How do you feel about guns?

[TW Scott]

Classes? Now when I read this, I assumed it would be held over a couple of weeks for example. An indepth class in gun safety and also, as you've said so yourself, to teach people to become more perceptive. However, not so in South Carolina. Over there, if you want a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you only have to attend a one day course for training.. from Hardware House. Yes that's right. Hardware House.

Now this course is on the NRA website under their Concealed Weapon Permit and Firearm Training - National Rifle Assoation Personal Protection Training for South Carolina.

So you have a probelm with state and federally approved classes becuase the place giving the lessons has a funny name. Hmmm.

Hmm somehow that does not provide me with comfort. Now I've taken self defence classes in the past. They went for 4 weeks, and held twice a week, each class taking up to 3 hours. Now this was just personal self defence.. as in no gun or weapon use.

So you somehow think that learning how to pull a trigger is the equivalent to learning modified martial arts techniques?

In Arizona, it's just an 8 hour class. Although they do have classes teaching how to hold onto your weapon in a fight etc. That's right. In one day you can try to learn how to stop someone from taking your gun away from you. Hmm I wonder how long police officers have to learn and perfect such a skill. Anyone know?

So you can't be shown a technique and practice on your own? Are you so learning disabled that you need an instructor there everytime? Do you believe that 99% of the people out there are handicapped like that?

Yes I am comforted now that people are well trained to carry said weapons after a 1 day course. And how do they train? Let me guess, in a shooting range with an instructor giving advice in a calm surrounding. A shooting range with targets that are set and pose no danger to the individuals? Yes I can see how that will aid the potential gun owner in a situation where he/she is jumped by one or more assailants while walking down the street who are armed... and all in a one day course..

Well your ignorance does amaze me. You seems to love flouting it. You have no idea what the course is like yet you are deriding it. You make assumptions and then don't even bother to think them through.

Don't you mean they are 'meant' to be used as a last resort? But with the number of accidental deaths and accidental shootings, one has to wonder if it is not looked at by the gun owners as the first resort.

I have always been amazed that the 38 to 1 ratio flouted by the Gon Control Inc. They claim you are 38 times as likely to shoot someone you know rather than stranger. They forget to mention that almost all murderers know their victims. They forget that many rapists and abusers are know by their victims. And they forget that sometimes you do get attacked by somone you know only barely.

This is after a one day training course right? Would this be due to the training possibly between morning tea and lunch perhaps? Maybe between the gun safety lecture and practice round at the shooting range?

Hmm so a mandatory 10 hour minimum course somehow magically gets condensed to a few hours. And what about the test you have to take and pass?

If their training fails, they have a loaded weapon on their person, possibly in their hot little hands. Now if someone overpowers an individual with the permit to carry that weapon, and that person after their so called "training" is totally over powered since they, for example, were taken by complete suprise after being attacked from behind, knocked down and had a gun jammed in the side of their head, and they managed to somehow putll out their gun in such a circumstance, how successful do you think they would be? You think the big boofy person(s) lying on top of them in complete control would simply get up, and back off with their hands up in the air? Give me a break Neildo. Unless a person has undergone extensive training (yes, trainig lasting for more than one day) in not only gun control and personal self defence, they'd pretty much be screwed.

Anyone taken by surprise would be screwed. So what's your point? Taken by surprise even a NSA hitman would find himself up shit crick. Of course so is an unarmed person against most attackers.

Ermm ya, no offence but if someone has the permit to carry a concealed weapon, it's a pretty safe bet that they would have taken the 1 day course. And no I wouldn't want an individual who was not a professional to aim or point a gun in my general direction if someone is trying to rob me. Call me strange but I'd fear the person who's paranoid enough to feel the need to carry a gun on their person as I would the person robbing me.

What you never heard of gun range? Most people who get Concealed Carry permit already know basic fire amr handling. Many of them shoot for fun and are decent marksman.Again you are assuming that people only do the bare minimum.

I'd say with a one day's worth of training to get that permit to carry that concealed weapon, it's a pretty safe bet that unless you have undergone other forms of self defence training that does not include weapon use, you would be defenceless.

Why would you say that? Many people are instinctual fighters. Some people know that just having the gun offers some protection. Criminals can spot who's carrying and the smart ones assume that everyone who carries can hit a moving ping pong ball at ten paces. Why? Becuase criminals like living.

Oh you mean if you actually manage to wriggle out of the grip of the person holding a gun pressed to your head for example? Uh huh.. right..

Again you're assuming a surprise attack. Even Jackie CHan would find himself in dire straits forma surprise attack. So please drop it and grow up.

Yes. So many pro gun sites are filled with stories of how 'my gun saved my life'.. And yet, those stories are few and far between when one considerss the number of deaths as a result of guns and accidental shootings and how things can and do go wrong.

Yeah, but funny how you never hear. "How not having a gun saved me from...."

Now here's a comforting thought. You wouldn't use your brain to protect yourself even if you had a gun? Riigghhtttt.. So you'd shoot first and think about 'it' later? As in you'd react before thinking about what exactly was going on? You see, your brain is your best friend in a dangerous situation. If you don't think your brain can protect you, then you should not be allowed any where near a weapon.

Are you dyslexic? No that is not an ad hominem. Just an honest question. He was referring to that fact that people with CCP' use their brains first and then resort to their guns. Meanwhile their hoplophobe counterparts use their brain and resort to being victimized.

 

[Neildo]

Classes? Now when I read this, I assumed it would be held over a couple of weeks for example. An indepth class in gun safety and also, as you've said so yourself, to teach people to become more perceptive. However, not so in South Carolina. Over there, if you want a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you only have to attend a one day course for training.. from Hardware House. Yes that's right. Hardware House.

No, of course not a couple weeks worth of training. Not even a driver's license takes that long. It's quite easy to operate a gun. Most of what's required is common sense, even in regards to evasive and perceptive training and you'd be surprised as what you learn in those so-called "short" classes. I suggest you take one just out of curiosity.

As for you being surprised at training being done at some local place such as Hardware House (no idea who they are), what exactly do you expect? How do you think police officers are trained? These regular places that you can go to train are the same people that train the police. Just because it sounds like some rinky dink place doesn't mean it is -- the people are highly qualified being ex-police officers, military men, or just expert civilians and whatnot.

Hmm somehow that does not provide me with comfort. Now I've taken self defence classes in the past. They went for 4 weeks, and held twice a week, each class taking up to 3 hours. Now this was just personal self defence.. as in no gun or weapon use.

In Florida, you can pay extra (approximately a couple of hundred dollars extra) for a 2 day course. Wow! Amazing.

Well, I can't speak for the requirements of all states, cities, or counties, but even with your example of your 4 week training period, it's only twice a week, 3 hours each time which is only a total of 24 hours. The courses I know of are like school at 8 hours, even if only for 1-2 days. Two days would rack in at 16 hours so the whole "4 weeks" of your physical self-defense class means little if it's only for short periods of time as in your example of 8 days at 3 hours each being 24 hours total. And self-defense and martial arts is a lot more complicated than using a gun. You don't need a S.W.A.T. training course, heh, but still, many people still train regulary or take extra classes who have concealed carry permits and they also have to renew it every year or two depending on where you live.

However, what you also fail to realize is that a concealed carry training course is an EXTRA course. You can't just buy a handgun, take the CCW course and that's it. The first test you have to take is to be able to have a handgun in the first place. There's a handgun permit to be able to use one and then the CCW is a completely different permit which requires a completely different class. That's not to say there aren't a few states where it's quite easy to get both and aren't too many restrictive laws against it as there are various laws for various states. Not to mention how rare it is for people to LEGALLY have a concealed carry permit. No doubt that there are people with little to no firearm training and carry one on their person, but they're breaking the law. In my eyes, they're no better than any other crook.

In my state for example, not many people LEGALLY have a concealed carry permit. There are some counties in California that only have 3 CCW permits, heh. I think the highest has around 2,500 or so. In my county of 760k people, only 766 have a legal CCW permit which is what, like 0.001% of the population in my county? Heh. And as I said, most people who conceal carry a handgun, they are into weapons and train frequently with them.. more often than police!

Here's a list of how many people in my state of California that have CCW permits, and it's not many:

http://www.packing.org/state/california/

That's the site to read in regards to any concealed carry information you may need.

Hmm I wonder how long police officers have to learn and perfect such a skill. Anyone know?

More than civilians but not as much as you'd expect. Again, regular police officers aren't S.W.A.T. guys. Most of their training is done on their own just as with civilians. Most people who own a gun are into them and train frequently. A police officer in North Carolina, for example (http://www.elearningmag.com/ltimagazine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=54572) since you live there, is only required to take four short tests each year and that's it. They don't even have to practice in their off-time although they still do the same reason why civilians do. Most of their training is done in the academy which isn't as much as you'd think as most of what they have to do is do regular school work having to learn laws and other non-firearm information. The Academy is literally like getting a freakin' degree with all the law school work. Heck, most of their job is paperwork and having to go to court, heh.

Don't you mean they are 'meant' to be used as a last resort? But with the number of accidental deaths and accidental shootings, one has to wonder if it is not looked at by the gun owners as the first resort.

Did those accidental deaths and shootings happen during a crime prevention? Nope, most don't. If they're regular around the house happenings, it has nothing to do with guns being used as a last resort.

Yes I am comforted now that people are well trained to carry said weapons after a 1 day course. And how do they train? Let me guess, in a shooting range with an instructor giving advice in a calm surrounding.

Go take one of the courses. Oh wait, first take your handgun course and get approved and then also first APPLY for a CCW and get accepted, then take your CCW course.

Even more fun, take one of the non-required courses, that's where you get the best training and it also lasts longer than the state-required ones. You can even take S.W.A.T.-styled ones too. There are classes where you'll literally be rolling on the ground and doing some crazy stuff, but again, those aren't the state-required ones tho, but you do learn a lot more than you're assuming from the two (regular handgun + CCW) state-required ones.

In most cases, someone who concealed carries will be less likely to be involved in a crime in the first place due to the evading training, but it doesn't mean they'd have less a use to protect themselves when their training fails and they wind up becoming a victim of a crime.
”
This is after a one day training course right? Would this be due to the training possibly between morning tea and lunch perhaps? Maybe between the gun safety lecture and practice round at the shooting range?

Exactly how much training do you think is required all to learn tips and other things in how to keep yourself out of a troubling situation and increase your skill in perception? You'd be surprised what you learn in even those short one-day 8 hour classes -- two classes if you're counting CCW. This isn't the freakin' Navy SEALs.

If their training fails, they have a loaded weapon on their person, possibly in their hot little hands. Now if someone overpowers an individual with the permit to carry that weapon, and that person after their so called "training" is totally over powered since they, for example, were taken by complete suprise after being attacked from behind, knocked down and had a gun jammed in the side of their head, and they managed to somehow putll out their gun in such a circumstance, how successful do you think they would be? You think the big boofy person(s) lying on top of them in complete control would simply get up, and back off with their hands up in the air? Give me a break Neildo. Unless a person has undergone extensive training (yes, trainig lasting for more than one day) in not only gun control and personal self defence, they'd pretty much be screwed.

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely hopeless to try and talk to someone who first doesn't want to understand, but also hasn't even bothered to take those courses. As usual, you're expecting a person to just flat out draw the moment they see a person, even when grabbed from behind. That crap where a person fights, wrestles, and draws their gun like that only happens in movies. And no, people don't fly backwards when shot either as that's Hollywood exclusive as well. While some careless people may try and do that, the majority do not flail about like a bumbling idiot.

Ermm ya, no offence but if someone has the permit to carry a concealed weapon, it's a pretty safe bet that they would have taken the 1 day course. And no I wouldn't want an individual who was not a professional to aim or point a gun in my general direction if someone is trying to rob me. Call me strange but I'd fear the person who's paranoid enough to feel the need to carry a gun on their person as I would the person robbing me.

Find me a person with a concealed carry permit who has only had 1 days worth of training. Also find me a person who would be as stupid enough to point their gun at you, even when helping you. One of the basic laws is to not draw upon anything you're not willing to destroy. Not only that, but not even have your finger on the trigger, even when yes, pointing the gun at a criminal with nobody else around. Not even "professional" police officers draw with their finger on their trigger as any gun owner knows how easily it is to accidentally fire off a round otherwise.

Yes. So many pro gun sites are filled with stories of how 'my gun saved my life'.. And yet, those stories are few and far between when one considerss the number of deaths as a result of guns and accidental shootings and how things can and do go wrong.

No, because that's how the average concealed-carry person is. Getting a CCW permit isn't as easy as you think, it's not as if any ol' person can get one. You first have to be approved by a sheriff and that's even before taking any courses! So many people get turned down for one it's crazy. You have to have a good reason to need one. As an example of the 766 in my county who have one, first try and think of how many body guards there my be in my county, think of how many rich people there may be in my county, think of how many other high-profile people there may be in my county, then subtract all of those people and then you're finally left with the average citizen who has a CCW permit.

Now granted, that's just for my state and different states have different laws. I know in Florida Jeb Bush recently signed that concealed and carry law that makes it more easier for people to do so which means they could wind up with higher numbers here. And then in small states like Vermont, its very easy to get one and you can even open-carry a gun, not concealed, and it's not uncommon to see a person just walk into a bank with one on their hip, even though it's against the law to do so in that state, heh.

Again, most people with a CCW permit are into guns. Sure, the average person that owns a rifle or shotgun for purely defensive means won't have near the amount of training or even go to the range as who I'm referring to, but those people also can't carry their shotgun or rifle out in public like a CCW person with a handgun can so you don't have to worry about them all of a sudden rushing to your aid trying to help you out with their lack of training.

Yes, but a brain doesn't protect you from everything. For the situations in which a brain will protect you, people use it. In the situations where a brain can't protect you, another method is chosen.

Since you seem to agree that brains can't protect you from everything, why do you wish to deny us the right to protect ourselves in the other situations where we're left defenseless with just our brain?
”
Now here's a comforting thought. You wouldn't use your brain to protect yourself even if you had a gun? Riigghhtttt.. So you'd shoot first and think about 'it' later? As in you'd react before thinking about what exactly was going on? You see, your brain is your best friend in a dangerous situation. If you don't think your brain can protect you, then you should not be allowed any where near a weapon.

Huh? Exactly how did you get that out of what I said? I wouldn't use my brain to protect myself even if I had a gun? I suggest you reread what I wrote. Not only that, but I suggest you reread everything that I've posted in this thread.

As I've said numerous times before, guns are a last resort, even if you have one on your person. You don't just flat out draw on a person when you see a threat approaching, you only do so when no other means are available. Again, read those stories in the links I provided as that's how the average encounter happens. Most self-defense encounters aren't even reported to the police because they scare off the criminal. The number one reason they don't even bother to report it is because their gun will get confiscated even though they did nothing wrong and most of the time when you have a cop come to the scene with some logic in his head, he'll cover your ass and say you had no gun on your person and not even file a report. When a report is filed, that gun has to be taken. Most people are able to ward off a threat when they see it approach by simply calling the person out and even when a gun has to be drawn, the criminal winds up high-tailing out of there the moment they see it. Just because you may have to draw on a person doesn't mean you're gonna automatically shoot the guy. Shoot and ask questions later? How utterly and flat-out ridiculous! I'm going to post another link that explains that train of thought perfectly with you ignorant people.

- N

 

[Neildo]

Here's the article I was referring to in regards to the very ignorant and assumptious things you say about gun-owners and how it tells so much of your true character. It explains some of you so perfectly when you say "oh, I'd shoot a person through road rage, I don't want a gun".

Defense Mechanisms
Projection

About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm1 and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1

How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection – unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4 so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him.

Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept.5 They operate without our awareness, so that we don't have to deal consciously with "forbidden" feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him.

Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.6

All people have violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it's common to hear people say "I'd like to kill my boss", or "If you do that one more time I'm going to kill you." They don't actually mean that they're going to, or even would, kill anyone; they're simply acknowledging anger and frustration. All of us suffer from fear and feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways.

Some people, however, are unable consciously to admit that they have such "unacceptable" emotions. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that "good people" never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them.

This is especially true now that education "experts" commonly prohibit children from expressing negative emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment.7To protect themselves from "being bad", they are forced to use defense mechanisms to avoid owning their own normal emotions. Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.8

(This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.)


Denial

Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband's infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence.

Anti-gun people do the same thing. It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here", where "it" is everything from mugging to mass murder.

Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.

The rest of the article can be read here:

http://www.ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_kb&page=articles&articleid=26&Itemid=57

- N

 

[Facial]

Gun control is logically sound - I see no problems with it.

However, society is far more complex, to the point of the distortion of facts. This requires a sociological explanation.

 

[Neildo]

I don't think the general public should have access to uzis, but I do think some of us in the general public should have access to uzi's if they are certified and have a saint like criminal history.
”
Why in the world would anyone in the general public have the need to own an uzi?

How about a firearms dealer that transports firearms? That would fall under the general public even though his job requires it. When you see statistics such as in my case of 766 people in my county having CCW permits, that includes bodyguards and other speciality people. Only off-duty police officers aren't required a CCW permit. I can't recall off-hand if active military members need one or not, but I think they do and count towards "the public" amount of CCW permits, but don't quote me on that.

Ermm lets see now. Maybe because it's usually those 'saint' like people who lose it and shoot their families or maybe walk into a school, line up some girls and shoot them?

Yes, as if that murderous "saint" wouldn't just go to a bad part of town and go buy a gun to do those evil deeds. It's nice to see you equate law-abiding civilian with murderous serial killer. And you call us paranoid!

I'm not a fan of uzi's, but seriously, someones going to own them, they exist so they will be owned.
”
The same could be said with rocket launchers, missiles, tanks, helicopter gunships, nukes.. get where I'm going here?

Yay, nice extreme logic there. And just for your information, yes, the public CAN own rocket launchers, tanks, and helicopter gunships. Just as with fully automatic rifles, it requires a permit. A permit you have to be highly qualified for and which costs a crapload of money. Don't worry though, it's almost impossible to get those permits -- about 20x harder than a CCW permit in highly restrictive states.

Private sector security forces operating in a war zone, yes.

Hate to rain on your parade then because private security forces NOT in war zones are allowed to have some pretty high-tech weaponry. You do realize there are very high-valued targets other than in warzones, yes? Take for example a public medical center that has potent biological germs and whatnot? I'd crap my pants if someone raided some of the research centers in Atlanta as that's basically the capital of that kind of stuff. Surely you wouldn't want just regular ol' security forces that sleep on the job and only have a little pistol or shotgun as defense, no? That's a higher value target than a nuclear facility as it's much more damaging than one nuke.

I think you'd find that if you put aside the slight paranoia you are displaying (maybe you watched a tad too many action movies?)

Haha, that's classic. A non-gun owner who's afraid of law-abiding citizens with guns calling him paranoid vs he who's worryied about criminals instead. Not to mention a non-gun owner who uses so many erroneous assumptions about guns and their encounters that sounds just like Hollywood moments saying he's watched too many action movies, lol!

I don't trust McDonalds, if that's what you're asking. I just think their meat is a tad dodgy.

I hear they used to use kangaroo meat..

And how exactly do you define a 'liberal'?

One who wants freedom for all, but then makes the mistake of trying to have peace on earth, putting law-abiding citizens in jeopardy forgetting about the real world where criminals are all around us.

But my definition of a liberal is something like: "One who grants a freedom by taking away a previously held one".

And what exactly are you saying? If you can't afford to hire a private police force, you should just become a police force of "one"?

You must have been watching too many "Army of One" Army commercials on TV. I don't know about you, but I don't see any gun-owners going out and "policing" anything. Self-defense is a human right. I wouldn't mind having the power to write some jackasses tickets though.

The problem with government police forces is this, government services only exist when there are tax dollars and a functioning economy. In situations where there is no government, and people are running around looting and there seems to be lawlessness, there will be no police for you, there will be NOTHING and NO ONE to protect you.
”
Do you live in such a situation? Is the US for example in such dire trouble that its police force is functioning in a situation where there is no government and no functioning economy? Hmmm I never knew. Or are you preparing for the possible future? Kind of like when people panicked and started building bomb shelters in their back yards in case the commies dropped nukes isn't it?

Don't you think you're getting a tad carried away? Paranoia creeping in maybe?

For the average person, the government and economy collapsing? Heh, no. But tell that to the victims of natural disasters such as those in the South during Hurricane Katrina who were left to fend for themselves unable to leave the city as they were being turned away as they reached the bridge that lead out of town.

For the average person though, yes, we live in a society where the police doesn't function well. When the average police officer doesn't arrive until AFTER a crime has been committed, they may as well not even bother to show up as they're too late.I swear to god that nobody ever tries to break into your home while you and your children are there because no joke, you are shit out of luck! Most of my friends are cops and I'm just telling it how it is. They won't arrive until it's too late and if you talk to "unofficially", they'll say always protect yourself and that they can't always be there to protect you. The only times you hear them not to take the law into your own hands and let the police do it is when they have to talk officially as they're forced to, not because that's what they actually believe.

The only people who has to be the police, are just that. The police. Not some private rambo who thinks that the world is ending and an invasion is imminent so therefore must be armed to the teeth with uzi's to defend their womenfolk.

I just love all your Hollywood references. Lemme know when you wish to join us all over here in reality.

- N

 

[TimeTraveler]

Why in the world would anyone in the general public have the need to own an uzi?

What if they are a detective or investigator? What if they are a probation officer or just have a very important yet dangerous job?

Ermm lets see now. Maybe because it's usually those 'saint' like people who lose it and shoot their families or maybe walk into a school, line up some girls and shoot them?

No, those are the mentally unstable people such as yourself. Saint like people, what I mean by that are people who would be willing to die to save lives, like firemen, or proven heros, people who are dedicated to whatever it is they are dedicated to. I have to say, most of us aren't like that, but these are leaders we are talking about, and leaders generally need weapons. You are saying the police chief, the fireman, the detective, or just a really popular store owner does not have a right to keep an uzi? What if the job is even more dangerous?

What if they have the job to track gang violence, or have to confront organized crime? What if they are what we call first responders? What if they need to train people at the shooting range? Anyway, if the criminals have uzi's, civilians will need to have at least a few people with uzi's just for balance, the only way to avoid this is to lock yourself in a gated community and hire people with uzi's to stand at the gate.

Again, why would anyone need an uzi? Are you planning to defend yourself in the warzone called the 'burbs'?

Here you go again assuming everyone lives in the suburbs, what if you live in the inner city? What if you live in a ghetto? Don't you want to be safe too? What if you are a store owner in the ghetto? Either you hire people with uzi's to stand and guard your property, or you keep your own uzi, ubt many store owners get robbed routinely and I think it's fair for a store owner to be able to carry a uzi if there pass a backround check, are mentally stable, and can prove they have been robbed multiple times. If you don't let the store owners defend themselves, the criminals will do what the mafia once did and charge store owners for protection.

The same could be said with rocket launchers, missiles, tanks, helicopter gunships, nukes.. get where I'm going here?

So you are saying you don't mind if corporations buy private armies, you just don't want ordinary citizens to?

Fair enough, but why not just say that all along?

Call me strange but I'd actually rather the police or armed forces had them. Private sector security forces operating in a war zone, yes. In a homely little suburb? No. As they would have no use for it.

Yeah they would, you don't seem to understand, a billion dollar corporation will have security, and if their corporate headquarters is in the suburbs, then you'll have private security in the suburbs. Also they have to protect their employees for obvious reasons. So you seem to think that somehow the suburbs is some sorta safezone, and that all the rioting, looting, and crime will stay neatly in the inner city, or in the "war zone", or "combat zone" or whatever the hell you want to call it. You are sounding exactly like the liberal elites that conservatives complain about. Not everyone can afford to live in suburban gated communities, hell most businessmen, even if they live in the suburbs, have to travel to work in the city. Finally, corporations have to guard against any sorta attack, fraud, robbery, all sorts of shit, and they also have to guard their employees. So yes, you have CEO's who travel around with snipers and armed guards defending them, and can you blame them? wouldn't you if you were a CEO? Wouldn't you be concerned about being robbed every second if you were worth millions or billions of dollars? Get REAL! The more money you have, the more uzi's you must have.

I think you'd find that if you put aside the slight paranoia you are displaying (maybe you watched a tad too many action movies?), that the private security forces usually have to have licences and be fully trained to have the weapons that they have.. and I'm not talking about a 1 day training course either. Most of the people working for private security forces that need to arm themselves as such are usually ex armed forces or police personnel who have extensive weapon handling experience, and they are not some schmuck who just walked in off the street for a job.

Yeah they are trained SOMETIMES, but theres no standard. It's the private sector, you don't know for a fact that there is a standard, in fact, if you look it up, it depends completely on the company, as they all have different functions and theres all sorts of security, from body guards with uzi's and no training and experience, to fully trained ex special forces commando's and navy seals. Honestly, unless you do some research on this I don't think you should comment.

I don't trust McDonalds, if that's what you're asking. I just think their meat is a tad dodgy. And how exactly do you define a 'liberal'?

Liberal, meaning you are for gun control, and you have the typical libera naive outlook, that the world is safe.
I'm not saying all Democrats think like this, as a lot don't., but you have that liberal faction of the Democrats that supports censorship and gun control, and at the same time soft on crime.

A lot of us blame this faction of the Democrats for the current rise in crime we see today, because the crime seems to always rise in the inner cities, and then the citizens in the inner city get blamed, because people don't go out of their way to seperate criminal from citizen, so it basically ruins the reputation of the entire city because theres shootings everynight and there aren't enough police. Now you have corporations hiring their own police forces. It was only a matter of time, but thats what happens.

Yes. But why would I want to? And what exactly are you saying? If you can't afford to hire a private police force, you should just become a police force of "one"?

What are you saying? I mean if you don't hire a private police force, how exactly can you protect and own your house, your property, or anything else?

How do you protect your private property? Most of us are not rich enough to hire a private police force, and you know it. Unless the price of security forces drops to a really cheap level (and I doubt it will), you won't even be able to afford to defend yourself, so while your idea sounds good on paper, to let the market handle defense instead of the government and while I tend to lean toward that thinking myself, can you think of there ever being a time where centralized anything had actually been better than decentralized? Let's see, the money is centralized, let's see, the power is centralized, I guess the only thing left to centralize are the guns. Basically, what are you going to do when everything is centralized?

How will you defend yourself, your family, your property, when everything has a price, and you are priced out? Where are you going to get the money from? I'm certain it's possible, but is it what you want? How exactly do you want security to be organized for you? Describe.

Do you live in such a situation? Is the US for example in such dire trouble that its police force is functioning in a situation where there is no government and no functioning economy?

Not at this precise moment, but if theres a terrorist attack, or a natural disaster, there will be no functioning government in place. Havent you been watching any of the news? I mean theres a damn war on terrorism, there was hurricane Katrina too, what do you think? why ask me such a braindead question that you know the answer to after watching it like the rest of us?

You saw it two, you saw those two towers fall, you saw the chaos of hurricane Katrina. You also know that the USA is more hated than ever, and that we are as a result more paranoid than ever. How on earth can you NOT know this? I think you are just pretending to be naive, I think it's an act.

Hmmm I never knew. Or are you preparing for the possible future? Kind of like when people panicked and started building bomb shelters in their back yards in case the commies dropped nukes isn't it?

Even the President said that Bin Laden is trying to attack us again. We also have to worry about natural disasters, the avian flu, I mean christ, don't you have emergency plans in your country? What world are you living in?

So yes, Americans, or at least corporations, DO have bomb shelters and plans to continue operation no matter what happens. Civilians are basically planless and defenseless, and will die, but corporations and rich CEO's will likely go into their bomb shelters and live, also many employees will survive.

To be realistic, do you actually think the USA could survive ANOTHER terrorist attack? I think we'd collapse, and so do most corporations, and most American's, thats why we are so paranoid.

Don't you think you're getting a tad carried away? Paranoia creeping in maybe?

No of course not, I think you just don't care about civilians, but refuse to admit it. It's fine, we know Americans are hated all around the world, and that the rest of the world would laugh at us if we are attacked by terrorists again, but we won't be laughing, and you don't seem to understand that. The war on terrorism is real.

LOL!!

Stop laughing, it's not a joke.

You sound like a cheesy advert.

The only people who has to be the police, are just that. The police. Not some private rambo who thinks that the world is ending and an invasion is imminent so therefore must be armed to the teeth with uzi's to defend their womenfolk.

You are a complete idiot. You think the police could have solve the problems during hurricane Katrina? Okay. Your lazy response is so senseless that I cannot take anything you say seriously. I never mentioned an invasion, I never mentioned Rambo, you are attempting to use framing and memes to throw off the audience into thinking about absurb images of Rambo. Rambo has nothing to do with this.

Let me guess, you don't care that AL Qaeda and other groups are targeting America do you? I bet you are happy about it. The way you write, you write as if you can't wait for the next attack.

If this is how you truly feel, then it explains you. If you don't feel like you hate America, then honestly, you should be able to understand why America is in a paranoid state, what state would you be in, if you were a CEO in America right now? You'd be paranoid as hell.

What if your headquarters was in New Orleans or New York City? You are telling me you would not be security oriented? I can understand why any CEO would be paranoid in the current environment. I can understand why any citizen would be paranoid in the current environment, the world is more dangerous, as or so the media at least makes it seem that way.

 

[Bells]

So you have a probelm with state and federally approved classes becuase the place giving the lessons has a funny name. Hmmm.

You don't have a problem that any person, so long as they don't have a criminal record, is a citizen and not mentally handicapped or classified as being mentally insane can just take a one day course to carry a concealed weapon? I'm saying it should be a course that runs for a hell of a lot longer than 1 day.

So you somehow think that learning how to pull a trigger is the equivalent to learning modified martial arts techniques?

Oh I forgot. Aiming a gun and pulling the trigger is sooo much easier than learning to defend one's self.

So you can't be shown a technique and practice on your own? Are you so learning disabled that you need an instructor there everytime? Do you believe that 99% of the people out there are handicapped like that?

You seriously think an old lady for example, who's never picked up a gun in her life, will just pick it up, aim at the target and hit it, after one simple little lecture? You seriously think any person who's never held a gun who goes out and gets a permit can just hit a the bullseye in the target in just one day's training? Right. Whatever you say.

Well your ignorance does amaze me. You seems to love flouting it. You have no idea what the course is like yet you are deriding it. You make assumptions and then don't even bother to think them through.

Really? Even experts in one of the articles I'd listed above stated their discomfort at people using guns for self defence when their only training had come from shooting at a target in a gun range. I've actually learnt how to use a gun and how did I do so? Ah yes. Shooting at a stationary target while I stood there taking my time to take aim and fire.

I have always been amazed that the 38 to 1 ratio flouted by the Gon Control Inc. They claim you are 38 times as likely to shoot someone you know rather than stranger. They forget to mention that almost all murderers know their victims. They forget that many rapists and abusers are know by their victims. And they forget that sometimes you do get attacked by somone you know only barely.

Hmm funny. Even the NRA has the stats that you are more likely to be attacked by a person you know than don't know.

Link
Funny that huh?

So going by those statistics, we should now all arm ourselves to ensure that our own families and friends don't try to kill us? Hmm be bad if you were harmed by someone you trusted enough who knew you had a weapon in the house or on you, wouldn't it? Yes you likely to be attacked by a stranger, but if you are, they will most probably sneak up on you and not give you prior warning that they are about to attack you. In that, unless you are well trained in how to handle such an attack, you're pretty much screwed. Gun or no gun.

Anyone taken by surprise would be screwed. So what's your point? Taken by surprise even a NSA hitman would find himself up shit crick. Of course so is an unarmed person against most attackers.

My point is that if taken by surprise and you are armed, your weapon could most probably be used against you or against another innocent individual.

Frankly I just cannot understand why people feel the intense need to carry a gun for self protection, when in most instances, they'd not even get a chance to take it out to defend themselves. Do you sleep better knowing there is a loaded gun by your bed? Now of course if you are a responsible gun owner, that gun would be kept unloaded and locked up. So if somone does break into your house, you'd have to not only get the gun out of the locked cabinet, but also the bullets, load the gun and then shoot. How in the world does that offer you more protection?

What you never heard of gun range? Most people who get Concealed Carry permit already know basic fire amr handling. Many of them shoot for fun and are decent marksman.Again you are assuming that people only do the bare minimum.

The scary thing is that most people probably do only the bare minimum. Do you know why? Because people are lazy. They want a gun for protection and they will do just what they need to do to get it and that's it. A few responsible people will go the whole hog and get the proper training they should all be required to get to use said weapon, but not all do.

Why would you say that? Many people are instinctual fighters. Some people know that just having the gun offers some protection. Criminals can spot who's carrying and the smart ones assume that everyone who carries can hit a moving ping pong ball at ten paces. Why? Becuase criminals like living.

But not all are instinctual fighters. And not all criminals care. If someone is desperate enough to hold someone up or attack them, do you seriously think they'd care if the person was carrying a gun? Are you that naive as to think that all criminals are cowards and will simply run if they see someone has a gun on them? LOL! I've worked in the criminal justice system and most criminals I've come across wouldn't give a shit who had a gun or not.

Again you're assuming a surprise attack. Even Jackie CHan would find himself in dire straits forma surprise attack. So please drop it and grow up.

So everyone who's attacked in the street can see it coming for miles away? They leave the house in the morning and know that 'today's the day'? Ermm ok. Ya you keep believing that.

Neildo

No, of course not a couple weeks worth of training. Not even a driver's license takes that long. It's quite easy to operate a gun. Most of what's required is common sense, even in regards to evasive and perceptive training and you'd be surprised as what you learn in those so-called "short" classes. I suggest you take one just out of curiosity.

As for you being surprised at training being done at some local place such as Hardware House (no idea who they are), what exactly do you expect? How do you think police officers are trained? These regular places that you can go to train are the same people that train the police. Just because it sounds like some rinky dink place doesn't mean it is -- the people are highly qualified being ex-police officers, military men, or just expert civilians and whatnot.

The test takes a couple of hours to get a driving licence but you need to take lessons for at least a couple of weeks, don't you?

And how many people do you know have the kind of common sense that you'd trust them to come into your house with a gun or walk your kid to school with a gun? Not everyone has the common sense we all think they should. Police don't just go to a one day class to learn how to handle a weapon Neildo. If they did it'd be a real worry, wouldn't you think?

Well, I can't speak for the requirements of all states, cities, or counties, but even with your example of your 4 week training period, it's only twice a week, 3 hours each time which is only a total of 24 hours. The courses I know of are like school at 8 hours, even if only for 1-2 days. Two days would rack in at 16 hours so the whole "4 weeks" of your physical self-defense class means little if it's only for short periods of time as in your example of 8 days at 3 hours each being 24 hours total. And self-defense and martial arts is a lot more complicated than using a gun. You don't need a S.W.A.T. training course, heh, but still, many people still train regulary or take extra classes who have concealed carry permits and they also have to renew it every year or two depending on where you live.

But many also only take the very bare minimum and do nothing else. Comforting isn't it?

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely hopeless to try and talk to someone who first doesn't want to understand, but also hasn't even bothered to take those courses. As usual, you're expecting a person to just flat out draw the moment they see a person, even when grabbed from behind. That crap where a person fights, wrestles, and draws their gun like that only happens in movies. And no, people don't fly backwards when shot either as that's Hollywood exclusive as well. While some careless people may try and do that, the majority do not flail about like a bumbling idiot.

What you fail to understand is that many would just panic and draw their gun out first thing. Hell I remember a story of an woman grabbing her shot gun and just shooting at her sliding door at night when she thought someone was breaking into her house. I think she ended up shooting her son or something. The point that so many gun advocates fail to realise is that some people will actually shoot first because that initial moment of panic can over ride all forms of common sense. I'm not talking about movies Neildo. Many people do struggle with their attackers and armed or not, many do not come out alive. There was one case in the late 90's where a father shot his 6 year old daughter when he tried to shoot intruders into his home.

Find me a person with a concealed carry permit who has only had 1 days worth of training. Also find me a person who would be as stupid enough to point their gun at you, even when helping you. One of the basic laws is to not draw upon anything you're not willing to destroy. Not only that, but not even have your finger on the trigger, even when yes, pointing the gun at a criminal with nobody else around. Not even "professional" police officers draw with their finger on their trigger as any gun owner knows how easily it is to accidentally fire off a round otherwise.

Oh my God Neildo. Some people are that stupid and some people would point the damn gun. Dont be naive and think that all gun owners are responsible and take extra training. Instinct and self preservation would have many with their fingers on the trigger. Hell even cops have accidently shot people during an arrest. One of the NRA sites I linked before actually have a video of a cop accidently shooting a person she was pointing her gun at while her partner handcuffed the guy. Honestly. You think people who advocate gun control lack in understanding, but gun advocates are just as bad. Hell even the NRA have links and articles on their sites about how easily accidents happen and how easily people panic and just shoot first. You assume that everyone is responsible when many are not.

As I've said numerous times before, guns are a last resort, even if you have one on your person. You don't just flat out draw on a person when you see a threat approaching, you only do so when no other means are available. Again, read those stories in the links I provided as that's how the average encounter happens. Most self-defense encounters aren't even reported to the police because they scare off the criminal. The number one reason they don't even bother to report it is because their gun will get confiscated even though they did nothing wrong and most of the time when you have a cop come to the scene with some logic in his head, he'll cover your ass and say you had no gun on your person and not even file a report. When a report is filed, that gun has to be taken. Most people are able to ward off a threat when they see it approach by simply calling the person out and even when a gun has to be drawn, the criminal winds up high-tailing out of there the moment they see it. Just because you may have to draw on a person doesn't mean you're gonna automatically shoot the guy. Shoot and ask questions later? How utterly and flat-out ridiculous! I'm going to post another link that explains that train of thought perfectly with you ignorant people.

Yes, you may say that guns are the last resort. But not everyone thinks like that Neildo. Even the gun experts admit that the big majority just take the minimum courses and that's it. You seriously think that some people don't shoot first? Ermm ok. You really think everyone is responsible and will do exactly as their training states they should do it? You are really that naive Neildo? And you call me ignorant?

 

[lixluke]

Since you seem to agree that brains can't protect you from everything

If you agree that brains cannot protect you from everything, then

Again moron. Either:
A: Please cite where I EVER said that the brain CANNOT protect you from everything.
B: Stop presuming crap that was never said and get lost for being a total gun loving moron that doesn't know how to read.

 

[lixluke]

You of all people have no room for comment. Luke, you are the most paranoid person on this forum, believing that the whole world is out to get you, you actually made posts where you claimed that all sorts of government agencies are out to get us.

You are also anti-capitalist, and basically an anarchist, so your comments on guns make little to no sense. How exactly are you going to protect yourself with your brain? Yeah it's possible if you have brains and money, but if you just have brains, it's unlikely.

First of all, most of your posts thus far have no basis in logic.
You make random comments that do not follow proper logic.
Total violation of the Official Rules of Debate.

1. Cite where I ever claimed that anybody was out to get us. Stop making brainless distortions logical intellectual descriptions of earth.
2. Your logic: “I believe people are out to get me, therefore, I love guns.” You are clearly an idiot.
3. Your logic “You are anti-capitalist. Therefore, you are an anarchist.” COMPLETE lack of logic. This is over. I am no longer going to read the rest of your post after this stupid ignorant asshole comment. Get lost.
4. The above three show an idiot gun lover cannot think straight with actual logic. I have to comment on many people in this forum for their violation of logical argument procedures. You are a total wack job.

Here is some logic:
“You are anti-capitalist. Therefore, you are an anarchist.”
“You are a dunce. Therefore, get lost.”

 

[Bells]

How about a firearms dealer that transports firearms? That would fall under the general public even though his job requires it. When you see statistics such as in my case of 766 people in my county having CCW permits, that includes bodyguards and other speciality people. Only off-duty police officers aren't required a CCW permit. I can't recall off-hand if active military members need one or not, but I think they do and count towards "the public" amount of CCW permits, but don't quote me on that.

I just don't see the need to arm the public. Call me strange, ignorant, etc. I honestly do not see why someone needs to arm themselves with a firearm, especially an uzi. I mean honestly Neildo, you'd feel comfortable if your neighbour had an uzi in his house for 'self protection'? Not just a handgun (that wasn't an automatic) but an uzi? What in the hell could a person honestly need an uzi for self protection for? Protection from what exactly?

Yes, as if that murderous "saint" wouldn't just go to a bad part of town and go buy a gun to do those evil deeds. It's nice to see you equate law-abiding civilian with murderous serial killer. And you call us paranoid!

Yes I do. I mean look at TT. He thinks we should arm ourselves because of the terrorist attacks that have occured in the past and the threat of terrorism... You'd feel comfortable if he was walking around with an uzi? I know I sure as hell wouldn't be.

And so often Neildo, it is the law abiding citizen who does go nuts and start killing people. I'm not saying they can't go out and get it illegally Neildo. I'm just saying make it harder to get a gun legally.

Yay, nice extreme logic there. And just for your information, yes, the public CAN own rocket launchers, tanks, and helicopter gunships. Just as with fully automatic rifles, it requires a permit. A permit you have to be highly qualified for and which costs a crapload of money. Don't worry though, it's almost impossible to get those permits -- about 20x harder than a CCW permit in highly restrictive states.

I was watching this documentary a couple of weeks ago about people who owned tanks. They had this guy from, you guessed it, Texas, who owned a tank and one of the biggest artillery guns a private citizen can own in the US and he was also the only one to own one and have a licence to use it. And you know what he said? He didn't own any fire arms for 'self protection'. He owned it all because he liked to shoot them and he only ever used them on a shooting range... including the big cannon (which he kindly demonstrated by blowing up a massive tree). Was a funny as hell doco but most of the people in there didn't own half the fire power they did own for protection. They owned it for fun of shooting on ranges and had the licences and permits to only shoot them on shooting and firing ranges. And yes these people were rich enough to own it all.

Says a lot doesn't it? That someone that rich didn't feel the need to buy a gun to protect himself or his property.

Hate to rain on your parade then because private security forces NOT in war zones are allowed to have some pretty high-tech weaponry. You do realize there are very high-valued targets other than in warzones, yes? Take for example a public medical center that has potent biological germs and whatnot? I'd crap my pants if someone raided some of the research centers in Atlanta as that's basically the capital of that kind of stuff. Surely you wouldn't want just regular ol' security forces that sleep on the job and only have a little pistol or shotgun as defense, no? That's a higher value target than a nuclear facility as it's much more damaging than one nuke.

*Sigh*

Yes I'm well aware of that but thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Haha, that's classic. A non-gun owner who's afraid of law-abiding citizens with guns calling him paranoid vs he who's worryied about criminals instead. Not to mention a non-gun owner who uses so many erroneous assumptions about guns and their encounters that sounds just like Hollywood moments saying he's watched too many action movies, lol!

I'd be just as concerned about facing a criminal as a guy who felt that the only way he could feel truly safe was to carry a loaded gun.

I hear they used to use kangaroo meat..

Wouldn't surprise me actually.

One who wants freedom for all, but then makes the mistake of trying to have peace on earth, putting law-abiding citizens in jeopardy forgetting about the real world where criminals are all around us.

But my definition of a liberal is something like: "One who grants a freedom by taking away a previously held one".

And you call me paranoid? You are actually that worried about the criminals all around you?

As for your freedoms, I dont think the forefathers had people carrying an automatic weapon on their person for self defence in mind. But hey, if you only feel comfortable with a loaded weapon by your side, then knock yourself out. Takes all kinds I suppose.

You must have been watching too many "Army of One" Army commercials on TV. I don't know about you, but I don't see any gun-owners going out and "policing" anything. Self-defense is a human right. I wouldn't mind having the power to write some jackasses tickets though.

I don't know what "Army of One" Army commercials are. But did you read what the guy actually said? Read carefuly his posts on here Neildo. I mean you're a reasonable guy and one of my fav posters on here. But seriously, read what TT is saying. He's talking about a non functioning Government and being able to defend yourself when such a thing occurs. Now tell me straight... I know Bush is not really all there, but surely the US has not degenerated to such an extent that the government is no longer functioning and the police force is no longer able to be funded.. etc.. is there constant looting in the streets where you live? Are people rampaging in the streets? Do you have the need to defend yourself against such a thing in your neighbourhood at the present time? My guess at the moment would be a big no?

For the average person, the government and economy collapsing? Heh, no. But tell that to the victims of natural disasters such as those in the South during Hurricane Katrina who were left to fend for themselves unable to leave the city as they were being turned away as they reached the bridge that lead out of town.

I see. So arm everyone in such a situation. You know a situation where everyone is highly stressed and distressed, facing life and death decisions in regards to how they're going to get food, water, shelter etc. Hmm imagine how much better it would have been if they'd all be armed..

For the average person though, yes, we live in a society where the police doesn't function well. When the average police officer doesn't arrive until AFTER a crime has been committed, they may as well not even bother to show up as they're too late.I swear to god that nobody ever tries to break into your home while you and your children are there because no joke, you are shit out of luck! Most of my friends are cops and I'm just telling it how it is. They won't arrive until it's too late and if you talk to "unofficially", they'll say always protect yourself and that they can't always be there to protect you. The only times you hear them not to take the law into your own hands and let the police do it is when they have to talk officially as they're forced to, not because that's what they actually believe.

I see. So you think that people should arm themselves and take the law into their own hands? Ermm ok.. That's just made me an even bigger anti gun promoter.. lol..

Time Traveler

No, those are the mentally unstable people such as yourself. Saint like people, what I mean by that are people who would be willing to die to save lives, like firemen, or proven heros, people who are dedicated to whatever it is they are dedicated to. I have to say, most of us aren't like that, but these are leaders we are talking about, and leaders generally need weapons. You are saying the police chief, the fireman, the detective, or just a really popular store owner does not have a right to keep an uzi? What if the job is even more dangerous?

Yes. Because I dont live in fear that people are out to get me so therefore I must carry a loaded gun, I am mentally unstable? Riigghhtt.. Police and armed forces having an uzi... sure. But the average Joe who thinks as you do? No.

What if they have the job to track gang violence, or have to confront organized crime? What if they are what we call first responders? What if they need to train people at the shooting range? Anyway, if the criminals have uzi's, civilians will need to have at least a few people with uzi's just for balance, the only way to avoid this is to lock yourself in a gated community and hire people with uzi's to stand at the gate.

Oh my God. Do you read what you type? Seriously, do you? I don't know whether to laugh at you or pity you.

Here you go again assuming everyone lives in the suburbs, what if you live in the inner city? What if you live in a ghetto? Don't you want to be safe too? What if you are a store owner in the ghetto? Either you hire people with uzi's to stand and guard your property, or you keep your own uzi, ubt many store owners get robbed routinely and I think it's fair for a store owner to be able to carry a uzi if there pass a backround check, are mentally stable, and can prove they have been robbed multiple times. If you don't let the store owners defend themselves, the criminals will do what the mafia once did and charge store owners for protection.

HAHAHAHAAA!! You'd want someone who's working in a ghetto who's had a gun shoved in his face a few times as he's being robbed to have an uzi for self protection? You don't think he'd be the one person to shoot first and evaluate the situation later? And an uzi? A weapon that can probably kill over a dozen people in a couple of seconds? LOL! What the hell is your obsession with uzi's TT?

So you are saying you don't mind if corporations buy private armies, you just don't want ordinary citizens to?

Fair enough, but why not just say that all along?

Here I have to agree with Neildo. I'm quite happy for someone who's in charge of the security of a medical or research installation ( as an example) to have people (yes a "private army") guarding it.

Yeah they would, you don't seem to understand, a billion dollar corporation will have security, and if their corporate headquarters is in the suburbs, then you'll have private security in the suburbs. Also they have to protect their employees for obvious reasons. So you seem to think that somehow the suburbs is some sorta safezone, and that all the rioting, looting, and crime will stay neatly in the inner city, or in the "war zone", or "combat zone" or whatever the hell you want to call it. You are sounding exactly like the liberal elites that conservatives complain about. Not everyone can afford to live in suburban gated communities, hell most businessmen, even if they live in the suburbs, have to travel to work in the city. Finally, corporations have to guard against any sorta attack, fraud, robbery, all sorts of shit, and they also have to guard their employees. So yes, you have CEO's who travel around with snipers and armed guards defending them, and can you blame them? wouldn't you if you were a CEO? Wouldn't you be concerned about being robbed every second if you were worth millions or billions of dollars? Get REAL! The more money you have, the more uzi's you must have.

The more uzi's you "must have"? Yes, it's the new fashion accessory for you isn't it.

Liberal, meaning you are for gun control, and you have the typical libera naive outlook, that the world is safe.
I'm not saying all Democrats think like this, as a lot don't., but you have that liberal faction of the Democrats that supports censorship and gun control, and at the same time soft on crime.

A lot of us blame this faction of the Democrats for the current rise in crime we see today, because the crime seems to always rise in the inner cities, and then the citizens in the inner city get blamed, because people don't go out of their way to seperate criminal from citizen, so it basically ruins the reputation of the entire city because theres shootings everynight and there aren't enough police. Now you have corporations hiring their own police forces. It was only a matter of time, but thats what happens.

Ah yes.. so have the other people shooting the people who are committing the shootings every night in the cities. Have the general public be the police force. Hell the way you're going, why would there be a need for a police force at all?

What are you saying? I mean if you don't hire a private police force, how exactly can you protect and own your house, your property, or anything else?

How do you protect your private property? Most of us are not rich enough to hire a private police force, and you know it. Unless the price of security forces drops to a really cheap level (and I doubt it will), you won't even be able to afford to defend yourself, so while your idea sounds good on paper, to let the market handle defense instead of the government and while I tend to lean toward that thinking myself, can you think of there ever being a time where centralized anything had actually been better than decentralized? Let's see, the money is centralized, let's see, the power is centralized, I guess the only thing left to centralize are the guns. Basically, what are you going to do when everything is centralized?

How will you defend yourself, your family, your property, when everything has a price, and you are priced out? Where are you going to get the money from? I'm certain it's possible, but is it what you want? How exactly do you want security to be organized for you? Describe.

Yes. I'd want to protect my child by having loaded guns kept around the house for protection. Hmmm yes that sounds sane. I'll keep one on me as just just in case.. Shame I wouldn't want to hold my son while I'm armed but hey.. need to protect myself from everyone right? Are you insane? Seriously.. are you?

I protect myself and my family by installing an alarm and locking the god damn doors.. Like most normal people who don't sit there dreaming of what you seem to spend a lot of time thinking about.

Not at this precise moment, but if theres a terrorist attack, or a natural disaster, there will be no functioning government in place. Havent you been watching any of the news? I mean theres a damn war on terrorism, there was hurricane Katrina too, what do you think? why ask me such a braindead question that you know the answer to after watching it like the rest of us?

You saw it two, you saw those two towers fall, you saw the chaos of hurricane Katrina. You also know that the USA is more hated than ever, and that we are as a result more paranoid than ever. How on earth can you NOT know this? I think you are just pretending to be naive, I think it's an act.

Oh my God!! LOL!! TT! You're planning for when there's no functioning Government? LOL! Are you actually serious? And you accuse me of being brain dead? So you think everyone should arm themselves in case theres another attack or cycle etc and just in case the Government dissolves and anarchy reigns supreme? You are right that you are all paranoid. And as far as I am concerned it's the paranoid and the obviously scared people (in the bad way.. ie.. the way you're carrying on in here) who should not be carrying guns because they are the ones who would most probably over react to any situation. You sound like those kooks who rant that the end is near and the fall of the government will come so arming one's self is essential.

Even the President said that Bin Laden is trying to attack us again. We also have to worry about natural disasters, the avian flu, I mean christ, don't you have emergency plans in your country? What world are you living in?

So yes, Americans, or at least corporations, DO have bomb shelters and plans to continue operation no matter what happens. Civilians are basically planless and defenseless, and will die, but corporations and rich CEO's will likely go into their bomb shelters and live, also many employees will survive.

To be realistic, do you actually think the USA could survive ANOTHER terrorist attack? I think we'd collapse, and so do most corporations, and most American's, thats why we are so paranoid.

Good grief! Seriously TT, you really need to calm down a bit. Think rationally. The emergency plans in my country do not include arming one's self to the eyeballs in case there's a terrorist attack or an attack of the bird flu (I can't believe you actually gave bird flu as a justification to arm yourself). Nor do I sit there and dream about how I must arm myself if and when the government dissolves if there is another terrorist attack. It's because you're that paranoid that you should not own a gun. Jesus TT, you're way wayyy out there.

No of course not, I think you just don't care about civilians, but refuse to admit it. It's fine, we know Americans are hated all around the world, and that the rest of the world would laugh at us if we are attacked by terrorists again, but we won't be laughing, and you don't seem to understand that. The war on terrorism is real.

You're joking right? You're pulling my leg aren't you? I mean the whole spiel about everyone should have uzis and the government dissolving in another possible terrorist attack so people must stand and fight.. please tell me you're joking. Because if you're not and you are actually serious, you need help.

Oh I care about civilians. That's why I don't want you to carry a gun. Seriously..

Stop laughing, it's not a joke.

Oh god please tell me it is. Because right now I am laughing so hard I have a pain in my side lol..

Let me guess, you don't care that AL Qaeda and other groups are targeting America do you? I bet you are happy about it. The way you write, you write as if you can't wait for the next attack.

I need to ask. What in the hell does Al Qaeda have to do with your right to carry a gun? And I happen to have lost a very dear friend in the Twin Towers you god damn fuck wit. So I'd suggest you shut the hell up. You are a complete nut who is the last person who should ever carry a weapon. If someone is as paranoid as you are, you should not be arming yourself because you are the type of person who would shoot first and who would most probably injure or kill an innocent civilian because you are so paranoid.

If you are one of the people who is a supporter of why people should have guns, then the gun lobby is doomed. Which I guess is a good thing. Because you are a prime example of why some people should never be allowed to carry any form of weapon. Hell even a butter knife should be taken away from you because you are that type of a nut and a freak.

 

[TimeTraveler]

But seriously, read what TT is saying. He's talking about a non functioning Government and being able to defend yourself when such a thing occurs. Now tell me straight... I know Bush is not really all there, but surely the US has not degenerated to such an extent that the government is no longer functioning and the police force is no longer able to be funded.. etc.. is there constant looting in the streets where you live? Are people rampaging in the streets? Do you have the need to defend yourself against such a thing in your neighbourhood at the present time? My guess at the moment would be a big no?

Answer: will America survive another terrorist attack?

Answer: did government breakdown during hurricane Katrina?

I see. So arm everyone in such a situation. You know a situation where everyone is highly stressed and distressed, facing life and death decisions in regards to how they're going to get food, water, shelter etc. Hmm imagine how much better it would have been if they'd all be armed..

Do you have a better idea? No of course not, you only think disarming people is a good idea.

I see. So you think that people should arm themselves and take the law into their own hands? Ermm ok.. That's just made me an even bigger anti gun promoter.. lol..

If there is no government, what law? Once again you asssume that everything is functioning and that everything is running smoothly, as if you cannot even imagine the possibility of a lawless environment. Watch the video of hurricane Katrina, or of any riot.

Yes. Because I dont live in fear that people are out to get me so therefore I must carry a loaded gun, I am mentally unstable? Riigghhtt.. Police and armed forces having an uzi... sure. But the average Joe who thinks as you do? No.

Alright, so you are supporting the private policing idea? We should pay a security company? What's your idea?

If people are not going to police themselves, they will have to pay someone else ot do it.

When your country is attacked by terrorists, faced with the avian flu, and natural disasters, there won't be any police, the police will have run away, and you'd be left to die. That's generally what happens, because police aren't equiped to deal with EVERYTHING.

Oh my God. Do you read what you type? Seriously, do you? I don't know whether to laugh at you or pity you.
HAHAHAHAAA!! You'd want someone who's working in a ghetto who's had a gun shoved in his face a few times as he's being robbed to have an uzi for self protection? You don't think he'd be the one person to shoot first and evaluate the situation later? And an uzi? A weapon that can probably kill over a dozen people in a couple of seconds? LOL! What the hell is your obsession with uzi's TT?

Why, fine AK47

Here I have to agree with Neildo. I'm quite happy for someone who's in charge of the security of a medical or research installation ( as an example) to have people (yes a "private army") guarding it.

Duh! Now who guards your property? Right, no one, because you don't own what you cannot protect.

The more uzi's you "must have"? Yes, it's the new fashion accessory for you isn't it.

All celebrities have security guards, all rich people have guys with uzi's, they are rich, they are the biggest target.

Oh my God!! LOL!! TT! You're planning for when there's no functioning Government? LOL! Are you actually serious? And you accuse me of being brain dead? So you think everyone should arm themselves in case theres another attack or cycle etc and just in case the Government dissolves and anarchy reigns supreme? You are right that you are all paranoid. And as far as I am concerned it's the paranoid and the obviously scared people (in the bad way.. ie.. the way you're carrying on in here) who should not be carrying guns because they are the ones who would most probably over react to any situation. You sound like those kooks who rant that the end is near and the fall of the government will come so arming one's self is essential.

You are too ignorant to continue to respond to. You don't even watch the news.

Good grief! Seriously TT, you really need to calm down a bit. Think rationally. The emergency plans in my country do not include arming one's self to the eyeballs in case there's a terrorist attack or an attack of the bird flu (I can't believe you actually gave bird flu as a justification to arm yourself). Nor do I sit there and dream about how I must arm myself if and when the government dissolves if there is another terrorist attack. It's because you're that paranoid that you should not own a gun. Jesus TT, you're way wayyy out there.

Do you really think people will follow laws? If there are no police to enforce laws, there will be no laws.

That's the end of my post, you are too stupid to make sense or to even read what I said. Also you arent American so you really don't care about our safety, or about the country.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Okay, I'm going to give you one more chance Bell.

If the avian flu hit, and everyone is dying of it, and all the police got sick and died, what are you going to do? No one's going to follow laws once they have been infected, so you'll have people running around doing whatever the hell they want, if they know they only have 24 hours to live. So tell me, what would you do in a lawless environment?

For once tell us what your plans are. Don't tell me something stupid like call the police.

 

[lixluke]

There is no terrorist threat. America creates these threats to invade and enslave.

Look at the nice beautiful land full of resources. Look at those people living in peace and prosperity. Let's kill them and take their resources. Then use them as vacuum cleaners to suck up all of their resources while they work in slave factories to produce beatiful goods for our use.

What if Americans get mad at America's terror? Let's blow up the twin towers, and blame it on those foreigners. Then we have and excuse to slaughter them all into submission and slavery.

Dumb Americans: Let's get those terrorist bastards! They are a serious threat to freedom.

 

[wesmorris]

Nice cross post there, oh ye who lacks all skills.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Okay, I'm going to give you one more chance Bell.

If the avian flu hit, and everyone is dying of it, and all the police got sick and died, what are you going to do? No one's going to follow laws once they have been infected, so you'll have people running around doing whatever the hell they want, if they know they only have 24 hours to live. So tell me, what would you do in a lawless environment?

For once tell us what your plans are. Don't tell me something stupid like call the police.

If everyone is dying from avain flu then your worries are over.

You are dying!
The rest of the world who is out there to get you is dying too!

 

[TimeTraveler]

If everyone is dying from avain flu then your worries are over.

You are dying!
The rest of the world who is out there to get you is dying too!

Are you suicidal? Everyone is always dying. Shouldnt you at least try not to die? Otherwise why not die now?

 

[Tiassa]

Anyhow, more reading for what either Bells or Tiassa asked in regards to what would happen in a confrontation, here are some experiences and mindsets by others spoken more eloquently than myself where restraint was often involved and no gun brandished since we all supposedly seem to love to draw instantly and kill bad guys at every opportunity.

Some quotes from your links:

- "I guess he was waiting for me to beg for my life or something. I told him to insert his gun into a very private orifice of his body and walked away. Lucky he didn't shoot me in the back."

- "Kept the 12 gauge handy, but never needed it."

- "During the big power outage last summer, I was glad I was able to carry concealed, but never came even remotely close to needing a firearm."

- "I didn't have a gun on me and I'm glad I didn't. We were better off not engaging these people and I seriously doubt we could have gotten out if I did pull a firearm

- "My future solution to that one incident was to try and never put myself in a position where pulling my gun was the only option. That has continued to work to this day (so far at least)."

- "I fortunately have NEVER had to pull my weapon while carrying ...."

- "The only time I pulled was shortly after I bought my first carry piece . . . . having to pull was because I walked stupidly into the situation easily avoided; I've noticed that it's usually only when you're a moron that you get into trouble."​

Thank you, Neildo, for helping add some clarity to the issue. You are disgusted, it seems, at the presumption that "we all supposedly seem to love to draw instantly and kill bad guys at every opportunity." This presumption comes from the rhetoric of the debate; look, for instance, at TimeTraveler's paranoid vision of the world. Furthermore, your own weak sense of context, focus on exaggerations, and general determination to tilt windmills doesn't do much good for your credibility. Such as this tantrum:

Ah, yes, another liberal using a whacky, extreme, theorhetical example thinking that's how gun-owners are. OMG, some lady said a comment so it means I have the authority to shoot her! That's along the same ridiculous lines of "If I had a gun, I'd use it during road rage" that some of you have spouted!

Considering the extremity of TimeTraveler's outlook, it's a fair question to ask. That you fail to recognize that context--either deliberately for political reasons, or accidentally because you suffer a poor sense of context?--is your own problem, and before you go rolling your eyes, please consider that all you're really demonstrating with such behavior is the irrationality and irresponsiblity of the core argument put forward by gun advocates. The reality of guns is separate from the reality of their owners and users. Idyllic notions of the utility of guns are one thing, but it is worrisome when the advocates demonstrate a clear inability to understand or meet the idyllic standard they put forward.

One of the important things about your Highroad links, however, is that perhaps we can get past the paranoid arguments like TimeTraveler's, or the average NRA spokesman on cable news: there is a reality to the social issue of firearm violence that transcends its political manifestations. If you would like to discuss that reality in any of its aspects, well and fine; there are plenty of enlightened liberals waiting to have that discussion. If, however, you would like to continue writing other people's arguments in order to give yourself something to sling at, that's your own business. Inasmuch as I care, it only hurts your credibility when you focus on establishing your own illusion of moral supremacy instead of considering issues more vital to the actual topic. When you seek and invent reasons to roll your eyes, you're only reinforcing the image of gun owners as creepy, insecure, and deficient. Nothing like getting upset because people make note of your behavior, eh? ("We ought to be able to act as paranoid and creepy and dangerous as possible without people thinking we're paranoid and creepy and dangerous!")

You should take a few notes from the people at Highroad you cite. Unlike you, some of them aren't afraid to show they're capable of thought, or learning, or evolving.

Really, Neildo, is there any discussion you're willing to have that doesn't start with making the discussion generally moot, e.g. agreeing with everything you say at the outset?

 

[lixluke]

Nice cross post there, oh ye who lacks all skills.

It is not my fault your are unaware of current events. You remain in your world of daisie. The conspiracy theory is you.

 

[wesmorris]

It is not my fault your are unaware of current events. You remain in your world of daisie. The conspiracy theory is you.

But it IS your fault that you cross posted, oh ye who wastes oxygen. That event is fairly current, and you seem oblivious to it. Weird. I would never have expect it.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Thank you, Neildo, for helping add some clarity to the issue. You are disgusted, it seems, at the presumption that "we all supposedly seem to love to draw instantly and kill bad guys at every opportunity." This presumption comes from the rhetoric of the debate; look, for instance, at TimeTraveler's paranoid vision of the world.

I see the common strategy, now you are trying to divide the pro-gun people into factions based on the percentage of paranoia they have, as if it makes a difference? All people who believe in self defense are paranoid, thats the whole point, we care about our safety more than you care about yours, thats all.

You can argue that one or another visions of the world is wrong, no one has the complete vision, but if you have any notion of history, you know how this world really is just by looking at the history books. People die all the time, people are killed all the time, how many times in history have people been slaughtered? Every time in history, thats how many. It happened by the sword, it happened by the gun, whats your reason for ignoring world history?

Furthermore, your own weak sense of context, focus on exaggerations, and general determination to tilt windmills doesn't do much good for your credibility. Such as this tantrum:

Filler words, insults, and name calling to substitute for rational arguement.

Considering the extremity of TimeTraveler's outlook, it's a fair question to ask. That you fail to recognize that context--either deliberately for political reasons, or accidentally because you suffer a poor sense of context?--is your own problem, and before you go rolling your eyes, please consider that all you're really demonstrating with such behavior is the irrationality and irresponsiblity of the core argument put forward by gun advocates.

The world is an extreme place. Who exactly is protecting you? I don't understand how people can not care if they die tomorrow, and not care how they die, or anything, I mean what exactly do you go to work for? Whats your outlook? Are you some sorta existentialist who embraces death? Are you already dead? What is your outlook? Instead of saying my outlook is extreme, whats yours?

The reality of guns is separate from the reality of their owners and users. Idyllic notions of the utility of guns are one thing, but it is worrisome when the advocates demonstrate a clear inability to understand or meet the idyllic standard they put forward.

Stop calling us GUN ADVOCATES. No one is a damn gun advocate. We might be self defense advocates, but are you attacking martial artists or others who are self defense oriented? Why do you pick on guns? Why is self defense bad? Let's see, we have people who don't declaw their pet cats because they say this is a cats natural right, yet we also have people who HATE guns. How exactly do you defend yourself? If you are anti-gun, offer some alternative methods of self defense otherwise you are anti self defense and I'm sorry but the majority of the world just does not agree with you, and certainly the majority of America does not, it's just not how we are. America is the most self defense oriented place on planet earth.

One of the important things about your Highroad links, however, is that perhaps we can get past the paranoid arguments like TimeTraveler's, or the average NRA spokesman on cable news: there is a reality to the social issue of firearm violence that transcends its political manifestations.

When did I mention politics? This has nothing to do with politics. This has nothing to do with the NRA. I'm not a member of the NRA. It's simple, people care about self defense, is it a right or not? Decide.

Since you seem to believe self defense is not a human right, then explain how average people are to own property, have property rights, and defend themselves? Should we all hire private security guards? Is this the future? Offer some alternatives because all you do is attack guns, or attack self defense, as if people are born to be totally defenseless, it makes absolutely no sense, your arguement for defenselessness goes against human nature, even a dog does not want to be defenseless.

If you would like to discuss that reality in any of its aspects, well and fine; there are plenty of enlightened liberals waiting to have that discussion. If, however, you would like to continue writing other people's arguments in order to give yourself something to sling at, that's your own business. Inasmuch as I care, it only hurts your credibility when you focus on establishing your own illusion of moral supremacy instead of considering issues more vital to the actual topic. When you seek and invent reasons to roll your eyes, you're only reinforcing the image of gun owners as creepy, insecure, and deficient. Nothing like getting upset because people make note of your behavior, eh?

Once again, I notice that it's only liberals, from Europe, usually socialist countries, who are talking about how bad guns are and how people should be defenseless. Okay, make the case for defenselessness, I'd like to see you make a logical arguement on the superiority of defenselessness.

("We ought to be able to act as paranoid and creepy and dangerous as possible without people thinking we're paranoid and creepy and dangerous!")

You are acting paranoid with your anti gun and anti self defense behavior and no ones saying you should not have the right. However you are trying to not only remove the right of self defense which is a basic natural right, you are also trying to remove the right to be paranoid? You want to control thoughts too?

This is what ordinary people don't understand. Why do you want to take away freedom? Censorship, and banning paranoia, that's starting to sound like thought control.

You should take a few notes from the people at Highroad you cite. Unlike you, some of them aren't afraid to show they're capable of thought, or learning, or evolving.

Why won't you answer? Why will none of you who hate guns and self defense answer the question on how people are going to defend themselves? Instead you keep going back to how dark and scary my vision of the world is, refusing to even attempt to address the questions I specifically asked. I'm assuming you can't answer it because your best answer is "The world can't be like that! It could never happen to me! I'm a good person!", but bad things happen to good people all the time, in fact bad things almost always seem to happen to good people. So once again, if you think the world is such a nice place, I'm guessing you'd be the type of person to have a nervous breakdown if something bad did happen, and you would not last 5 minutes, if you were in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, you'd be on the ground crying, you wouldn't know what to do, you'd be stumbling around begging people or help. I'm also guessing that if you were in any of the third world countries, where all sorts of horrors happen on a daily basis, you'd have no way to deal with it, because you cannot intellectually grasp it, you cannot even debate it without getting emotional, how are we supposed to believe you'd do anything except lay down and die?

Another thing, how can anyone advocate that if the avian flu comes, we should just accept death? Even a BIRD wouldnt be that fucking stupid. How exactly, do you ACCEPT death, and if thats the case, are you the type of person who would get infected and commit suicide? You seem like that type when you say people should just accept that they are going to die.

I don't think the majority of people would respond like that, while I don't know how people will respond to the avian flu, if you look back to the black plague you'll get a clue as to the sorts of hysteria that will come from it, it will be complete chaos.
[/QUOTE]


The best arguement and debate you can bring is personal insults, this usually means you have no arguement. Accept defeat on the basis that you have no answers, no questions, no debate, nothing but insults. Are you going to respond next by cussing people out? It's not the way to prove your intellectual prowess.

I suggest you respond to a few basic questions.

1. If individuals are to lose the right to self defense, what mechanism should they use to defend themselves? Should they hire people? I guess thats the only real option, so if this is what you support why not just say so instead of disguising it as gun control? Why not just say you support the private security industry, and MAYBE we will buy stock.

2. How do you survive natural disasters, or other bad situations of immediate threat? You have to answer this by displaying that you actually have the ability to plan, or actually have some sorta plan in place for emergencies, because if you don't, well then, nothing you say is really serious, you are advocating gun control because you hate safety? Too illogical to make sense, so you have to explain your view of the world, your vision of the world, and then explain the mechanisms which will be used to prevent crime, to prevent massive riots and other disasters. If you just plan to hide in your house, thats not going to protect you from a tsunami, it's not going to protect you from a flood, it's not going to protect you from anything really. So if thats what your outlook is, I suggest you sell your house and all your property. If however you do have some property that you value, you'll have to tell me how you protect it?


These are the main questions, but basically, I just don't see how you plan to survive, you can lose your house at any moment, chaos can happen overnight, theres no rules to life, theres no guarentee of anything, and if you don't pay for safety, you don't have it, because safety has a price.

Honestly, you have to explain your outlook, I know you are from Europe, so you don't understand America, but you can at least explain your outlook, how would you be living if you were in America, and whats your world look like?