Gun Owner Thoughts

[This Is Keanu Reeves]

The huge problem I have (and I know there are plenty of other arguments) with the NRA's "we need more good guys with guns" argument is that it assumes:

1. I want to carry my gun on me in public
2. I would willingly engage an active shooter if I was carrying

Rebuttal:

1. I get annoyed if I have to carry anything more than my phone, keys and wallet
2. If I am carrying a pistol and the "bad guy" is carrying a AR-15 with multiple magazines, how much do "prevention" odds really go up?

 

[wiede]

The huge problem I have (and I know there are plenty of other arguments) with the NRA's "we need more good guys with guns" argument is that it assumes:

1. I want to carry my gun on me in public
2. I would willingly engage an active shooter if I was carrying

Rebuttal:

1. I get annoyed if I have to carry anything more than my phone, keys and wallet
2. If I am carrying a pistol and the "bad guy" is carrying a AR-15 with multiple magazines, how much do "prevention" odds really go up?

It also assumes that 1) you’re cool under pressure and 2) you’re a good shot.

Also, it assumes that you’re responsible with the gun when it’s not on your person, and that unintended contact with the weapon will never happen with young kids, thieves, etc.

The pitch sounds great, until you consider reality.

It amazes me that such an extreme viewpoint has become the default view for the pubs. It also amazes me we’ve elevated the right to own a semi automatic/automatic weapon over literally every other right out there.

 

[Fro]

The average accuracy rate for trained police officers in a firefight is 18%

It's quite absurd that some people would rather have a police state than potentially being inconvenienced when buying guns.

 

[El Drado]

I never knew, until recently, that many gun owners reason that gun ownership is a defense against any US govt over-reach.
I have heard that from some friends who own guns, but never knew that this was some bigger widespread thought. The idea was too funny for me to consider that it was rampant.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

The average accuracy rate for trained police officers in a firefight is 18%

It's quite absurd that some people would rather have a police state than potentially being inconvenienced when buying guns.

I think many gun owners don’t feel it is an inconvenience. But it is my understanding that Mr. Cruz would have been able to purchase his weapon regardless legally. When looking at Parkland, the only way he would have been prevented from a purchase is if the dots were connected and FBI passed info along like they were suppose too.

How do we keep the guns out of people’s hands that are sick? I really think our Government has failed over and over implementing and enforcing laws on the books. We as citizens get tired of it and say get rid of all of them because we can’t depend on our government to implement our laws. It’s frustrating.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I never knew, until recently, that many gun owners reason that gun ownership is a defense against any US govt over-reach.
I have heard that from some friends who own guns, but never knew that this was some bigger widespread thought. The idea was too funny for me to consider that it was rampant.

Yes, I had a social media discussion with an acquaintance that lives in kind of a remote area in MI. When asking about need for assault weapons, about 20 people jumped on with the need to keep government in check. Laughed at the fact those same people probably heartily endorse the huge bump in budget to the military . And see no irony.

 

[Hank Reardon]

Gun Owner Thoughts:

1. I own three pistols. No rifles

2. I have a license to carry in Indiana and any State that honors an Indiana license, but I don't carry

3. My pistols are always locked in a safe, though they are loaded.

4. I've taken several firearm defense courses, some with LEO instructors. Each course demonstrated how ill-equipped I'd be playing the hero. Most encouraged the motto, "Don't shoot, run." Good advice.

5. I don't ever anticipate using any of these pistols against anything but paper on the range, but one never knows what may happen in life and most terrible things are unexpected.

6. I see a certain value in knowing how to use a weapon, should such a situation arise.

7. You'll not be harmed by my pistols, and if you knew me in real life you'd probably not know I had them.

 

[This Is Keanu Reeves]

I think many gun owners don’t feel it is an inconvenience. But it is my understanding that Mr. Cruz would have been able to purchase his weapon regardless legally. When looking at Parkland, the only way he would have been prevented from a purchase is if the dots were connected and FBI passed info along like they were suppose too.

How do we keep the guns out of people’s hands that are sick? I really think our Government has failed over and over implementing and enforcing laws on the books. We as citizens get tired of it and say get rid of all of them because we can’t depend on our government to implement our laws. It’s frustrating.

If the FBI did relay the information that they were supposed to.... What law did Cruz break? Wouldn't he still have been able to buy the gun? Perhaps the point is that they could have prevented him from using it but... what if he went radio silent for 2 months after purchase, only to quietly re-emerge on the school campus?

 

[Ohio Guy]

Yes, I had a social media discussion with an acquaintance that lives in kind of a remote area in MI. When asking about need for assault weapons, about 20 people jumped on with the need to keep government in check. Laughed at the fact those same people probably heartily endorse the huge bump in budget to the military . And see no irony.

If we are going down the road of taking away guns from mentally ill and disturbed people, I think extreme paranoia that the US government is going turn its military on its citizenry should be the first sign/red flag.

 

[37Hoosier]

If we are going down the road of taking away guns from mentally ill and disturbed people, I think extreme paranoia that the US government is going turn its military on its citizenry should be the first sign/red flag.

Well, that and someone would need to immediately be required to disarm the buffoon and his VP if they have or carry guns.

 

[twenty02]

Gun Owner Thoughts:

1. I own three pistols. No rifles

2. I have a license to carry in Indiana and any State that honors an Indiana license, but I don't carry

3. My pistols are always locked in a safe, though they are loaded.

4. I've taken several firearm defense courses, some with LEO instructors. Each course demonstrated how ill-equipped I'd be playing the hero. Most encouraged the motto, "Don't shoot, run." Good advice.

5. I don't ever anticipate using any of these pistols against anything but paper on the range, but one never knows what may happen in life and most terrible things are unexpected.

6. I see a certain value in knowing how to use a weapon, should such a situation arise.

7. You'll not be harmed by my pistols, and if you knew me in real life you'd probably not know I had them.

As someone else posted.....there are 600m guns in America. We are too far down this hell hole to get out of it. Even those that don't want a gun feel like they need one, because, hell....everyone else has one...and there are a lot of crazy people out there.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Yes, I had a social media discussion with an acquaintance that lives in kind of a remote area in MI. When asking about need for assault weapons, about 20 people jumped on with the need to keep government in check. Laughed at the fact those same people probably heartily endorse the huge bump in budget to the military . And see no irony.

The reasoning behind the 2A is a preference for militias over a standing army, fear of a standing army, and a check against tyranny. The gun nuts are the ones that should be most passionate against a standing army because, in my opinion, it negates the purpose of the 2A. We have a great big standing army instead of militias. Long gone are the days where you can defend yourself against the government with a musket. What is the largest threat of tyranny? A standing army, the well trained folks with fighter jets, tanks, etc.! Instead, military and police worship abounds.

I also don't think many of the gun nuts understand passive resistance. Gandhi and MLK achieved a whole lot, and they never fired one bullet. I would be happy if the gun nuts at least watched the end of the movie Witness ("enough!") and applied critical thinking skills. "They" can't kill all of us, and "they" look like monsters and lose even more support when they try to. I think this is kind of what is happening with guns, at least assault rifles: looking into the mirror as a society and seeing a monster looking back at us.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The huge problem I have (and I know there are plenty of other arguments) with the NRA's "we need more good guys with guns" argument is that it assumes:

1. I want to carry my gun on me in public
2. I would willingly engage an active shooter if I was carrying

Rebuttal:

1. I get annoyed if I have to carry anything more than my phone, keys and wallet
2. If I am carrying a pistol and the "bad guy" is carrying a AR-15 with multiple magazines, how much do "prevention" odds really go up?

the problem with "good guys with guns", is that good guys have bad moments, get into stupid or legit arguments, have moments of insanity such as when they get fired from their job out of the blue for no reason, and are already living paycheck to paycheck.. or suddenly catch their girl with another guy.. or are just drunk.. or get into a road rage situation while on 4-6 hrs sleep a night and loaded up with caffeine to the hilt.

and that 4-6 hrs sleep a night and loaded up with caffeine or booze or both, combined with a gun in hand and an already bad mood for whatever reason, is a recipe for disaster for even otherwise good guys..

and what exactly is the litmus test for "good guy"?

take any killer, many to most will have neighbors or family who will attest to how friendly and nice they seemed.

 

[sglowrider]

Or you can have Marco Rubio's response:

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Or you can have Marco Rubio's response:

View embedded media

That's a bad answer, but it's also a really dumb question. Whether or not Rubio accepts their money isn't really the issue, and it's not really fair to put Rubio on the spot for that. And I say that as someone who really, really hates the NRA.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

That's a bad answer, but it's also a really dumb question. Whether or not Rubio accepts their money isn't really the issue, and it's not really fair to put Rubio on the spot for that. And I say that as someone who really, really hates the NRA.

totally legit question, and his answer was effectively a big "FU, no i won't pledge that, and i want all the money they'll give me and more".

did i really have to translate his answer for you??

everyone else got what his answer was.

 

[twenty02]

This is a pretty amazing poll. Will be interesting to see if other poll numbers come out like this.

I've never seen a 97-2 response on anything.

February 20, 2018 - U.S. Support For Gun Control Tops 2-1, Highest Ever, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Let Dreamers Stay, 80 Percent Of Voters Say

American voters support stricter gun laws 66 - 31 percent, the highest level of support ever measured by the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll, with 50 - 44 percent support among gun owners and 62 - 35 percent support from white voters with no college degree and 58 - 38 percent support among white men.

Today's result is up from a negative 47 - 50 percent measure of support in a December 23, 2015, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.

Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:

• 67 - 29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons;
• 83 - 14 percent for a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. It is too easy to buy a gun in the U.S. today, American voters say 67 - 3 percent. If more people carried guns, the U.S. would be less safe, voters say 59 - 33 percent. Congress needs to do more to reduce gun violence, voters say 75 - 17 percent.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

 

[Rockfish1]

That's a bad answer, but it's also a really dumb question. Whether or not Rubio accepts their money isn't really the issue, and it's not really fair to put Rubio on the spot for that. And I say that as someone who really, really hates the NRA.

I'd like to understand how you could think it's a bad idea to stigmatize the NRA. At best, the NRA should be regarded as a lobbyist for the gun industry, serving the same sort of role that the Tobacco Institute served back in the day for cigarette manufacturers.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'd like to understand how you could think it's a bad idea to stigmatize the NRA. At best, the NRA should be regarded as a lobbyist for the gun industry, serving the same sort of role that the Tobacco Institute served back in the day for cigarette manufacturers.

The NRA is a lobbyist for the gun industry. I don't think it's bad at all to stigmatize the NRA. I'm saying it's stupid to pile on the politicians they support. The problem with lobbying money is systemic. As long as that system is in place, the money is necessary, and taking politicians to task for accepting it is sort of a sideshow. I know it sounds strange, but because of the system we force our politicians into, I view the NRA as the bad guys, not the people who take their money.

 

[Rockfish1]

The NRA is a lobbyist for the gun industry. I don't think it's bad at all to stigmatize the NRA. I'm saying it's stupid to pile on the politicians they support. The problem with lobbying money is systemic. As long as that system is in place, the money is necessary, and taking politicians to task for accepting it is sort of a sideshow. I know it sounds strange, but because of the system we force our politicians into, I view the NRA as the bad guys, not the people who take their money.

I don't understand that either. The politicians the NRA supports are precisely the ones preventing any action on guns. It's very easy to locate responsibility and accountability here. You can call the problem systemic, but votes get counted. We care about how they vote or we don't.

Maybe you're saying that nothing we'd practicably do would make much difference, and that may be so. But let's shame Marco Rubio (for example) every day he doesn't do anything. Why would we accept this absurd political dysfunction?

 

[sglowrider]

That's a bad answer, but it's also a really dumb question. Whether or not Rubio accepts their money isn't really the issue, and it's not really fair to put Rubio on the spot for that. And I say that as someone who really, really hates the NRA.

Not sure it's a dumb question... It's easy for the kids to look for a simple solution especially after what they have gone through.
A seasoned politician on the other hand... Faffing around as usual.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't understand that either. The politicians the NRA supports are precisely the ones preventing any action on guns. It's very easy to locate responsibility and accountability here. You can call the problem systemic, but votes get counted. We care about how they vote or we don't.

Maybe you're saying that nothing we'd practicably do would make much difference, and that may be so. But let's shame Marco Rubio (for example) every day he doesn't do anything. Why would we accept this absurd political dysfunction?

I'm saying it's not realistic to ask a politician to forego funding. Some orgs fund the GOP, some fund the Dems, many fund both. That's how it works, and it sucks, but singling a guy out like this because this one org is unpopular at the moment is silly.

And again, I can't stress this enough, I absolutely hate the NRA. This isn't about defending the NRA. It's just about the fact that this is kind of a dumb trap question that isn't based in (sad) reality. We should take Congressmen to task for not doing something when they could. And we should also take them to task for not reforming campaign finance. But this kind of ambush confuses the two issues.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not sure it's a dumb question... It's easy for the kids to look for a simple solution especially after what they have gone through.
A seasoned politician on the other hand... Faffing around as usual.

He handled it very poorly, no doubt about it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm saying it's not realistic to ask a politician to forego funding. Some orgs fund the GOP, some fund the Dems, many fund both. That's how it works, and it sucks, but singling a guy out like this because this one org is unpopular at the moment is silly.

And again, I can't stress this enough, I absolutely hate the NRA. This isn't about defending the NRA. It's just about the fact that this is kind of a dumb trap question that isn't based in (sad) reality. We should take Congressmen to task for not doing something when they could. And we should also take them to task for not reforming campaign finance. But this kind of ambush confuses the two issues.

What is the effective difference between not accepting NRA money and Harvey Weinstein money? As soon as a scandal develops with a donor, like Weinstein, politicians disavow them and their cash.

 

[Rockfish1]

I'm saying it's not realistic to ask a politician to forego funding. Some orgs fund the GOP, some fund the Dems, many fund both. That's how it works, and it sucks, but singling a guy out like this because this one org is unpopular at the moment is silly.

I completely disagree with this. Calling out politicians who are wrong when it hurts them is the only way things will ever change. And the NRA isn't merely "unpopular at the moment". It is deeply and repellently wrong.

 

[sglowrider]

He handled it very poorly, no doubt about it.

He is a wilts under the spotlight. Ok for most of us but not good as the Potus.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What is the effective difference between not accepting NRA money and Harvey Weinstein money? As soon as a scandal develops with a donor, like Weinstein, politicians disavow them and their cash.

Weinstein's a criminal.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I completely disagree with this. Calling out politicians who are wrong when it hurts them is the only way things will ever change. And the NRA isn't merely "unpopular at the moment". It is deeply and repellently wrong.

I have no problem with calling out politicians. I'm just saying the idea of trapping a politician with questions about industry donors is...silly. All politicians have industry donors. And they are all universally evil. It's part of the system.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Weinstein's a criminal.

Technically at this point, alleged criminal. Let me suggest if David Duke was a huge donor to the GOP, Dems would make a case of that. So we recognize there is money parties just should not accept.

 

[sglowrider]

 

[IUCrazy2]

I never knew, until recently, that many gun owners reason that gun ownership is a defense against any US govt over-reach.
I have heard that from some friends who own guns, but never knew that this was some bigger widespread thought. The idea was too funny for me to consider that it was rampant.

It is literally the only reason I think I would own one.

 

[Ohio Guy]

It is literally the only reason I think I would own one.

I've never felt scared enough to own one. I'm not necessarily picking on you, but in my opinion the only reason people own guns is because they're scared of something and I've never subscribed to the notion that more guns make us safer.

The fact that there are 600 million guns in the hands of private citizens tells me that we've become a nation of wussies who are essentially scared of their own shadows.

 

[Hank Reardon]

I've never felt scared enough to own one. I'm not necessarily picking on you, but in my opinion the only reason people own guns is because they're scared of something and I've never subscribed to the notion that more guns make us safer.

The fact that there are 600 million guns in the hands of private citizens tells me that we've become a nation of wussies who are essentially scared of their own shadows.

That's absurd and you'll never win the debate with rhetoric like that. It simply prompts people to dig their heels in and resist otherwise reasonable ideas.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I've never felt scared enough to own one. I'm not necessarily picking on you, but in my opinion the only reason people own guns is because they're scared of something and I've never subscribed to the notion that more guns make us safer.

The fact that there are 600 million guns in the hands of private citizens tells me that we've become a nation of wussies who are essentially scared of their own shadows.

Have you heard about the little old lady who was stopped by the state patrol?

"Officer, You should know I have a 9mm Glock in my glove box.

"Thank you mam."

"Officer I also have a 357 magnum in my floor console."

"Thank you mam."

"Officer I have a 38 special snub nose in my purse."

"Mam, what are you so scared of?"

"Not a damn thing sonny."​

 

[IUCrazy2]

Huh? To make a stand against the US Govt?

Let me preface this by again saying the only gun I own was one handed down to me from a dead uncle. Had that not been given to me, I would own zero. That gun is put away and there is no ammunition for it in my house. In fact, there has never been ammunition for it in my house.

With that out of the way, yeah, if I was going to go out and purchase one it would probably only be in response to things I saw from the U.S. government and the followers of whoever happened to own the levers of power at that time. I will be frank, I find the people running the narrative on the left to be cuckoo. Now that is not your every day rank and file Democrat, but some of the most vociferous people on that side of the aisle are nuts. And, as they are the most active, their nuttiness is infecting the Democrats. I do not trust the far left. Conversely, I had a Facebook discussion with a guy the other day who is supposed to be on my "side" who scolded me for wanting to give up my rights because I was willing to accept some curtails on the 2A. This guy argued that the 2A allowed for equal armaments to the government. I tried to pin him down as to whether that meant I could own a nuclear ICBM and he refused to directly answer that but merely followed up with, "It is people like you who have thrown away our rights..."

So the point of all that. I find the fringe of the right and left to be certifiable. They pull more political power than I do because they have the time and the desire to be more active. If either of them were to obtain the ability to truly impose their will on us, I want a way to go out with a fight. I would lay the odds of that happening somewhere at .000000000001%. Thus why I do not own a semiautomatic rifle. I do not want to **** over some future generation because, "that could never happen here" though. So I am willing to go along on some control but I do not want an outright ban.

 

[Ohio Guy]

That's absurd and you'll never win the debate with rhetoric like that. It simply prompts people to dig their heels in and resist otherwise reasonable ideas.

Why else would someone own a gun? Doesn't the idea that you're trying to 'protect' someone or something from someone or something else imply that you're scared something is going to happen?

It's not absurd at all. It may have hit a nerve with some people, but it's the truth.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Have you heard about the little old lady who was stopped by the state patrol?

"Officer, You should know I have a 9mm Glock in my glove box.

"Thank you mam."

"Officer I also have a 357 magnum in my floor console."

"Thank you mam."

"Officer I have a 38 special snub nose in my purse."

"Mam, what are you so scared of?"

"Not a damn thing sonny."​

That anecdote proves my point. The little old lady feels the need to own two guns to lure herself into a false sense of security. The cop should have told that little old lady that she should be scared that someone could overpower her and use one of those guns against her...which is the statistically more likely outcome for her.

 

[Hank Reardon]

Why else would someone own a gun? Doesn't the idea that you're trying to 'protect' someone or something from someone or something else imply that you're scared something is going to happen?

It's not absurd at all. It may have hit a nerve with some people, but it's the truth.

Are you suggesting that things don't happen to people? And if they do, they must have been expected? Where exactly are you from? Apparently somewhere where all future events are known.

I said above that I own three handguns. I said I don't carry them around. I'm not afraid of anything in particular. But I see a value in having access to something if the unexpected should arise. If you choose not to, that's your business. But calling me names and suggesting I'm a wussy isn't going to sway me to your way of thinking.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Are you suggesting that things don't happen to people? And if they do, they must have been expected? Where exactly are you from? Apparently somewhere where all future events are known.

I said above that I own three handguns. I said I don't carry them around. I'm not afraid of anything in particular. But I see a value in having access to something if the unexpected should arise. If you choose not to, that's your business. But calling me names and suggesting I'm a wussy isn't going to sway me to your way of thinking.

I don't think we're playing a zero sum game here where if I don't own a gun or two 'just in case', my family is going to die in violent flames. Obviously I can't control what I can't control, but I don't let that consume me. It's fine by me if you're scared of the unknown and having a gun gives you some sense of security.

This isn't meant to sway anyone to a line of different thinking. I'm merely stating what I believe.

 

[Hank Reardon]

I don't think we're playing a zero sum game here where if I don't own a gun or two 'just in case', my family is going to die in violent flames. Obviously I can't control what I can't control, but I don't let that consume me. It's fine by me if you're scared of the unknown and having a gun gives you some sense of security.

This isn't meant to sway anyone to a line of different thinking. I'm merely stating what I believe.

You can call it "scared" if you wish. But I don't see the harm in considering the possibility of unanticipated events.They do happen. Ask the old dude that got beat to death just down the road from me last year. In his own home. A beautiful home. In Aboite Twp. He didn't wake up that morning thinking, "you know, I have the feeling I'll be murdered today." It was just a day. Like any other day.

I'm not suggesting that in his case (or any particular case) that a weapon would have helped him. I'm merely illustrating that bad things happen to regular people. Like you. Like me. Any random day. And we generally don't anticipate it.