

    Reputation

    My concern has always resided in the fear of passing legislation in the United States similar to that in the United Kingdom, which ultimately states that "Under Home Office guidelines, gun licenses are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun."

    This can create an environment where only the lawless possess firearms. This removes any chance of a 'level playing field.' I really don't want to argue this. It's just my opinion and as such, it stinks.
    "I am legally blind and if I can Squat,deadlift and over all get myself to the gym then anyone can get their a$$ in gear and get strong!!" - malleus25
    WHITE WHALE!
  5. Senior Member
    Nightwanderer's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,307
    Rep Power
    733

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentBob187 View Post
    My concern has always resided in the fear of passing legislation in the United States similar to that in the United Kingdom, which ultimately states that "Under Home Office guidelines, gun licenses are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun."

    This can create an environment where only the lawless possess firearms. This removes any chance of a 'level playing field.' I really don't want to argue this. It's just my opinion and as such, it stinks.
    Completely understandable, I share the same apprehension. The problem with passing laws to where only the police/military have guns, is that chances are if someone is willing to shoot you in the first place, chances are they'd also be willing to illegally obtain guns. So, it'd make it harder and less likely for criminals to get a gun, but the ones that did have guns would be a lot more confident in the fact that most people wouldn't even be allowed to own a gun, much less maybe be packing. Gun control unfortunately is just one of those issues where people are irresponsible or outright malicious to the point where the gov't has to step in and trample everyone's personal freedom, and as usual they go about it ineffectively.
  6. Elite Member
    SilentBob187's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,851
    Rep Power
    11113

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightwanderer View Post
    Gun control unfortunately is just one of those issues where people are irresponsible or outright malicious to the point where the gov't has to step in and trample everyone's personal freedom, and as usual they go about it ineffectively.
    Exactly! Do nothing, people complain. Do something, people complain.
    "I am legally blind and if I can Squat,deadlift and over all get myself to the gym then anyone can get their a$$ in gear and get strong!!" - malleus25
    WHITE WHALE!
  7. New Member
    Mo250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightwanderer View Post
    That argument might be flawed, true, but it's not completely invalid. The people who watch too many movies and think unarmed strikes to the head or internal organs only result in minor injury are also seeing in those same movies action heroes walking around and capable of fighting with 'superficial' gunshot wounds to places that in real life would have you immobilized and bleeding to death. Usually it's the leg or arm. there are major arteries in both that would be deadly to be shot through.

    That point was the ARGUMENT is only made by those who think that way. Those people in real life are crying for their mommies when a gun is pulled or someone strikes them. Or they're drunk and well...that might be your argument cause drunks are stupid.



    The writer offers a passable argument, nothing worth clapping over IMO though. They state this 'leveled playing field' as too much of a fact without considering all the human variables that would cause it to simply be scaled up to a more potentially lethal outcome. The thing about guns vs melee is that pulling a trigger can be done in an instant and from a greater distance, with less fear of retribution from your victim because they'll most likely be incapacitated if not dead; whereas in melee the same variables such as strength/weight that a gun supposedly equalizes are the things that gives an attacker a reason to think and assess before harming you. A gun might help the meek defender negate physical prowess, but it also encourages the impetuous offender not to worry about those stronger than him.

    OK, lets try and take the article and THINK it to the next level. You shouldn't read something and only read the words. You have to analyze it.

    OK lets create a world where most people have a gun on them. You understand the idea of risk reward right? You'll only take a risk if the reward is great enough. If everyone has a gun you have to worry about being shot by the person you're attack AND anyone else going by. Even if only 30% of people are armed at all times the feeling has to be "well odds are someone's got a gun." Thus one attacking another person would face the very real threat of someone else outside of the problem taking actions into their own hands. They have to worry about the person they are trying to exert force on and they have to worry now about greater legal risks for shooting/using a gun in the act of violence.

    Thus in this world the only time someone would take on the risk of using the gun would be for a greater reward. People already use guns when the reward is great enough to justify their use now, but crimes where guns make the risk reward too low aren't committed and would be reduced if not completely gone.

    The argument that a group of 3 with guns would scare an individual with a gun is true, but it still doesn't take into account the risk reward factors that are needed here.
  8. Senior Member
    Nightwanderer's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,307
    Rep Power
    733

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mo250 View Post
    That point was the ARGUMENT is only made by those who think that way. Those people in real life are crying for their mommies when a gun is pulled or someone strikes them. Or they're drunk and well...that might be your argument cause drunks are stupid.
    The point to me only seemed to be an expression of a dismissive attitude towards the point of view because it's misleading or not always correct.
    ''the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways.''

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacious

    I was stating my general agreement with the fact that it can be misleading, just that it can't be completely dismissed because let's face it, there have been confrontations where people only died because both sides had guns.







    Quote Originally Posted by MO250
    OK, lets try and take the article and THINK it to the next level. You shouldn't read something and only read the words. You have to analyze it.
    I'm very tired right now so I can't go into detail, but telling me I need to analyze things beyond what was written seems a bit silly when I couldn't have come up with the somewhat lengthy response that I did, without having done so in the first place. Regarding risk vs. reward, if everyone had a gun, which is what the author is advocating, they think it would establish a confrontational equilibrium. after having analyzed things rather thoroughly in my opinion, I don't think this would be the case, because the gun is merely a tool and the author failed to mention any consideration of human variables, like the ones I had mentioned. To use an analogy, handing everyone in the world a computer would not suddenly make everyone equally skilled in using one because people all have natural flaws and limitations, and different strengths in their abilities to learn, as well as in abilities to operate said machinery. Also, just because everyone on the street would have a gun doesn't mean everyone would put it to use. I've seen plenty of 'true crime' type videos on TV where someone was getting beaten in the streets and other people merely kept their head down and kept walking for fear of their own safety. Then obviously, you have the moron with the camera that just sits there dumbfounded watching it all. Now, let's add guns to the equation.vRemember, the author is setting the scenario of everyone being armed. Do you think suddenly every time there was a crime being commited in the general view of others that everyone is going to feel secure and courageous enough to step in just because they have a gun? I don't, you know why? because no one wants to get shot, and the second you pull your gun, your involved, and the hostilities might just be turned away from the victim and towards you. It's sad yes, that someone could be in need of help and not get it because other people are afraid to step in. I just don't think handing everyone a gun is automatically going to change that. Sometimes the best way to avoid violence is simply not to partake in it. That said, not everyone is going to be willing to play the hero just because they have a gun. Again I'm very tired, so if some of what i'm saying doesn't seem to make sense, I apologize
  9. New Member
    Mo250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation

    The point to me only seemed to be an expression of a dismissive attitude towards the point of view because it's misleading or not always correct.
    ''the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways.''

    fallacious - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

    I was stating my general agreement with the fact that it can be misleading, just that it can't be completely dismissed because let's face it, there have been confrontations where people only died because both sides had guns.
    You're implying absolutes vs generalities. An argument of this nature should be looked at from a generalities view point. If the addition of an element causes a statistically significant change in outcomes then it is relevant and can be stated as such. Essentially if you're hypothetical guy then you're going to miss the big picture. I'm not saying that argument can't be argued against as it can. That said the idea isn't to show that there are exceptions but to show that confrontations with guns lead to a higher mortality rate. That would be an argument though it would be short sighted as currently gun confrontations with both sides having guns are going to be screwed towards individuals with intent to harm vs exert power/protection against others.


    I don't think this would be the case, because the gun is merely a tool and the author failed to mention any consideration of human variables, like the ones I had mentioned. To use an analogy, handing everyone in the world a computer would not suddenly make everyone equally skilled in using one because people all have natural flaws and limitations, and different strengths in their abilities to learn, as well as in abilities to operate said machinery.
    Duh? The thing is one doesn't know if the 70 year old 160 pound man was an ex seal or not. Granny might also be a gun range pro. Again risk reward. The 80 year old granny has zero chance of preventing a 220 pound guy from mugging her. With a gun the chance of protecting herself goes up. So while not in a state of equilibrium things have been leveled relatively speaking. Same applies to the group scenario.



    Also, just because everyone on the street would have a gun doesn't mean everyone would put it to use. I've seen plenty of 'true crime' type videos on TV where someone was getting beaten in the streets and other people merely kept their head down and kept walking for fear of their own safety. Then obviously, you have the moron with the camera that just sits there dumbfounded watching it all. Now, let's add guns to the equation.vRemember, the author is setting the scenario of everyone being armed. Do you think suddenly every time there was a crime being commited in the general view of others that everyone is going to feel secure and courageous enough to step in just because they have a gun? I don't, you know why? because no one wants to get shot, and the second you pull your gun, your involved, and the hostilities might just be turned away from the victim and towards you.
    See this is an example of not thinking big picture. Would the RISK alter the attacker's thought process? Would the guns change this dynamic? If we assume that attackers are stronger doesn't the gun dynamic also increase ABILITY of others to intervene? We all know there is no absolute in life, end of story. Stop looking for exceptions and start looking at the general results.We KNOW what happens when guns are taken away from the citizenry.
  10. Banned
    FcuktheFDA's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  218 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    127
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Our Four Fathers gave us this write. It shall remain protected. It's our right as American citizens and not even the government should be able to take that right away from us. The government seems to be getting worse and worse as time goes on, and we may eventually need to revolt. The NRA is the only thing standing between our right to bear arms and the government taking that right away.
  11. CEL Rep (Z's lacky)
    Usf97j4x4's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,154
    Rep Power
    654

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by FcuktheFDA View Post
    Our Four Fathers gave us this write. It shall remain protected. It's our right as American citizens and not even the government should be able to take that right away from us. The government seems to be getting worse and worse as time goes on, and we may eventually need to revolt. The NRA is the only thing standing between our right to bear arms and the government taking that right away.
    I agree... and don't give me the "colonial times / militias" argument.

    I have a concealed carry permit and do carry about 50% of the time. I also have a large collection of firearms that no one will ever take from me.

    Without guns who would protect us? The goverment? lol
  12. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    I prefer the arguments put forward in A Nation of Cowards.
  13. Senior Member
    Nightwanderer's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,307
    Rep Power
    733

    Reputation

    See this is an example of not thinking big picture. Would the RISK alter the attacker's thought process? Would the guns change this dynamic? If we assume that attackers are stronger doesn't the gun dynamic also increase ABILITY of others to intervene? We all know there is no absolute in life, end of story. Stop looking for exceptions and start looking at the general results.We KNOW what happens when guns are taken away from the citizenry.
    But see, as per my example with violence caught on tape, I am thinking of the bigger picture, which is why I don't
    think arming the entire public would change the dynamic as you say. Yes, the thought of a bystander stepping in with potentially lethal force would deter some people, but in reality, very few people can hold their own in a 2 on one melee fight either, yet people are still attacked in public. I'm not against anyone owning a gun at all, I just think it's ridiculous for the author to present their views in a way that makes it seem like if you just hand everyone in the world a gun, suddenly the world will be so much safer because supposedly people will usually be too scared to initiate violence. It seems to me that for every criminal it might discourage, it would simply cause 2 more to change their tactics to adapt to the new conditions. That, and I think if fire arms were more commonplace among the people that small arms technology would develop faster, but as that's purely a scientific advancement there's really nothing 'wrong' with that, it's just a spontaneous speculation.
  14. Banned
    FcuktheFDA's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  218 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    127
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    I do, however, think it should be made much harder for crazy people to get their hands on any firearms.
  15. CEL Rep (Z's lacky)
    Usf97j4x4's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,154
    Rep Power
    654

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by FcuktheFDA View Post
    I do, however, think it should be made much harder for crazy people to get their hands on any firearms.
    No! I already have enough trouble obtaining assault rifles
  16. New Member
    Mo250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightwanderer View Post
    But see, as per my example with violence caught on tape, I am thinking of the bigger picture, which is why I don't
    think arming the entire public would change the dynamic as you say. Yes, the thought of a bystander stepping in with potentially lethal force would deter some people, but in reality, very few people can hold their own in a 2 on one melee fight either, yet people are still attacked in public. I'm not against anyone owning a gun at all, I just think it's ridiculous for the author to present their views in a way that makes it seem like if you just hand everyone in the world a gun, suddenly the world will be so much safer because supposedly people will usually be too scared to initiate violence. It seems to me that for every criminal it might discourage, it would simply cause 2 more to change their tactics to adapt to the new conditions. That, and I think if fire arms were more commonplace among the people that small arms technology would develop faster, but as that's purely a scientific advancement there's really nothing 'wrong' with that, it's just a spontaneous speculation.
    You can speculate all you want Nightwanderer. The statistics are clear on what works and what doesn't. There is a reason 44 out of 50 states now allow concealed carry--yes, that many!

    Try to change your mindset for a moment and imagine you are a predator. Do you want to prey on something that has fangs and claws and will fight back, or something that is easy prey?
  17. Board Supporter
    joecski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    46
    Posts
    776
    Rep Power
    507

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightwanderer View Post
    But see, as per my example with violence caught on tape, I am thinking of the bigger picture, which is why I don't
    think arming the entire public would change the dynamic as you say. Yes, the thought of a bystander stepping in with potentially lethal force would deter some people, but in reality, very few people can hold their own in a 2 on one melee fight either, yet people are still attacked in public. I'm not against anyone owning a gun at all, I just think it's ridiculous for the author to present their views in a way that makes it seem like if you just hand everyone in the world a gun, suddenly the world will be so much safer because supposedly people will usually be too scared to initiate violence. It seems to me that for every criminal it might discourage, it would simply cause 2 more to change their tactics to adapt to the new conditions. That, and I think if fire arms were more commonplace among the people that small arms technology would develop faster, but as that's purely a scientific advancement there's really nothing 'wrong' with that, it's just a spontaneous speculation.
    It seems everyone in this thread is agreeing with the right to have and/or carry guns, which is the BIGEST ISSUE, remember that when you vote for our next president.

    That being said, Nightwanderer makes some good points about adaptation from criminals, if everyone carried weapons criminals would just change their method of operations - it is Darwinian theory and also very true. I would imagine the instances of being killed in bed by home invasions would go up while the muggings on the streets would go down.

    Also, technology HAS advanced in the realm of personal protection/small arms with the widespread availablity and marketing of the taser gun. The taser is being touted as the best thing since sliced bread and they are even having "stun gun parties" like tupperware parties to sell them to women.
  18. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by joecski View Post
    It seems everyone in this thread is agreeing with the right to have and/or carry guns, which is the BIGEST ISSUE, remember that when you vote for our next president.

    That being said, Nightwanderer makes some good points about adaptation from criminals, if everyone carried weapons criminals would just change their method of operations - it is Darwinian theory and also very true. I would imagine the instances of being killed in bed by home invasions would go up while the muggings on the streets would go down.
    Of course criminals will adapt. The issue isn't what criminals will do, it's what are an individual's rights? Do they or do they not have the right to defend themselves with the most effective means available or not? A true self defense advocate would still defend the right to bear arms even if it lead to an increase in crime overall. Thankfully it doesn't, but for a person who believes in individual rights it would be at most a secondary consideration.
  19. Board Supporter
    joecski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    46
    Posts
    776
    Rep Power
    507

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Of course criminals will adapt. The issue isn't what criminals will do, it's what are an individual's rights? Do they or do they not have the right to defend themselves with the most effective means available or not? A true self defense advocate would still defend the right to bear arms even if it lead to an increase in crime overall. Thankfully it doesn't, but for a person who believes in individual rights it would be at most a secondary consideration.
    I totally agree, the individuals right to self defense is undeniable. If in this case someone were to try to hit my premises with a home invasion, they would have to get past my home alarm system, then my big dog, and finally my personal methods of self defense. They should probably run when the alarm goes off or the dog starts barking and they have a chance.

    I had a friend that was mugged, had a .22 shoved in his face, for a six pack of beer and a few dollars. He started carrying a gun (legally) and was never mugged again, although he always lived in the same awful neighborhood for many years while he went to Temple College in Philly. He thinks it was because of the confident way he presented himself while carrying, he didn't look like a potential victim anymore.
  20. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,382
    Rep Power
    956430

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    not looking to start an argument at all, but at the end of the day I dont see the need for a gun, never have, most likely never will. I am not saying that you shouldnt have the right, but at the end of the day try to truly analyze what your desire to carry one is really about.

    Not trying to be Freudian at all, but truly look back at your life and see why the need to feel what the gun gives is truly present.
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  21. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    not looking to start an argument at all, but at the end of the day I dont see the need for a gun, never have, most likely never will. I am not saying that you shouldnt have the right, but at the end of the day try to truly analyze what your desire to carry one is really about.

    Not trying to be Freudian at all, but truly look back at your life and see why the need to feel what the gun gives is truly present.
    At the end of the day, try to truly analyze what your desire to be completely defenseless is really about. And here's hoping you never need to defend yourself or someone you love with a firearm so you can keep living in la la land.
  22. Board Supporter
    joecski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    46
    Posts
    776
    Rep Power
    507

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    not looking to start an argument at all, but at the end of the day I dont see the need for a gun, never have, most likely never will. I am not saying that you shouldnt have the right, but at the end of the day try to truly analyze what your desire to carry one is really about.

    Not trying to be Freudian at all, but truly look back at your life and see why the need to feel what the gun gives is truly present.
    I think the need to have a gun is the same as the need to have a hurricane kit in my house with a weeks worth of supplies - I'll probably never use it, most year's I end up giving my stuff away during the food drives. However, for that one time it saves my life - that is why I need to have a gun. Tell me what Freud would have said when a two men break into your house and force you to watch them rape your wife at gunpoint - it happened not too long ago in this area. I think anyone would say that YOU should have defended her or died trying, and a gun would have put you in a much better position to accomplish this task.
  23. Senior Member
    Nightwanderer's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,307
    Rep Power
    733

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mo250 View Post
    You can speculate all you want Nightwanderer. The statistics are clear on what works and what doesn't. There is a reason 44 out of 50 states now allow concealed carry--yes, that many!

    Try to change your mindset for a moment and imagine you are a predator. Do you want to prey on something that has fangs and claws and will fight back, or something that is easy prey?
    Well,
    as the AUTHOR didn't list any stats, much less their sources, I don'tfeel the need to do more than speculate, because it'sall they're doing. Just what 'mindset' do you think I'm coming from? I already advocated the right to carry firearms, my only objection is the weakly put together piece you posted. You seem to be taking that a bit personally btw, did you write it and copy/paste to multiple places, or are you a personal admirer of the writer or something?
  24. New Member
    Mo250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation
  25. Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,382
    Rep Power
    956430

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    At the end of the day, try to truly analyze what your desire to be completely defenseless is really about. And here's hoping you never need to defend yourself or someone you love with a firearm so you can keep living in la la land.
    I dont consider myself defenseless at all. I think he we have different definitions on how to defend ourselves
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  26. New Member
    Mo250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I dont consider myself defenseless at all. I think he we have different definitions on how to defend ourselves
    I think joecski said it best. You seem to associate carrying guns with some sort of stigma. If we carry them somehow there is something wrong with us. For me it gives an advantage in those life-death situations. If you don't want to carry a gun I have no problem with that but please don't paint us like we're some sort of freaks.
  27. Board Supporter
    joecski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    46
    Posts
    776
    Rep Power
    507

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mo250 View Post
    I think joecski said it best. You seem to associate carrying guns with some sort of stigma. If we carry them somehow there is something wrong with us. For me it gives an advantage in those life-death situations. If you don't want to carry a gun I have no problem with that but please don't paint us like we're some sort of freaks.
  28. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I dont consider myself defenseless at all. I think he we have different definitions on how to defend ourselves
    Then I present you with a scenario: two or three guys break into your house, and as is the trend these days, don't just rob you at gunpoint but force your woman to blow them while you watch. What's your definition of defense under those circumstances?
  29. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    At the end of the day, try to truly analyze what your desire to be completely defenseless is really about. And here's hoping you never need to defend yourself or someone you love with a firearm so you can keep living in la la land.
    Considering that a gun you own is far more likely to injure or kill you, or someone you love, rather than defend against a would-be intruder, I'm not sure your point is well made (statistically speaking here - both % are not large). Especially in respects to children, non-fatal injuries outnumber deaths 5-1, and the majority of injury cases are domestically-based, unintentional deaths stemming from guns kept for 'self-defense purposes'.

    If a gun is being kept for self-defense, it is most likely loaded, unlocked, and unless your state specifically demands it, without locking mechanisms.

    In all honesty, the likelihood that harm will come to those you seek to defend, rather than those you seek to defend against, is substantial enough to make personal gun use a luxury. It is about primary individual rights, as opposed to an argument based on necessity.

    It is one of the fundamental 'individualities' of American society, and I personally accept that. I suppose I just can't reconcile with the argument that they are needed; simply because of the ridiculously low possibility that you will EVER need a gun for the purpose you bought it for (and then the incidentally and comparably high chance someone you love may be injured from it).
  30. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Considering that a gun you own is far more likely to injure or kill you, or someone you love, rather than defend against a would-be intruder, I'm not sure your point is well made (statistically speaking here - both % are not large).
    Considering actually that this stat was taken from a study that with crap methodology that concentrated on criminals with rap sheets that read like War and Peace and which found no significant difference between the gun owning group and unarmed control groups, the actual take home from it is that being a criminal ups your chances of being shot regardless of whether you own a gun or not. However misinformed and misinforming liberals do like to trot this bull**** claim out every now and then, proving only that they are too lazy to read the source material and to understand the massive problems with it, or that they don't care and are so gullible that they'll believe anything Hillary Clinton says or say anything to advance an agenda, true or false.

    "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

    To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

    The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3] Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

    Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.

    Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19]
    Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies."

    [2] Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48.
    Back to the top

    [3] Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.
    Back to the top

    [17] Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home.? N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.
    Back to the top

    [18] Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home.? N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91.
    Back to the top

    [19] Japenga A. "Gun Crazy.? San Francisco Examiner. This World supplement. April 3, 1994. p. 7-13 at 11.
    Back to the top
    Especially in respects to children, non-fatal injuries outnumber deaths 5-1, and the majority of injury cases are domestically-based, unintentional deaths stemming from guns kept for 'self-defense purposes'.
    Care to quote the actual numbers? I figure you won't since more kids drown in buckets than are actually killed by guns, leaving the non fatally wounded number woefully low as well. Also perhaps you could actually quote the source of this stat and lookin into how they define "child."

    If a gun is being kept for self-defense, it is most likely loaded, unlocked, and unless your state specifically demands it, without locking mechanisms.
    Source?

    In all honesty, the likelihood that harm will come to those you seek to defend, rather than those you seek to defend against, is substantial enough to make personal gun use a luxury. It is about primary individual rights, as opposed to an argument based on necessity.
    Already shown to be complete bull****...

    It is one of the fundamental 'individualities' of American society, and I personally accept that. I suppose I just can't reconcile with the argument that they are needed; simply because of the ridiculously low possibility that you will EVER need a gun for the purpose you bought it for (and then the incidentally and comparably high chance someone you love may be injured from it).
    There is no high chance someone will be hurt, and according to economist John Lott guns are used millions of times a year for self defense. Perhaps you should read a bit more on the subject rather than just accepting Hand Gun Control Inc's nonsense at face value.
  31. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Considering actually that this stat was taken from a study that with crap methodology that concentrated on criminals with rap sheets that read like War and Peace and which found no significant difference between the gun owning group and unarmed control groups, the actual take home from it is that being a criminal ups your chances of being shot regardless of whether you own a gun or not. However misinformed and misinforming liberals do like to trot this bull**** claim out every now and then, proving only that they are too lazy to read the source material and to understand the massive problems with it, or that they don't care and are so gullible that they'll believe anything Hillary Clinton says or say anything to advance an agenda, true or false..
    I won't go through the effort of pretentiously quoting and debating you verbatim. Despite all your rhetoric, and keen use of the word 'bullshit, you misinterpreted my post and intent; you and I view the world through diametrically opposed lenses, no point in couching our arguments in differing circular terms.

    With that being said, you breathing still, pookie? I could care less about Gun Regulation - the implementation of the Registry in Canada has proven to be more bureaucratically confusing then protecting. I am wholly unconcerned with whether or not to regulate them in the United States. I was merely pointing out THE RIDICULOUSLY LOW probability owning a gun will increase your safety, or ability to protect your family. Perhaps you can provide a stat refuting that?

    You should take a breath and realize I wasn't questioning your libertarian 'rights over anything else' stance - selfish and individualistic as it may be. Merely pointing out the 'Bull**** Facts', as you put it.
  32. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    I won't go through the effort of pretentiously quoting and debating you verbatim. Despite all your rhetoric, and keen use of the word 'bullshit, you misinterpreted my post and intent; you and I view the world through diametrically opposed lenses, no point in couching our arguments in differing circular terms.
    So in other words you have nothing to back up your BS assertion. Typical liberal response.

    "Hey, you know 20 out of 18 people are killed by their own weapon and then raped by a pitbull! Guns are baaaaaaaad!"

    "That's not actually the case... (reason) ... (statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Private Agencies, etc.)"

    "I don't care, I believe it anyway!"

    I was merely pointing out THE RIDICULOUSLY LOW probability owning a gun will increase your safety, or ability to protect your family.
    Already did by name: John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime. Please read it.

    You should take a breath and realize I wasn't questioning your libertarian 'rights over anything else' stance - selfish and individualistic as it may be. Merely pointing out the 'Bull**** Facts', as you put it.
    Facts my ass. They aren't facts, that's the point. Your facts are BS nonsense that liberals have been peddling for years and they never get any traction because it takes anyone with the slightest motivation and brain power less than a minute to look them up and see what a load of **** they are.

    You are not more likely to be killed by your own gun than to be protected by it. That is a fact. What you're peddling is nonsense that has been known to be nonsense for quite some time, which is why you rarely hear about it anymore. There's a reason the gun control movement has been essentially silenced: they're wrong, and they went to extremes of misinformation to try and hide that fact and were outed again again as bull**** artists of no particular skill.

    There are however a whole lot of liberal gun haters who can't be bothered to actually educate themselves on this issue and prefer to merely repeat what Hillary says and consider that being 'informed'.
  33. Board Supporter
    joecski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    46
    Posts
    776
    Rep Power
    507

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    With that being said, you breathing still, pookie? I could care less about Gun Regulation - the implementation of the Registry in Canada has proven to be more bureaucratically confusing then protecting. I am wholly unconcerned with whether or not to regulate them in the United States. I was merely pointing out THE RIDICULOUSLY LOW probability owning a gun will increase your safety, or ability to protect your family. Perhaps you can provide a stat refuting that?
    I would think that in the current climate of the United States with things like the Katrina tragedy where armed criminals roamed the streets while the government deserted the people and left them defenseless would be enough to prove that you DO have a chance of self-protection with a gun. There was widespread chaos - raping and pillaging at it's finest - that was not widely reported in the media. As I said in an earlier post, I prepare for disaster, because the area I live in is prone to tornadoes and hurricanes, and a gun is part of my kit.

    Maybe in Canada there is no crime, there are no bad people with guns, and you can sleep with your doors and windows unlocked. It isn't like that where I live. If I could be totally assured I would never need a gun, that I would never encounter anyone who wanted to kill me or my family who had a gun, then I would fall back on my deadly kung-fu skills for self-defense. However, even Bruce Lee wouldn't stand much of a chance against a .357, and life isn't a Hollywood movie.
  34. New Member
    The Brute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    14
    Rep Power
    96

    Reputation

    First off im a firm believer in our second amendment right and the fact that guns don't kill people stupid idiots with guns kill people. I personally feel that gun crimes would go up due to the fact that civil citizens would have no means to protect themselves form these loonatics. Not to mention illegal gun-running would skyrocket. In a country with 200+ organized crime groups the demand for illegal firearms would go thru the roof and they have the funding, ships, and connections to flood the market with semi-automatic weapons and pistols. I think if the democrats want to turn us into England where they have universal healthcare and no guns they need to start by getting these illegal immigrants, cartel associates, and gangbangers out of the country then maybe we could be like england. But for that to happen we will have to drop on the immigration list from the top to as low as england. Also they should quit these human rights rants and bring back the death penalty and quit turning prisons into fine resorts. The taxpayers would feel better and these criminals might not look foward to going to jail. I believe Ron White said it best, "If you kill somebody we will kill you back!"
  35. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by joecski View Post
    I would think that in the current climate of the United States with things like the Katrina tragedy where armed criminals roamed the streets while the government deserted the people and left them defenseless would be enough to prove that you DO have a chance of self-protection with a gun. There was widespread chaos - raping and pillaging at it's finest - that was not widely reported in the media. As I said in an earlier post, I prepare for disaster, because the area I live in is prone to tornadoes and hurricanes, and a gun is part of my kit.
    Actually the National Guard went around disarming people. Typical response, and probably added to the victim count.
  36. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    The whole premise behind gun control is that someone who is willing to take a gun, point it at another human being, and say, "Give me your money, or I'll kill you," or, "Spread your legs, or I'll kill you," or, "I'm just going to kill you for the fun of it!", is going to put their hand to their forehead and say, "Alas!, I can rob and murder no more, the government says I can't have a gun!
    "Maybe I'll become a CPA..."

    The idea that someone who is willing to break the laws against robbery, burglary, rape, assault, and murder, is going to feel at all constrained by a law which tells him which weapons are acceptable in pursuit of his criminal career is totally assinine. The only people who will obey those laws are the ones who are not violating and not likely to violate the more serious prohibitions. Therefore all you do is disarm people and raise their profiles as likely victims.
  37. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27063

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    So in other words you have nothing to back up your BS assertion. Typical liberal response.

    "Hey, you know 20 out of 18 people are killed by their own weapon and then raped by a pitbull! Guns are baaaaaaaad!"

    "That's not actually the case... (reason) ... (statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Private Agencies, etc.)"

    "I don't care, I believe it anyway!"



    Already did by name: John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime. Please read it.



    Facts my ass. They aren't facts, that's the point. Your facts are BS nonsense that liberals have been peddling for years and they never get any traction because it takes anyone with the slightest motivation and brain power less than a minute to look them up and see what a load of **** they are.

    You are not more likely to be killed by your own gun than to be protected by it. That is a fact. What you're peddling is nonsense that has been known to be nonsense for quite some time, which is why you rarely hear about it anymore. There's a reason the gun control movement has been essentially silenced: they're wrong, and they went to extremes of misinformation to try and hide that fact and were outed again again as bull**** artists of no particular skill.

    There are however a whole lot of liberal gun haters who can't be bothered to actually educate themselves on this issue and prefer to merely repeat what Hillary says and consider that being 'informed'.
    Well, that was a good for a laugh.

    You really need to breathe - being a paranoid libertarian recluse cannot be good for cholesterol levels already, adding in unnecessary internet stressed based on your inability to read cannot help.

    I mentioned, several times, the excesses and bureaucratic failures of registries; the Canadian registry has failed miserably (mentioned this, but in your juvenile tirade, you may have missed it).

    I also mentioned the statistically insignificant levels of both being killed by your own gun, and being able to defend yourself with it. Once again, you may have missed that as well.

    Again, the issue that a gun is necessary, or fundamental, is ridiculous. Your viewpoint places a primacy on citizen rights, gun rights being one of them; I accept that. Now get over the fact somebody may disagree with your philosophical inclinations about why, or why not, to own a gun.

    You sure are a spaz for a pot-smoker. Go smoke a joint, jesus.

  38. Snuggle Club™ mascot
    bpmartyr's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    4,443
    Rep Power
    27395

    Reputation

    All I can say is: I have guns, many guns in fact. I am proficient in their use, maintenance and safety as are all my children and wife. When my children were younger they were locked up and out of reach. I instill a respect for the weapon and ensure they know exactly what happens to someone when they are shot and what rare circumstances allow them to bear and, God forbid, end someones life. I have no fear of them "accidentally" shooting anyone or harming themselves.

    That being said, go ahead and try trespassing on my property. The only one likely to be hurt is the trespasser.

    If the government wants to shred the Constitution and take my guns they will do so over my dead body. Literally. (And likely some of theirs as well.)
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
  39. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    I also mentioned the statistically insignificant levels of both being killed by your own gun, and being able to defend yourself with it. Once again, you may have missed that as well.
    No, I didn't. You're wrong. Millions of people a year use a gun to defend themselves. See the work of previously mentioned John Lott.

    Again, the issue that a gun is necessary, or fundamental, is ridiculous. Your viewpoint places a primacy on citizen rights, gun rights being one of them; I accept that. Now get over the fact somebody may disagree with your philosophical inclinations about why, or why not, to own a gun.
    Disagree all you want, next time try to support it with something solid as opposed to the usual discredited bull**** that you pulled out this time. Makes you look bad.
  40. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr View Post
    I have no fear of them "accidentally" shooting anyone or harming themselves.
    I always wondered how you 'accidentally' shot someone with the weapon that has a 5-8lb trigger pull or something similar.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. HOLY GUNS
    By Tex44 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-03-2010, 04:08 PM
  2. Arkansas could allow guns in churches
    By b unit in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 06:45 PM
  3. Guns for Texas School Teachers.
    By TruffleShuffle in forum News and Articles
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 09:42 AM
  4. Guns!!!
    By Leggo my Ego in forum General Chat
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 09-30-2006, 10:16 PM

Posting Permissions

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