Ot: Pew Pew Pew

[Guapo]

What I am opposed is people carrying weapons on them going about their daily lives. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

So you wouldn't allow your wife to carry pepper spray or mace then, eh? I honestly hope that you and your family never fall prey to anyone who wishes to do you harm. You are woefully unprepared to defend them. :-/

[attack eagle]

nope. you can not be 'not against gun control' and against people carrying a gun while 'going about their daily lives'.


You asked a question, why carry something you never use, and I explained that it was like a spare tire or insurance (or a survival kit in your car in bad weather). it is a tool, NO different than a screwdriver, a knife, a lug wrench, a baseball bat, a pick, or anything else that can be used to defend yourself, or serve a peaceful purpose.

A gun is to interpersonal conflict relations as Nukes and a strong military are to international relations. M.A.D. when on equal footing = peace. A strong military meets a strong military = peace.
A weak country or a weak person meets a strong one, and they rely on grace... or they choose to become equal... or the get swallowed up. They don't petition the strong to disarm so everyone is equally weak... and any ONE person/country could then take over everyone. that is foolishness, and against human nature.

Second, if as you say 'no one ever uses it' then why are you opposed to people carrying them 24/7?


Third, unless you are a crook or a dictator, why would you fear citizens being able to carry weapons?
Most of them are better marksmen than those who are on your police force, better trained, and are the people who will defend your cowardly ass if it were ever to need it away from your home.

Sounds to me like you are just a coward, and you want to disarm everyone because you are fearful of their non-cowardice. Kind of like Switzerland.


Besides... unless you get smacked across the temple or in the throat with it... guns don't kill people...

That is like saying speed kills...

[yaofeng]

Suffice to say you carry a weapon 24/7 and I do not and I never will. I will instead choose the community to live where I do not have to carry a weapon 24/7. You and I both do not oppose people owning a gun. We agree to disagree.

[attack eagle]

I do not live in a community where i have to carry a gun either... this isn't Juarez, New York, or DC (good exemplars on a disarmed populace relying on police for 'protection').
Nor did i say whether I do or do not. You assume I do, and if the bad guys do too then I have achieved my goal of deterrence. That is what the ability to carry firearms is about... deterrence.

I just hope you have other forms of insurance, since you don't believe in your responsibility and duty as a citizen to protect yourself and your fellow man.

[Dave M]

I do not live in a community where i have to carry a gun either... this isn't Juarez, New York, or DC (good exemplars on a disarmed populace relying on police for 'protection').
Nor did i say whether I do or do not. You assume I do, and if the bad guys do too then I have achieved my goal of deterrence. That is what the ability to carry firearms is about... deterrence.

I just hope you have other forms of insurance, since you don't believe in your responsibility and duty as a citizen to protect yourself and your fellow man.

I've read a few threads of a similar narure on this forum and have noticed that US and Canadian members generally find themselves at odds on the matter of firearms.

To myself, its simple (and I have US family andhave spent much time living in the US). There IS a definite difference. I have never, ever been exposed to firemarms in an aggresive nature, except for the time spent in US cities (SC and TX). It blew my mind (pardon the pun) that folks could use a gun to express themselves.

I own a hunting rifle (in Canada) and have never considered it as way to protect myself. It is a way to fill my freezer (which it does) and isn't assembled untill October. Its a beautiful thing.

Its gotta be stressfull, to some........and I'm extremely glad to live where where I do,

Dave

[yaofeng]

Everything you and I as well as everyone else go through our daily lives involve risk assessment. You mentioned insurance. Do you buy flood insurance for your house? If when you purchased your house it has been determined the property is not in a flood zone do you still buy flood insurance? I would not. But according to your logic you would. Why? Just in case as you said. Do you buy earthquake insurance? The same logic applies. Do you take polio immunization? What about immunization against yellow fever? If not. Why not? Are you not afraid you may get the desease? You do not need immunization against yellow fever or polio in the US because the government has determined the risk of citizens who live in the US to get the deseases is so low we do not need it. Are there documented case of yellow fever in the US? Who is to say there is not? But there is nothing to stop you to get the immunization and all kinds of other shots for insurance. Do you trust our government on this particular matter? Based on your logic you probably do not I suspect.

The reason I am not carrying a weapon with me 24/7 also involves risk assessment. I do not do it by choosing to live in a community where no one need to carry the weapon for self defense rather than to live in one where I may need it. I have evaluated the risks the same manner you made your decision buying different types of insurance or deciding which type of immunization to get. Does it mean I am completely safe from a criminal who may kill me on the street? Of course not. But I am satisfied the risk of me being shot by random gun fires is not any higher than you getting the yellow fever without immunization.

So you do not carry a weapen 24/7 after all. I advise you to not come to New Jersey then. If you still want to come you need to conceal the weapon and face the risk of being caught by law enforcement. Because the deterrence is not there.

[attack eagle]

I have immunizations for malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and several other tropical diseases. (that cholera immunization made me hallucinate and I was sick as a dog within 2 hours!!!

I am also immune to TB due to exposure, same as having a vaccine. It freaks doctors out when you test positive to TB here in the US just because you have antibodies. Hooray for school drinking water!


Around here, or back home in MS (or AL FL LA TX Nm or AZ) or in Costa Rica or Argentina, I don't need it, even in the ghetto... but up in the northeast? you bet I'd be packing 24/7.

That is why I do not go to Mexico, they do not permit you to have a firearm. Therefore I do not cross the border anymore since I felt completely unsafe there between the crooked cops, drug dealers, and bandidos and unarmed populace...

Same way I feel when I am in yankee-land / DC after dark.


Oh and I do have wind insurance and flood insurance... costs almost nothing & pays off when you have storm damage.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_9721348
this happens everywhere...

[BobHarris]

nope. you can not be 'not against gun control' and against people carrying a gun while 'going about their daily lives'.


You asked a question, why carry something you never use, and I explained that it was like a spare tire or insurance (or a survival kit in your car in bad weather). it is a tool, NO different than a screwdriver, a knife, a lug wrench, a baseball bat, a pick, or anything else that can be used to defend yourself, or serve a peaceful purpose.

A gun is to interpersonal conflict relations as Nukes and a strong military are to international relations. M.A.D. when on equal footing = peace. A strong military meets a strong military = peace.
A weak country or a weak person meets a strong one, and they rely on grace... or they choose to become equal... or the get swallowed up. They don't petition the strong to disarm so everyone is equally weak... and any ONE person/country could then take over everyone. that is foolishness, and against human nature.

Second, if as you say 'no one ever uses it' then why are you opposed to people carrying them 24/7?


Third, unless you are a crook or a dictator, why would you fear citizens being able to carry weapons?
Most of them are better marksmen than those who are on your police force, better trained, and are the people who will defend your cowardly ass if it were ever to need it away from your home.

Sounds to me like you are just a coward, and you want to disarm everyone because you are fearful of their non-cowardice. Kind of like Switzerland.


Besides... unless you get smacked across the temple or in the throat with it... guns don't kill people...

That is like saying speed kills...

I'm with you all the way on gun control.

Using Switzerland is a bad example though. Every man between the ages of 18 and 65 is issued with a gun and trained how to use it, as they are all in the territorial army.

Target shooting is practically the national sport.

[whiskychaser]

Using Switzerland is a bad example though. Every man between the ages of 18 and 65 is issued with a gun and trained how to use it, as they are all in the territorial army.

Target shooting is practically the national sport.

Wasnt going to pick up on this but now you do, I've lived and worked there. Swiss soldiers are the only ones in the world (as far as I know) that take their guns home. They have to have to prove a standard of accuracy every year and are given a number of rounds to do so. If they dont, they pay for their own until they do. Their guns laws are 'relaxed' but gun crime is so rare they dont even keep records. This makes interesting reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
I just read that the US has 80 gun fatalities per day. The UK's worst year was 7. But if you take account of the population difference (x5) you are only twice as likely to be shot in the US as the UK. I find that unsettling

[fin]

Having listened to part of the Arguments before the Supreme Court (CSPAN) one of the items mentioned by one of the Justices was the near universal adoption of "Castle" laws by states. "Castle" laws simply means that a home owner is assumed to be threatened by an intruder and does not have to exhaust a checklist of 'Did you's (Did you block their escape, Did you warn them......) before defending yourself from a percieved threat. Our UK members may be able to chime in on the effects of having/not having "Castle" laws. In the US it is rare for one to be home during a robbery. I've heard that is not definitely not so in the UK.

Switzerland? The one time I was there happened to be on a Friday. It was a trip watching guys in suits and ties carrying a briefcase in one hand and slinging large caliber machine guns on their other shoulder. They were on their way to weekend military duty. And yes, I did feel rather safe with a few belt fed weapons about carried by well trained businessmen and NOT by policemen.

Another aspect that hasn't been discussed but is also in mind pertaining to guns/rifles is the ability to gather food, i.e. hunt. When the constitution was written ownership for hunting was assumed to be the standard, not the exception. I have never heard of anyone every being forbidden from hunting/fishing after arrest for poaching/overlimit fishing or possesion. It is because the government doesn't want to be accused of forbidding access to nourishment.

For those that have been life long city dwellers, you have the luxury of prompt police response in emergency situations. The rest of us are more familiar with the portrayal of law enforcement shown in the movie "Fargo". The murdered Highway Patrolman was probably frozen stiff by the time others showed up. Growing up, I didn't know a farmer that didn't have a rifle/shotgun readily available. Minimum of 15 minutes for police/sheriff/HWP to show up unless they happen to be serving notice nearby. Occasionally there will be less than a handful of HWP on duty in rural states. Not counties, states.

I saw a news clip of a woman whose parents were killed by a mentally ill person (she referred to him as 'sick' in the sense of ill and needing care, not as despicable) testifying before Congress on the subject of Gun Control. After descibing how she watched the shooting of her parents, so went on the state that the reason that she was opposed to gun control was to be able to protect herself, "especially from those of you sitting across from me." It was not assuring to see the looks of disgust on the faces of the Congressmen after she had commented about needing to be protected from them. A thought very much in the minds of the Founding Fathers.

The person that had the most honest statement about gun ownership was Mao Tse Tung: "Power flows from the end of a gun".

Fin