• 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!

Who Is More Afraid? The One Who Feels He Needs a Gun? Or the One Who Doesn't?

Who is more afraid? The one who feels he needs a gun, or the one who doesn't?

  • The person who feels he needs a gun is the one who's more afraid.

    Votes: 28 77.8%

  • The person who does NOT feel he needs a gun is the one who's more afraid.

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • Total voters
    36
TurtleDude said:
1) you are making the incrementalist argument

2) its absolutely true. it has been well documented that the dems started pushing for gun control after the Nixon attacks on Dems for being soft on crime and the fact that the public wanted the party in power to do SOMETHING about black street crime and the assassinations of the Kennedys.

http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=srhonorsprog

Cramer: Racist Roots of Gun Control (1995)

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns to but control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was that they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time.(56)
Click to expand...

1) No. You're trying to set up all or nothing, anything short of nothing is increments. I don't buy that. As we've had from the beginning, some restrictions are reasonable. And that's all it is. Nothing more.

2) I have no reason to accept those sources as the gospel. However, the fact remains today no one other than outliers are thinking that way.
 
Lursa said:
Have you ever held or shot a firearm? Hand gun? Semi-auto, revolver? How about a rifle? A shotgun?

Do you know how different all of those are? And they are different in a million ways for very specific reasons. When you choose a tool for a job...dont you want the ability to choose what is right for the job? Most comfortable, designed best, most reliable, longest battery life, highest torque, yada yada yada?

I mean, why arent we all driving exactly the same cars? Riding the exact same bikes? Wearing the same shoes? Not *just* for vanity or looks.

If someone chooses to own a firearm(s) they choose them for reasons. It's not up to you to tell someone else what best serves their purposes.
Click to expand...

You went well off topic. I hope you feel better.

Even though you didn't respond to me at all, I was in the military and have fired an m16 and a .45. I've also hunted deer early in my adulthood. So, I've fired a hunting rifle. So, I'm not a complete novice.

Now, if your through just randomly leaping in, how about addressing something I said to you. TD is capable of holding up his own end. :coffeepap
 
haymarket said:
So lets look at what a reasonable person may conclude based on pure data then. Given that guns are the number one weapon in murders by a far far margin, is it reasonable that a rational person may fear a gun and the results of it in their or their families lives?
Click to expand...

Sure....murders are committed by criminals. Very few are 'spree' or active shooting situations.

Regulating and restricting will not stop that at all. It may not even slow it. and it certainly places ALL the law-abiding people at greater risk, esp those that would carry a firearm for protection or keep them to protect their family at home.

So a reasonable person would not be afraid of guns, but of criminal activity and would take reasonable precautions to protect themselves. For some people, that is a firearm.
 
Boo Radley said:
You went well off topic. I hope you feel better.

Even though you didn't respond to me at all, I was in the military and have fired an m16 and a .45. I've also hunted deer early in my adulthood. So, I've fired a hunting rifle. So, I'm not a complete novice.

Now, if your through just randomly leaping in, how about addressing something I said to you. TD is capable of holding up his own end. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Not at all off topic but I wanted an answer so that I could have an idea of your familiarity with firearms before explaining. Makes a difference in level of detail.


I dont remember the exact quote however I can give plenty of acceptable, rational reasons why the high cap magazines should not be regulated, or ammo, or some of the other things mentioned whenever the argument comes up, 'well they dont need all that stuff. They still can have a gun.'
 
Lursa said:
Not at all off topic but I wanted an answer so that I could have an idea of your familiarity with firearms.


I dont remember the exact quote however I can give plenty of acceptable, rational reasons why the high cap magazines should not be regulated, or ammo, or some of the other things mentioned whenever the argument comes up, 'well they dont need all that stuff. They still can have a gun.'
Click to expand...

I can't really think of anything compelling.

But what we were originally dealing with was why care alarms weren't treated the same as weapons, the same outrage. Answer: because they aren't the same. And that we will never ban guns, but just as we've had, there will continue to regulations. The question will always be where is the line.
 
Boo Radley said:
I can't really think of anything compelling.

But what we were originally dealing with was why care alarms weren't treated the same as weapons, the same outrage. Answer: because they aren't the same. And that we will never ban guns, but just as we've had, there will continue to regulations. The question will always be where is the line.
Click to expand...

My questions about your firearm knowlege was not the response to that.

And I believe I did answer it in another post.
 
Lursa said:
My questions about your firearm knowlege was not the response to that.

And I believe I did answer it in another post.
Click to expand...

And I answered you.
 
Lursa said:
Sure....murders are committed by criminals. Very few are 'spree' or active shooting situations.

Regulating and restricting will not stop that at all. It may not even slow it. and it certainly places ALL the law-abiding people at greater risk, esp those that would carry a firearm for protection or keep them to protect their family at home.

So a reasonable person would not be afraid of guns, but of criminal activity and would take reasonable precautions to protect themselves. For some people, that is a firearm.
Click to expand...

We differ on the idea that reasonable persons should feel a certain way about gun ownership and use. We have 315 million people in this nation and each one of them has their own story, their own experiences, has walked their own path and how they react to things, the fears and concerns they have - are theirs and nobody with any sense of compassion or understanding for the differences in their fellow humans has a right to say that they should not have the fears they do have or that they are " cowards" or have "inadaquecies" if they chose not to have a gun.
 
haymarket said:
We differ on the idea that reasonable persons should feel a certain way about gun ownership and use. We have 315 million people in this nation and each one of them has their own story, their own experiences, has walked their own path and how they react to things, the fears and concerns they have - are theirs and nobody with any sense of decency has a right to say that they should not have the fears they do have or that they are " cowards" or have "inadaquecies" if they chose not to have a gun.
Click to expand...

Well I'm pretty sure I never even implied such about people who choose not to own or carry guns, altho others do and have.

But it works exactly in reverse...those people are welcome to their feelings however they have no right, IMO, without actual proof or at least a predominance of supporting evidence...that their feelings should influence the rights of others to do what makes *them* most comfortable regarding firearms. Fear criminals with guns? Sure why not?

Fear law-abiding citizens with guns? Let's examine that in context with everything else you do every day and the 'actual' dangers you are in and the "actual" incidents where the public has been harmed.
 
Lursa said:
Well I'm pretty sure I never even implied such about people who choose not to own or carry guns, altho others do and have.

But it works exactly in reverse...those people are welcome to their feelings however they have no right, IMO, without actual proof or at least a predominance of supporting evidence...that their feelings should influence the rights of others to do what makes *them* most comfortable regarding firearms. Fear criminals with guns? Sure why not?

Fear law-abiding citizens with guns? Let's examine that in context with everything else you do every day and the 'actual' dangers you are in and the "actual" incidents where the public has been harmed.
Click to expand...

Let us suppose for a minute that a middle class American couple with two kids aged 4 and 7 are having dinner at some local restaurant ---- Burger King.... Taco Bell... the local coney island ---- something along those lines. And in walks a man in camo armed with pistols in holsters on his hip and some sort of long gun strapped to his back that appears to look far more like a military machine gun than a hunting rifle. He is not police nor is he military.

Are you going to claim that the family should not be concerned about this and their first emotion is not one of fright?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Let us suppose for a minute that a middle class American couple with two kids aged 4 and 7 are having dinner at some local restaurant ---- Burger King.... Taco Bell... the local coney island ---- something along those lines. And in walks three men in camo armed with pistols in holsters on their hip and some sort of long gun strapped to their back. They are NOT police nor are they military.

Are you going to claim that the family should not be concerned about this?
Click to expand...

Correct. Are they ordering at the counter? Hell, I'd assume there was a convoy outside dumping out our military for lunch (I'm not that up on uniforms. I'd figure military or hunters taking themselves too seriously).

If there was something worrisome about their demeanor, that would be a different story however I wouldnt need to see a firearm to be alarmed (and am often) by how people act in public.
 
Lursa said:
Correct. Are they ordering at the counter? Hell, I'd assume there was a convoy outside dumping out our military for lunch (I'm not that up on uniforms. I'd figure military or hunters taking themselves too seriously).

If there was something worrisome about their demeanor, that would be a different story however I wouldnt need to see a firearm to be alarmed (and am often) by how people act in public.
Click to expand...

I guess we simply see things very differently. I do not want to live in a society where openly armed men can intimidate others by their mere appearance. If we go to the kind of gun centric society that some on the right seem to advocate, it would have a very chilling effect on the exercise of other freedoms like speech in civic participation.

I do not want to feel a citizen cannot openly express their honest opinion just because Rambo in the same room is scowling at them armed to the teeth.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I guess we simply see things very differently. I do not want to live in a society where openly armed men can intimidate others by their mere appearance. If we go to the kind of gun centric society that some on the right seem to advocate, it would have a very chilling effect on the exercise of other freedoms like speech in civic participation.

I do not want to feel a citizen cannot openly express their honest opinion just because Rambo in the same room is scowling at them armed to the teeth.
Click to expand...

I would not want to be a person intimidated by someone carrying a gun.

In many states, including my own, anyone over 21 (that can legally own a gun) can carry it openly. Dont see it too often. It doesnt serve a purpose to do so, so generally people dont.

(See, this is what I mean by baseless and unfounded concerns. Not one person has posted an incident where a law abiding citizen has used their gun (legally) or had an accident in public and harmed anyone else. Again...baseless to fear if you cant even find examples. Are there some? Maybe...havent seen them so probably not many)

It's funny you feel safer just because 'you cant see the guns.'

Here's a question: If it's legal to open carry in so many states....why dont we commonly see what you described in our fast food establishments, etc?
 
Boo Radley said:
1) No. You're trying to set up all or nothing, anything short of nothing is increments. I don't buy that. As we've had from the beginning, some restrictions are reasonable. And that's all it is. Nothing more.

2) I have no reason to accept those sources as the gospel. However, the fact remains today no one other than outliers are thinking that way.
Click to expand...

more passive aggressive nonsense from a gun banner. where you fail is that whether restrictions are reasonable or not turns on two factors

a) whose definition of reasonable

b) and the thing the gun haters always ignore-does the government unit have the necessary authority to impose "reasonable restrictions"

an honest answer as to the federal government is NO.
 
Lursa said:
Not at all off topic but I wanted an answer so that I could have an idea of your familiarity with firearms before explaining. Makes a difference in level of detail.


I dont remember the exact quote however I can give plenty of acceptable, rational reasons why the high cap magazines should not be regulated, or ammo, or some of the other things mentioned whenever the argument comes up, 'well they dont need all that stuff. They still can have a gun.'
Click to expand...

Boo spent hours saying that idiotic magazine restrictions were "reasonable" based on his claim that the chances of a citizen needing more than 7 rounds is small. He spent hundreds of posts trying to defend that idiocy by claiming that while you might need more than 7 rounds, it is very rare. He lost the argument when he conceded that he could not argue that there was any HARM in a citizen having more rounds. In other words, argument for the sake of argument rather than a reasonable claim of a trade off.
 
haymarket said:
I guess we simply see things very differently. I do not want to live in a society where openly armed men can intimidate others by their mere appearance. If we go to the kind of gun centric society that some on the right seem to advocate, it would have a very chilling effect on the exercise of other freedoms like speech in civic participation.

I do not want to feel a citizen cannot openly express their honest opinion just because Rambo in the same room is scowling at them armed to the teeth.
Click to expand...

if you are intimidated whose fault is that.
 
haymarket said:
I guess we simply see things very differently. I do not want to live in a society where openly armed men can intimidate others by their mere appearance. If we go to the kind of gun centric society that some on the right seem to advocate, it would have a very chilling effect on the exercise of other freedoms like speech in civic participation.

I do not want to feel a citizen cannot openly express their honest opinion just because Rambo in the same room is scowling at them armed to the teeth.
Click to expand...

The fact that you feel intimidated when you see your fellow Americans bearing arms doesn't negate their constitutional right to do so.
 
Your question is too simple.

Why are they afraid? Why are they NOT afraid?

Someone could be stupid enough to go unarmed into a situation wherein they will die without defense of some sort, because they weren't afraid enough.

Conversely, someone could be unreasonably afraid of something which does not actually pose a threat, and thus arm themselves to the teeth for a shopping trip to the local Wal-Mart (not sure they'd be allowed in though...)

It really depends on who, what, where, when, and why.
 
Federalist said:
The fact that you feel intimidated when you see your fellow Americans bearing arms doesn't negate their constitutional right to do so.
Click to expand...

I suppose people freely bearing arms could intimidate someone who is afraid of guns. Just like a guy walking around a reptile show with a python around his shoulders might intimidate someone who has an abnormal fear of snakes. The problem is not with the gun owner or the snake handler but of the coward who is fearful
 
I would say a certain degree of fear is appropriate when you encounter a gun - if you don't know how to use/carry one safely, even a gun abandoned on the ground poses a small degree of danger - you might accidentally shoot yourself.

Thankfully we have a plethora of movies to teach us about....wait nevermind. :lamo
 
TurtleDude said:
I suppose people freely bearing arms could intimidate someone who is afraid of guns. Just like a guy walking around a reptile show with a python around his shoulders might intimidate someone who has an abnormal fear of snakes. The problem is not with the gun owner or the snake handler but of the coward who is fearful
Click to expand...

Agreed. The hoplophobe can't take away his fellow Americans' right to bear arms simply because it makes him afraid.
 
Federalist said:
Agreed. The hoplophobe can't take away his fellow Americans' right to bear arms simply because it makes him afraid.
Click to expand...

a top firearms trainer (talking about an incompetent chief of police who was a big gun banner) noted that the anti gun chief of police had to get a waiver because he couldn't pass firearms qualifications. The chief was a gun banner because he assumed other citizens were as incompetent with guns as he was. Projection of incompetence is a big deal with gun banners.
 
TurtleDude said:
more passive aggressive nonsense from a gun banner. where you fail is that whether restrictions are reasonable or not turns on two factors

a) whose definition of reasonable

b) and the thing the gun haters always ignore-does the government unit have the necessary authority to impose "reasonable restrictions"

an honest answer as to the federal government is NO.
Click to expand...

You have the most difficult time with a middle ground position. You're the one being passive aggressive by failing to address what is actually argued.

a) I could define reasonable for you. But I think we both know that reasonable is based on what allows for the greatest safety with the least amount infringement.

b) Not ignored. The courts have consistently allowed for some restrictions, and have push the government back when they over step. This seems "reasonable."
 
I have often wondered how the federal government can create any legislation concerning firearms of the people ...since they are forbidden by the constitution from doing so.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The question's easy - there's many people out there who feel that they need a gun (or guns), usually for self-defense, but sometimes because they believe the government just might come knocking to confiscate their guns.

On the other hand, there's people out there (like myself) who simply don't want a gun, who doesn't have a need for one.

So who, really, is the one who's more afraid? The one who feels he needs a gun for self-defense, or the one who doesn't feel he needs a gun for self-defense?
Click to expand...

I might have accidently hit the wrong vote, anyway I think people that feel the need to have a gun for personal protection are more afraid of intrusion. I completely respect and believe in ones obligation to protect ones own family and property, but I have never felt the need to be armed until my fiance who is definitely fearful of intrusion prompted me to consider it for her sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom