Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWhen a gun owner is most dangerous
Thanks to those on the gun control side who have been so illuminating.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they can skirt the background check through a private sale or at a gun show.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they go through the extensive background checks for obtaining a CC permit.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they have no familiarity in the use of their firearm.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they regularly practice with their firearm.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they are ignorant of local and state law.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they obsess over the minutiae of permissible firearms use.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they are ignorant of the toll taken by firearms.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they amass libraries of statistical data to defend their mania.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they openly acknowledge their refusal to adhere to registration and confiscation laws.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they demand we adhere to some musty old document.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)At that point they all say the same thing.
You know, we all actually seem to agree to that part of each sentence.
The difference is whether we agree because of aspiration or fear.
Well said.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)is that you think an experienced shooter is more dangerous than an inexperienced shooter and that the constitution is a musty old document.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)is you can't tell when someone is speaking in the voice of another party.
DonP
(6,185 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts).
Thanks to those on the gun control side who have been so illuminating:
A gun owner is most dangerous when they can skirt the background check through a private sale or at a gun show.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they go through the extensive background checks for obtaining a CC permit.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they have no familiarity in the use of their firearm.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they regularly practice with their firearm.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they are ignorant of local and state law.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they obsess over the minutiae of permissible firearms use.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they are ignorant of the toll taken by firearms.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they amass libraries of statistical data to defend their mania.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they openly acknowledge their refusal to adhere to registration and confiscation laws.
A gun owner is most dangerous when they demand we adhere to some musty old document.
The same culprits spout contradictory talking points, this post pairs them up nicely.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)it leads me to believe their judgment is not to be trusted on serious matters.
SkatmanRoth
(843 posts)Is the danger presented to the people who object to the private ownership of guns?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)But your protestations notwithstanding, there are people intent on doing harm to decent people who prefer to live in peace. Those who choose to live in peace have an inherent human right to self-defense.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)1. he thinks it is smart to carry his gun in public.
2. he thinks society is better off by him carrying his gun in public
3. he thinks he is safer by carrying his gun in public
4. he thinks his just as badass as the "bad" guys
5. he fantasizes about taking down those "bad" guys
6. he thinks guns are "cool"
7. he claims to be carrying because it's his "right"
8. he claims he's carrying to protect his loved ones
9. he claims he is not carrying out of fear
10. he refers to his gun as a "personal safety device", or "personal protection device"
11. he thinks he will come out of a gunfight alive
12. he can kill with impunity
13. he thinks that having a gun makes him one of the "good guys".
14. he thinks using a gun is the way to resolve conflict.
15. he fires that gun in public
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Unless you're asserting violent attacks never occur outside the home I'm curious how you can deride maintaining a means of protection outside the home.
I fail to see how providing criminals a guaranteed gun-free work zone makes society better.
There's no argument serving a basis for this point. I'm not sure if you're implying criminals get to magically use a gun owner's weapon against them or some other argument.
You're imposing your lurid imagination as fact.
See Point #4.
See Point #4.
Why do you spend so much effort on wild fabrications to supposedly prove a point? Maybe you should have that looked into.
Either there is a right to self-defense or there isn't. If you assert there is no right to self-defense then conversely you are arguing people have a duty to submit to the physically superior.
What is it about protecting loved ones that you find so threatening?
Preparedness is not fear. Wearing a seatbelt is not a fear of auto accidents, it is a healthy respect for what may happen and attempting to mitigate the degree of harm.
So you complain when a gun owner may refer to a weapon in casual terms, i.e. "cool" (see Point #6) but you complain when they might refer to a weapon in more formal terms.
This is exactly the sort of self-contradicting argumentation I was referring to in the OP.
The majority of DGUs don't require the discharge of the weapon as criminals prefer soft targets and are loathe to test their personal safety. Do you have any support for the supposition that when a citizen does fire their weapon there is no reason to assume they will bear the brunt of the encounter with such regularity that it is not worth their effort or is this just another imagining akin to Points 4, 5 and 6?
Self-defense does, in fact, have legal sanction. It's rather unsettling that someone would suggest people exercising their right to self-defense should endure the converse of impunity.
Having a gun does not make one a "good guy" any more than having a gun make them a "bad guy."
It is beyond naïve, and barely worth discussion, to imply robbers, killers, rapists and stalkers will be deterred by anything short of force.
The question is not if the gun was fired in public but whether the circumstances and manner are appropriate and the law already accounts for this. It is NOT inappropriate to yell "Fire!" in a crowded venue if, in fact, there is a fire that threatens those gathered.
As a side note: I wrote the OP as a means to assemble the self-contradicting arguments of the gun grabbers. They speak in wild generalizations. I cannot help but note you never actually addressed any of the points, i.e. "No, that's not what they mean/say. What they're saying is..."
Instead you provided yet another batch of wild generalizations. It seems peculiar that you would seek to disprove the charge by reinforcing the charge.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)1.
Unless you're asserting violent attacks never occur outside the home I'm curious how you can deride maintaining a means of protection outside the home.
I am not saying violent attacks never happen outside the home. Neither am I deriding the maintaining a means of protection outside the home.
What I said was "A gun owner is dangerous when he thinks it is smart to carry his gun in public"
Nothing about being stupid or danger not existing outside of the home. All we're talking about here is when a gun owner is being dangerous.
I understand that you, or at least your husband, think it is smart to be armed when you venture out of your home. That is your choice, and I wish you the best. Personally, I don't think it is the smartest decision, but I don't live where you live. I can only speak from personal experience. Seven decades on this planet, lived on 3 continents and a dozen countries, spent a few years in LE, and never felt the need to leave home armed with a gun. Been through many confrontations, including with armed individuals. All ended peacefully. Maybe not if I'd been armed with a gun and been tempted to use it. Thankfully, I wasn't, otherwise I'm pretty sure either I or the guy wielding the machete and threatening my life would have died that night. It's amazing what resources one can draw on when the need arises.
2.
If the "work zone" is gun free, then nobody runs the risk of getting shot. That means nobody carries a gun, including the criminal. To achieve this state, LE needs to quit routine carry. That's how you change the rules and eventually you end up with a relatively civilized society.
3. You got the point on that one. Introducing a firearm, or an additional firearm into the mix is a recipe for disaster.
4. No, it would be the guy carrying who imposes his imagination. Don't take this personally, but these idiots exist. I've met them. This is not about you and your hubby.
5. As I say, I've met them. These guys are not so rare.
6. Again, there are lots of guys who think guns are cool. They are not rare. It's a guy thing.
7. There is every right to self-defense. It is a basic natural right. Has nothing to do with carrying a gun, unless you have a credible extant threat. Carrying a gun on a "just in case some bad guys jump us" basis can hardly be classified as self-defense. That's called a vivid imagination, unless you get attacked pretty frequently. Only you can answer that. I would definitely carry if I thought there was a good chance of being attacked. Fortunately, I don't live in Afghanistan.
8. I find nothing wrong with protecting loved ones. It is more than admirable, especially when it happens. I've had to do it a few times in my life. Using it as a justification to carry a gun is something else.
9. OK, you compare a gun to a seatbelt, 'Nuff said.
10. A gun is a gun. Period. It is designed to kill. As such it is a killing tool. It is neither "cool" nor is it a personal safety device. BTW, I have nothing against guns, just dishonesty. Let's call them what they are. If you feel comfortable with some idiot thinking he's wearing a personal safety device, instead of a gun, then I wish you luck. I doubt very much, btw, that your husband is one of those idiots. I'm sure he is fully aware of what he is carrying when he chooses to do so.
11. I suppose no result when it comes to a confrontation with firearms. I said a gun owner is dangerous when he thinks he will come out of a gunfight alive. I was referring to a particular state of mind, not statistics. Think about it.
12. It doesn't always work out the way one expects. Life can get real complicated, especially when guns go off and people start dying.
13. Glad you agree on this one.
14. You may have a point there. If those types are common in your neck of the woods, then you probably should carry, or maybe move.
15. Firing a gun in public is dangerous, imo. Whoever fires it and for whatever reason, it is dangerous.
I am not a "gun grabber", so I responded from my own position and in response to your premise of "When a gun owner is most dangerous".
I don't have a side in this issue, unless you call common sense and reason a side. I support RKA, but not B, except when necessary. I think many gun owners and non gun owners feel the way I do.
Thanks for playing. No hard feelings.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)or a minor mistake concerning gender neutrality?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Good girls don't, and she be telling you
Good girls don't, but I do
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Firstly, men who carry guns around tend to be more dangerous than women. I doubt my list fits too many female gun owners.
Secondly, economy of words. No offense meant towards women and I doubt any was taken.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)How doe it feel to be on the side that created and still Uses each and every one of those arguments.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)gun control extremists and their fear of inanimate objects.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Including gun control extremists and their fear of inanimate objects.
And obsessive gun carriers and their fear of their fellow humans.