That might be true. So what? Using that argument the liberal food nazis can make me eat tofu instead of bacon. No thank you.
Gun Owner Thoughts
- Thread starter This Is Keanu Reeves
- Start date
That might be true. So what? Using that argument the liberal food nazis can make me eat tofu instead of bacon. No thank you.
I don't disagree with you that bad, unexpected things can happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime. I fully accept that reality. I don't see how entering a gun into that equation makes things better.
Well, if you want to go down that route, eating bacon and other types of processed meats does increase your risk of heart disease and certain types of cancer. But feel free to eat your bacon with your gun on your lap...I don't really care.
Risk is interesting in how we respond. Roundabouts are a great way to find risk tolerance. I sat behind a car the other day that refused to enter the roundabout if anyone was anywhere in the roundabout. The car to our right entered, the car I was behind just sat there. Other people go right in and expect everyone else to stop for them.
I have Neville Chamberlain's photo as my avatar. Chamberlain was known as a "belts and suspenders" man by his critics. The idea being he was so afraid of risk he would wear both in case one failed.
Some people rush to the doctor for every little ache and pain. Others have a heart attack and debate if they need to call someone.
I know CO loves riding bicycles, I have seen enough of you drive that I barely feel safe in my car. I can't imagine taking up biking again.
Haven't read thru the entire thread,but I'd say the MAIN fallacy of the NRA position is it equates NRA membership with being a "good guy".
Cruz bought his weapon legally,and there is absolutely nothing that would preclude him from also being able to obtain a conceal carry permit.
In the world of slogans,"good guy with a gun" is the ultimate in SUBJECTIVE criteria.There are PLENTY of gun advocates/NRA members who are nowhere close to what I consider a good guy...
That's fine. My only point was that mass labeling those who think differently as "wussies" isn't productive.
I thought I remembered a story from a couple of weeks back about a "road rage" incident in Florida that involved a legal gun owner deciding the other driver was a "threat" and killing them.I tried to search,but couldn't find the exact criteria to locate that story...
But I did find several stories,even pre dating Parkland by a couple of years,that mentioned that Florida led the US in both "road rage" incidents with a gun,and also conceal carry permits issued.From a 2016 study which shows that lots of "good guys" apparently have guns in Florida...
"The Trace, a nonprofit website that advocates for gun control, found that at least 620 gun-involved road rage incidents occurred in 2016. This figure is more than double the number of gun-related incidents recorded just two years prior.
Over this two-year period, Florida led the nation with the most gun-involved road rage incidents with 146. Perhaps related, Florida also has the largest number of residents who are concealed-carry permit holders. Some believe it is fair to question whether the high number of concealed-carry permit holders is somehow correlative to the scores of gun-related road rage occurrences.
Others dispute this connection, such as Senator Dennis Baxley, who is a staunch gun proponent. Sen. Baxley believes the blame is more accurately placed on drug use, not guns. Regardless of the cause, it is evident Florida has an issue with aggressive driving and gun-related road rage in particular."
https://www.destinattorneyjohngreen...a-1-state-road-rage-incidents-involving-guns/
I'd rather people speak about important issues than not speak about them. The questions from the kids displayed that politicians are bought and sold and neglecting their duty to serve the public, and the message was broadcast at a national level. There is utility in addressing these important issues on a large scale, and I would agree politicians need to be shamed when they neglect their duties. Perhaps it will continue important debate and lead to something.
This is the NRA and the gun lobby's main talking point-and the favorite argument among the infowars crowd.From the same tin foil hat brigade that claims Sandy Hook is a "false flag" and the high school kids from Parkland are "crisis actors".
What's really sad is the degree this sort of indoctrination succeeds,among uneducated,easily swayed people.My mother is 86 yrs old,didn't finish high school,and talking politics with her is an exercise in futility.She listens to Fox daily,and adheres to the "party line"...
She has never owned a gun in her life,and if I bought one and told her she would be appalled.But at the same time I know that if I were foolish enough to engage her in a discussion of the Parkland situation,at some point she would come out with the idea that these kids are "actors".Why?
Because she heard it on Fox,and she's convinced that it is the Dems who are evil,re enforced by the folks at her church.This despite the fact that even though she works part time,she is basically dependant upon Social Security and any cuts in that or Medicare as a result of the Pub tax cut is a direct threat to her financial well being and self interest.She is the epitome of someone who votes against her own self-interest,because friends at Church (who are good friends,nice people but in a far different financial situation) got her hooked on Fox and she is very easily swayed...
Have you heard of Philando Castile? A school employee licensed to carry. Didn't work out that well for him.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-officer-philando-castile-20170620-story.html
We can bring it to people’s attention all we want but until we make lobbying illegal, super PACs illegal, and restrict campaigns to predetermined public funding amounts, nothing will change. No outside money, ever. No one making their own political ads independent of a campaign. Every ad comes from the predetermined pot of money each campaign has and will be expressly approved by the candidate.
With that level of analysis, why do you even bother? I lay money you got 2 sentences into my second paragraph, stopped reading, and responded.
THIS. Until there is campaign finance reform our representatives are beholden to the highest bidder.
That’s a silly assumption to have. Very few gun owners own them because they’re “scared of something.” It does nothing for constructive debate about guns to not have a clue about gun owners.
Similarly, isn't the NRA is under investigation for accepting foreign money that it funneled into campaign contributions?
It’s not true. It’s something someone who knows zilch about guns and gun owners would come up with. I know many gun owners who have them for hunting or for skeet, trap or just for the joy of shooting targets at the range our out in the country. Of course they could be used for self defense too, but very few people by the because they are scared. I literally know zero gun owners that own one for that reason. It’s a ridiculous theory.
Last edited:
He’d be too much of a wussy to call you a wussy if he was not hiding behind a keyboard. He posts anonymously because he’s scared. It’s the only reason to be anonymous. The internet is full of wussies.
Last edited:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165605/personal-safety-top-reason-americans-own-guns-today.aspxHe’d be too much of a wussy to call you a wussy if he was not hiding behind a keyboard. He posts anonymously because he’s scared. It’s the only reason stay anonymous. The internet is full of wussies.
The most common reason people give for gun ownership is personal safety. If people felt safe without a gun then they wouldn't list safety as the primary reason to have one. I call someone who doesn't feel safe scared.
I'd agree that's what needs to happen. But, maybe everybody or every voter doesn't understand this and needs to be informed. A debate needs to be happening, and the more debate the better. I think it is very effective to see innocent children exposing the corrupt system for what it is and how even the lives of innocent children can be thrown under the bus to serve special interests and greed.
I have no problem singling out the NRA as a lobbying group right now and the politicians that are bought and sold by them. One problem at a time, and you have to start somewhere.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It’s a bad question and detracts from being able to have a real conversation about guns. Guns should not go away. The right guns shouldn’t go away.
You would if you wanted to say something silly. I wear a seatbelt. I’m not scared of driving. Guns can be used for self defense but that doesn’t mean the gun owner is scared. He’ll, I carried a weapon for the three weeks I was in Iraq. I was not scared.
if you buy a gun for self-defense then it follows you believe you might otherwise be in danger.
fear ˈfir/
noun
noun: fear; plural noun: fears
1.an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.
With current events it does seem right to single out the NRA as far as lobbying groups are concerned. I’ll say I have no problem singling out any lobbying group though. I don’t care if it’s the NRA or GreenPeace...I don’t want anyone to be able to buy the government.
You would if you wanted to say something silly. I wear a seatbelt. I’m not scared of driving. Guns can be used for self defense but that doesn’t mean the gun owner is scared. He’ll, I carried a weapon for the three weeks I was in Iraq. I was not scared.
You clearly don’t understand guns or gun owners. I suspect you don’t know any gun owners or don’t know that you know any. You do your side of the debate no favors by be being ignorant about gun owners.
Oh, there is. My problem is I view the NRA the way Rock does - as an industry lobbyist. It's not that I don't have a problem with industry pumping tons of money into political campaigns. I do. But I think it's kind of a silly trap question to put a particular politician on the spot like that. What's he supposed to say? "Sure, I'll stop accepting money from a particular lobbyist who only donates to me because they like my voting record?" If we want industry out of politics, we have to reform campaign laws.
Rubio should be asked tough questions, but about what he supports and why. Support from the NRA is a symptom of what he believes, not a cause of it. If he stopped accepting money from the NRA tomorrow, that would do exactly nothing for reforming gun laws.
I am not talking about all gun owners and I am certainly not talking about you. I am talking about those who respond to surveys by saying that the principle reason they own a gun is for self-protection. I believe them, don't you?
Who flipping cares? You guys are arguing about the least relevant of all semantics. What does it matter whether or not what you are talking about qualifies as "fear" in either of your eyes?
Why is it that someone who might be interested in self protection is somehow living in fear? Do you lock your doors at night?
It's really not that complicated. Some people see a benefit to knowing how to use a firearm and having one at their disposal. Just in case. So what? That's not fear. I'm unlikely ever to need it. So what am I out? A couple thousand bucks and some range fees? And a locked up pistol that never gets used? How does that make me worse off than you? And why does it bother you so much?
That's like saying any question a constituent asks is a trap question. A constituent wants to know if he's going to accept money from the NRA. If yes, he's not getting his vote, if no, maybe he'll get his vote.
I bought a semi-automatic rifle so I can splatter deer all over pine trees. Not afraid of them, just like the artistic effect.
I lock my doors. I am afraid if I don't someone I don't want to have in my house may come in uninvited. We didn't do that when I was a kid. So, yeah, I am fearful enough to lock my doors at night. The only time someone came in uninvited it was the police. The kid had left the door wide open after we had gone to bed. The police came in and got their bullhorn out and asked if everyone was okay in the house! Was chagrined at the kid but glad it was just the police.
How about you? Do you remember what it was like not to worry about locking your doors at night?
OK, once more. You used the term "assault rifle". What is an assault rifle, please?
Semantics don't matter. What matters is that so many people are scared enough so that they feel they need a gun for self-protection.
Honestly, if I was half asleep and remembered I hadn't locked my front door I'd probably not bother to get up. That's about how worried I am that someone is going to stroll in.
Similar threads
