• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA executive suggests slain Charleston pastor to blame for gun deaths

But your dad likely had that weapon at church for a very simple reason: To guard against church vandalism.

I can accept that, but that's different from having a gun as a member of your church Parrish just for the sake of having a gun.

What exactly is wrong with having a gun just to have it? You know, people buy all sorts of things just to have them and I don't see any one of you giving them grief for it.
 
I hear what you are saying loud and clear...but you do not live in a society where one side get's their way all the time. We live in a society of all sorts of people with different beliefs about their personal safety. The problem lies, we cannot distinguish the kook from the responsible gun owner and it frightens people. I care about whether I am scary to others who live in society with me. No one has ever said anything about banning guns...they are a big part of our economy and ingrained in our culture. No one even wants them banned. We just need to be able to talk about solutions to problems as they arise without it getting hostile and unreasonable. Organizations like the NRA stir people up and place a barrier between reasonable conversation. When kooks and criminals outnumber the good folks, then I would consider walking around strapped. The "rambo" spirit must stop. It is embarrassing gun owners like me. I could never get my CC because I am subjected to background checks every year and would be ashamed to defend it because I may be lumped into the Ted Nugent or extremist mindset of gun owners. Responsible gun owners are participatory in gun violence solutions, not start immediately screaming "gun grabber" and shut down. These folks are disturbing..


Oh dear, where to begin...


1. Yes there are people who'd like to pretty much ban all guns. Some have said so on record. Not a majority view, but enough in positions of power to be worrisome.

2. If you're more worried about what someone would THINK of you (having a CCW permit) than of considering whether you might need one and what the consequences of needing it and not having it could be, you aren't thinking on this matter seriously enough. Therefore maybe you're right, maybe you should stick with pepper spray.

3. Why is a CCWer "scary", when 99% of the time you won't even know he has a gun? Concealed, remember. You've probably been around lots of folks and thought "what a nice person" and were totally unaware that they had a gun on them. Why be scared? Most of them would act to protect you if possible if something bad happened. We're not your enemy. Packing a gun doesn't make reasonable law-abiding persons more dangerous to innocents. The presence of guns doesn't make reasonable people just "snap".

4. Does the NRA engage in a certain amount of "scarism" to drum up support and cash? Yup, they do. However, their positions are not entirely unreasonable... there ARE politicians and lobby groups working night and day to curtail gun rights and the only counter is to work night and day to support same... thus the NRA and its millions of members, not to mention the GOA, RKBA, JPFO, SAS, and so on...

5. Yes, responsible gun owners are participatory in gun violence solutions... as long as those solutions do not violate the 2A, do not infringe on the law-abiding more than the lawless (hint few gun laws qualify) AND if the laws in question will actually have a substantive effect on criminal violence (again, very very dubious for most proposed new laws).

5A: Most pro-gun folks have become very cynical about the anti-gun elements in government, with good reason. Many times we've compromised and were told "just this and no more"... and the ink was barely dry before the anti's were pushing their NEXT even more restrictive agenda-item. Terms like "common sense gun control" and "gun safety" have been misused to cover up laws that would ban entire categories of guns which are NOT commonly used in crime! The pool of trust has been peed in too often and we find we are rather disinclined to compromise any more... the anti's have given us no reason to be and plenty of reason to distrust them, and to expect them to abuse any power they are given.
 
What did you think this was all about? You're talking to people that would rather have guns banned and are just coming up with solution to settle for less. It's pretty much douchebaggery from top to bottom.

And it's leaping to cartoon conclusions too.

When I posted "My decision to own a gun affects only me and those who might find themselves at the wrong end of it" in another thread, I was told that my comments were "disturbing" and "paranoid" and that using a gun looks a lot easier on TV.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...hurch-shooting-w-224-a-89.html#post1064736191
 
The same type of argument was used against "shall issue" CCW and failed miserably.

There are tens of millions with CCWs now... some states have millions just in their borders of CCWers among their population.


The predicted mass blood bath hasn't occurred, and available stats say that CCWers are law-abiding, restrained, and shoot the wrong dude less often than police.

Let me be clear: I don't have a problem with honorable men and women possessing a gun. Never have. Unfortunately, whenever the issue of gun violence comes up the issue somehow gets twisted into these arguments of gun rights -vs- irresponsible gun ownership.

The situation you described in your post #329...I can certainly understand your position. You made a personal choice to own and carry a gun which for you was the right thing to do. But I would hope you made that decision not merely because of the culture of gun ownership/usage in your family nor out of a sense of vengeance based on what happened to friends and family (I'm so sorry that happened to you and members of your community), but rather from the need to protect yourself from harm. I have no problem with people owning a gun for self-protection as long as they use them responsibility. It's everything else on the fringes of gun ownership that drives me nuts about this very sensitive topic.
 
Ma'am, no offense, but that's like saying "When I say N------, I'm just talking about bad black folks not good ones".

It's still offensive as it imputes mental illness in a general way towards those who exercise their Constitutional rights and are concerned about their safety in an uncertain world, particularly because it is so commonly used in a broad-brush general fashion by those on the other side of the debate.

No offense taken, but when people stop using disturbing statements about taking the life of another, then the label will not apply. I have never heard a cop brag about kills or drawing their weapons, and they take that chance everyday. Everyone else who are responsible gun owners should follow that lead as well.
 
What exactly is wrong with having a gun just to have it? You know, people buy all sorts of things just to have them and I don't see any one of you giving them grief for it.

My perspective on gun ownership is self-protection and gun collection (enthusiast). I'm fine with both. But to buy one just to buy one as one would purchase a TV or microwave oven...not so much.
 
And it's leaping to cartoon conclusions too.

When I posted "My decision to own a gun affects only me and those who might find themselves at the wrong end of it" in another thread, I was told that my comments were "disturbing" and "paranoid" and that using a gun looks a lot easier on TV.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...hurch-shooting-w-224-a-89.html#post1064736191

If you were not referring to using it on someone...what exactly did you mean by that statement?
 
No offense taken, but when people stop using disturbing statements about taking the life of another, then the label will not apply. I have never heard a cop brag about kills or drawing their weapons, and they take that chance everyday. Everyone else who are responsible gun owners should follow that lead as well.

What was disturbing about this statement? "My decision to own a gun affects only me and those who might find themselves at the wrong end of it."
 
Hi.

I've been carrying a gun for nearly thirty years.

I've never committed a felony or shot someone unlawfully or accidentally.

I HAVE prevented a couple of attempted crimes by being armed and ready.

My family has always owned and carried guns. Several of my family members have stopped crimes with guns. Some of my neighbors have also.

We have yet to rack up a single suicide or accidental or unlawful shooting.

But we've been damn glad to be armed on many instances.

So... your mish mash of miscompared stats doesn't mean much to me. :D

You're jumping into the middle of a longer discussion. Obviously in context the "miscomparing" was in response to Turtle, who compared having a fire extinguisher versus a gun in a dang church. It's apples and dump trucks comparison - they are NOTHING alike. Not in the risk of the event they protect against or the risk of the protection itself.

And I don't really care all that much about your gun carrying history in this context. Obviously if you've been doing it for 30 years, you're probably well trained, competent, responsible, etc. Not everyone is like you. As I've said, I've seen MANY accidental discharges, and it's just luck the only injury was a guy who blew off the back of his own ankle. I accept those risks hunting or shooting targets because loaded guns and a mix of expertise of those handling them are integral to the activities.

Any idiot with that can read at the first grade level can pass the exam to carry, and for all I know he's carried a gun for a week. If you allow guns into a church, that means you AND those idiots with a week of experience who might show up still drunk from the night before, or are whack jobs, etc. How am I supposed to tell him from you? If I know you, and I'm sitting next to you in church or anywhere else there's probably little worry. But that tells me nothing about some stranger who comes in who I've never met. There's no good reason to trust that a random stranger knows what he's doing, or that his wife's gun in her purse can't be pulled out by her kids while she's taking communion.

The point is there is no reason for someone worshipping to spend one SECOND worrying about that to prevent something about 15 times less likely than getting struck by lightning, 0.0000001% or so. If I thought I needed protection every day from events of that likelihood, I'd wear a helmet into the dang shower, and nearly all the rest of the time not sitting at my desk. Instead I just wear one while biking on the road....
 
The NRA is the most vile and disgusting organization in this country. Who in the hell wants to carry a gun to worship in church and how could anyone suggest that. They use every tragic event to promote their insane ideology. This group appeals to militia idiots and skin heads.

As the shooting shows evil can happen anywhere. I CC into my church.
 
You're jumping into the middle of a longer discussion. Obviously in context the "miscomparing" was in response to Turtle, who compared having a fire extinguisher versus a gun in a dang church. It's apples and dump trucks comparison - they are NOTHING alike. Not in the risk of the event they protect against or the risk of the protection itself.

And I don't really care all that much about your gun carrying history in this context. Obviously if you've been doing it for 30 years, you're probably well trained, competent, responsible, etc. Not everyone is like you. As I've said, I've seen MANY accidental discharges, and it's just luck the only injury was a guy who blew off the back of his own ankle. I accept those risks hunting or shooting targets because loaded guns and a mix of expertise of those handling them are integral to the activities.

Any idiot with that can read at the first grade level can pass the exam to carry, and for all I know he's carried a gun for a week. If you allow guns into a church, that means you AND those idiots with a week of experience who might show up still drunk from the night before, or are whack jobs, etc. How am I supposed to tell him from you? If I know you, and I'm sitting next to you in church or anywhere else there's probably little worry. But that tells me nothing about some stranger who comes in who I've never met. There's no good reason to trust that a random stranger knows what he's doing, or that his wife's gun in her purse can't be pulled out by her kids while she's taking communion.

The point is there is no reason for someone worshipping to spend one SECOND worrying about that to prevent something about 15 times less likely than getting struck by lightning, 0.0000001% or so. If I thought I needed protection every day from events of that likelihood, I'd wear a helmet into the dang shower, and nearly all the rest of the time not sitting at my desk. Instead I just wear one while biking on the road....

your argument against guns in churches is an argument against guns in any public place

so you are against people CCW i take it
 
You are projecting your delusions. This does not happen. Concealed carry owners are quite safe and a net benefit on society. You have probably interacted with plenty and never known it-thats the idea.

Its an almost cartoon-like scenario you have running through your head.

I don't think so. Go back and research it. Even the Old West had rules in place at the time that required people to hand over their guns in certain situations, i.e., when entering a bar. Why did they do it? To reduce the level of gun violence and, thus, prevent people who would use guns irresponsibly from acting irresponsibly.
 
By seeking to take away their ability to protect themselves with the guns they would use if they HAD them.

Do I need to link to the testimony of that texas congresswoman who didn't bring her gun into a restaurant because of feel-good gun laws that you support?
She could have stopped the gunman, instead she watched her parents executions.

shoulda coulda woulda ..... right.

How does being against open carry deprive anyone of the right to be armed and protect themselves?
 
I hear what you are saying loud and clear...but you do not live in a society where one side get's their way all the time. We live in a society of all sorts of people with different beliefs about their personal safety. The problem lies, we cannot distinguish the kook from the responsible gun owner and it frightens people. I care about whether I am scary to others who live in society with me. No one has ever said anything about banning guns...they are a big part of our economy and ingrained in our culture. No one even wants them banned. We just need to be able to talk about solutions to problems as they arise without it getting hostile and unreasonable. Organizations like the NRA stir people up and place a barrier between reasonable conversation. When kooks and criminals outnumber the good folks, then I would consider walking around strapped. The "rambo" spirit must stop. It is embarrassing gun owners like me. I could never get my CC because I am subjected to background checks every year and would be ashamed to defend it because I may be lumped into the Ted Nugent or extremist mindset of gun owners. Responsible gun owners are participatory in gun violence solutions, not start immediately screaming "gun grabber" and shut down. These folks are disturbing..

We live in relatively free and open society, there will always be people who get past mental health screens. In school I did a 3 month rotation in mental health and patients on 5150's were released ALL THE TIME, as long as they did not meet the criteria for detainment. These people are out there, and many of these shooters are young men who aren't even part of the mental health system at the time they commit these crimes. Thats not going to change.

At the same time, more restrictive societies/nations have the same issues-sometimes with different weapons, sometimes with the same-but the common thread is that they have psych issues-following the law is not on the radar.

You want to talk about solutions? We can only do that when we admit reality-that these things will be a problem as long as society exists. Beyond that-CCW decreases both the odds of attacks and the death toll when they are committed. The data also shows that the biggest factor in stopping these attacks is getting someone with a gun to the scene as soon as possible-because when confronted these shooters almost always kill themselves or surrender-which stops the attack.

Try to divorce yourself from emotion and politics and think about this from an epidemiological point of view. Thats how we solve these problems, not attacking honest law abiding citizens as "gun nuts" (which, by the lefts definition includes YOU).
 
It's not just 'for the sake of having a gun'.


It's for defending self, family and fellow members if some looney shows up.... as just happened in Charleston.

It's for protection coming and going and wherever else you might stop coming and going.

It's a serious matter, not simply a whim, for the vast majority of us.

People who get CCWs without being serious about it tend to carry for a few weeks and then stop, because it is a bit of a bother. The ones who carry all the time long term are carrying because they have reasons to believe it is a necessary component of their security.

Like me. :)

I can respect that. Perhaps you should become deputized if you haven't already done so. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
I don't think so. Go back and research it. Even the Old West had rules in place at the time that required people to hand over their guns in certain situations, i.e., when entering a bar. Why did they do it? To reduce the level of gun violence and, thus, prevent people who would use guns irresponsibly from acting irresponsibly.

Incidentally, a lot of people were killed in bars even with that policy in place.
 
Why do people have to agree to gun control measures to be open to solutions?

You dont. And not just on an ideological level but because of the data. But every time one of these events happens, like a herd of lemmings we hear people say exactly that.

This tells me at no point have they read up on the problem, let alone understand it.
 
No doubt Goshin can shoot but so can I. I regularly out shoot my LEO friends.

Why should my safety be compromised?

Could someone else be harmed in me defending myself? Yes. Same for cops.

Is that even more rare than the odds of needing to defend myself? Yes.

The fact is in over 90% of cases just showing a gun will end the attack and in a mass shooting-lets just say there are bigger risks, like the guy walking around shooting people in the face.



Yessir. I've been a cop, and I'll tell you plainly about half of them are middling-to-crappy gunhandlers and fair-to-mediocre shots.

OTOH I've also taught defensive handgunning classes to civilians, and in general found them certainly no worse than the average run of police ofcs. Many of them spend more time shooting on the range than the average cop too.
 
You do have a point...the CC carriers are subjected to thorough back ground checks and have to demonstrate competency. They, for the most part are safe gun owners. They conceal it and don't strut around like wanna be tough guys. A true respectable gun owner will never tell you if they are carrying or not. They don't find it something to brag about.

Its not about bragging or being a tough guy. Its about protecting yourself. Im applying for a CCW after several incidences where patients have approached me for narcotics prescriptions outside of the office. I have drug seekers in parking lots, and grocery stores coming up to me.
 
Incidentally, a lot of people were killed in bars even with that policy in place.

Likely because they tried to skirt the law/bar policy and got themselves killed in the process. But without stats to back that up, I'll just chalk this one up to "bad people doing bad things and getting their just desserts as a consequence of their poor choice".
 
We live in relatively free and open society, there will always be people who get past mental health screens. In school I did a 3 month rotation in mental health and patients on 5150's were released ALL THE TIME, as long as they did not meet the criteria for detainment. These people are out there, and many of these shooters are young men who aren't even part of the mental health system at the time they commit these crimes. Thats not going to change.

I find it worth noting that several posters in various threads who identify themselves as on the right side of the political continuum have stated they favor increased mental health initiatives. And that is good. But let us not forget the way many states slashed mental health spending in the 90's.

Here in Michigan we closed 3 out of every 4 mental health hospitals and they all were closed under a Republican Governor . here is the evidence

Jeff Gerritt: Deinstitutionalizing Michigan's mentally ill has been an underfunded disaster | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

So some on the right either realize their side erred badly in years past or the words endorsing more mental health programs are simply to deter from guns. I sincerely hope its the former.
 
Yessir. I've been a cop, and I'll tell you plainly about half of them are middling-to-crappy gunhandlers and fair-to-mediocre shots.

OTOH I've also taught defensive handgunning classes to civilians, and in general found them certainly no worse than the average run of police ofcs. Many of them spend more time shooting on the range than the average cop too.

Here you are with direct personal experience (and mine mirroring it) and yet the ASSUMPTIONS of others will hold more weight to them. They dont want to learn about these issues-they want to emote.
 
If you were not referring to using it on someone...what exactly did you mean by that statement?

Are you seriously asking me to parse simple words? What's the part you don't understand in "My decision to own a gun affects only me and those who might find themselves at the wrong end of it"?
 
The NRA is the most vile and disgusting organization in this country. Who in the hell wants to carry a gun to worship in church and how could anyone suggest that. They use every tragic event to promote their insane ideology. This group appeals to militia idiots and skin heads.



Ooooh my, I missed this one. What an ugly thing to say.


My dear sainted father, WW2 veteran, former Deacon and Church Treasurer, respected member of his community and father of four children none of whom have ever spent a night in jail, was an NRA member and carried a 38 snubnose to church with the approval of the pastor and Deacon board for many years.

I am also an NRA member and I assure you I have no truck with skinheads or anti-government militia types.

When we paint with an ugly broad brush, what we most often reveal is our own ignorance and bias you know.
 
Back
Top Bottom