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

haymarket said:

In all fairness Goshin, I suspect most people truly believe that their own personal concerns are indeed "reasonable and legitimate" and those of their enemies are not so.

So saying what you said really only justifies ones own view and brings comfort to their allies.

Click to expand...

How much of anyone's views are subjective, Haymarket? Quite a lot.

Ask a man who just got a promotion and a raise how the economy is doing, you're a lot more likely to get a positive answer than from the guy who just lost his job and can't find anything decent to replace it with... no?

How high of a priority does Joe Average put on SSM? Not so much. How high a priority does George Takei put on it? He is an activist in the push for it and clearly considers it one of the top priorities in the nation.


Similarly, you're going to get different views on what is legitimate and reasonable from different people, regarding guns or gun control, depending on their background, life experiences and etc.... whether we're talking about "reasonable restrictions" or "reasonable and legitimate concerns", vice-versa.

Someone from a restrictive state who mainly thinks of guns as things the police and criminals carry will have a different perspective than someone who grew up where guns are common. Someone whose only experience with guns was being victimized by an armed crook will see things differently than someone who STOPPED a criminal by showing or using a gun.

Obviously.




Objectively? while some people like to argue about it, there is little question that a lot of defensive gun use goes on... probably in the 100,000s per year, just based on government studies and lower-end estimates, vastly outnumbering murders, suicides and accidents combined.


But subjective opinions still tend to rule... and why not? A person who is unfamiliar with guns and who has never been a crime victim and thinks he lives in a safe neighborhood may see no need for armed citizens... and if he wishes to go unarmed I wish him well and will not trouble him over it.

Similarly, someone very familiar with firearms, who HAS been a crime victim or had someone close to them victimized by a criminal, or has stopped a criminal by being armed, is going to see things in a different light. If you try to tell him he doesn't need to carry a gun, he is going to look at you like you just told him he doesn't need a SEAT BELT... because from his experience the former is as SELF-EVIDENT to him as the latter is to most people who have been in a traffic accident.

Which is correct? Well some philosophers and quantum physicists would argue both are correct. :mrgreen:


Perhaps both are making the best decision they can based on THEIR experiences and world view for their OWN lives. Perhaps we should just let them do so... something called Liberty, which is held in high regard in the US, is that until you harm someone else or infringe on their rights you do mostly what you please, no?

And given that available statistics do NOT indicate that CCWers are statistically any significant threat to Joe Citizen (indeed, one could argue that you're more likely to be wrongfully shot by the police!), there is no reason to force them to give up their self-determination for the sake of those made uncomfortable by their liberty.


When you belittle people who carry due to concerns about crime and safety that THEIR LIFE EXPERIENCE tells them is valid and legitimate, by saying they are fearful and making decisions based on irrational emotion, you're saying that YOUR worldview is superior and correct and theirs is invalid and wrong... something that is usually frowned on in our society when the topic is something other than guns.


At least allow the other side the benefit of assuming their sincerity about their motives... its only polite.

TurtleDude said:

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.

Click to expand...

He chose not to engage me on the issue.

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...

See my post above.

Boo Radley said:

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."

Click to expand...

the issue is-was the federal government PROPERLY delegated the power to regulate such things and if so, to what extent before such regulation violates the 2A

the true answer is no-the federal government was not given such power. rather FDR and his minions though it should have been and rather than doing the honest thing, they just blatantly ignored the constitution and made the power up

and you have been in favor of clearly unreasonable restrictions like idiotic magazine bans. there is no objective evidence that at some point a certain number of rounds become "unusually dangerous" or that banning a number above a set figure will increase public safety

so your view of what is reasonable is rejected.

Lursa said:

He chose not to engage me on the issue.

Click to expand...

that happens a fair amount my dear:mrgreen:

TurtleDude said:

the issue is-was the federal government PROPERLY delegated the power to regulate such things and if so, to what extent before such regulation violates the 2Ap

the true answer is no-the federal government was not given such power. rather FDR and his minions though it should have been and rather than doing the honest thing, they just blatantly ignored the constitution and made the power up

and you have been in favor of clearly unreasonable restrictions like idiotic magazine bans. there is no objective evidence that at some point a certain number of rounds become "unusually dangerous" or that banning a number above a set figure will increase public safety

so your view of what is reasonable is rejected.

Click to expand...

Nothing is absolute and this issue was settled long ago. Government can regulate. The only question is how much. And yes, I do not think there is any safety issue with magazine limits. But we've gone over that. Here, let's focus on what we're actually discussing.

1) Weapons are different than car alarms.

2) no one is ever going to ban all weapons.

The world us different today, for better if worse. That's just the reality.

Lursa said:

He chose not to engage me on the issue.

Click to expand...

If you wish to start a new issue with me, feel free. But when you leap into other conversations, it's helpful if you stay to that subject.

And TD, I've never stopped talking to you.

CRUE CAB said:

We all pass judgment. It part of being human.

Click to expand...

The left is nothing if not nay-sayers of using good judgment.

Boo Radley said:

Nothing is absolute and this issue was settled long ago. Government can regulate. The only question is how much. And yes, I do not think there is any safety issue with magazine limits. But we've gone over that. Here, let's focus on what we're actually discussing.

1) Weapons are different than car alarms.

2) no one is ever going to ban all weapons.

The world us different today, for better if worse. That's just the reality.

Click to expand...

I am not asking you to discuss the dishonesty of the FDR administration. I want you to tell me if you believe that action by FDR was proper and constitutional.

of course no one is going to ban all weapons. but the left is doing what it can to get rid of pro gun groups who contribute a lot of money to the GOP. a complete gun ban is not needed to kill sport shooting and hunting and self defensive gun use

what are you saying by you don't think there are any safety issues with magazine limits

are you saying that public safety is not advanced with such limits or potential crime victims' safety is not decreased with magazine limits.

the first position is sound, the second position is uber-moronic

TurtleDude said:

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.

Click to expand...

Never claimed you might need seven rounds. I merely avoid absolutes. I asked you to show someone verifiably NEEDED seven rounds. You never did. And you silly when you try.

Boo Radley said:

Never claimed you might need seven rounds. I merely avoid absolutes. I asked you to show someone verifiably NEEDED seven rounds. You never did. And you silly when you try.

Click to expand...

actually you got destroyed. I showed several shooting cases where more than 7 rounds were needed

you conceded there is absolutely no deleterious impact in citizens having 15 or 20 shot magazines and given no downside, it only makes sense to have more rounds than needed to solve a problem then less

your recollection of what happened is dishonest or faulty

if there is no downside to me doing something and there is even a very slight chance of a benefit in me doing something, common sense dictates doing that thing is the smart choice

ernst barkmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

sadly FDR and his lapdog justices and minions in congress believed that federal regulation was a good thing and that "good thing" was more important than following the constitution.

TurtleDude said:

actually you got destroyed. I showed several shooting cases where more than 7 rounds were needed

you conceded there is absolutely no deleterious impact in citizens having 15 or 20 shot magazines and given no downside, it only makes sense to have more rounds than needed to solve a problem then less

your recollection of what happened is dishonest or faulty

if there is no downside to me doing something and there is even a very slight chance of a benefit in me doing something, common sense dictates doing that thing is the smart choice

Click to expand...

Why not approach this from the angle of okay let's assume 7 rounds/mag are adequate, how many mags am I allowed to have in my possession?

AlabamaPaul said:

Why not approach this from the angle of okay let's assume 7 rounds/mag are adequate, how many mags am I allowed to have in my possession?

Click to expand...

that's really stupid. I am a pretty good steel shooter, I see hard core shooters vying for 20 dollar prizes bobble reloads all the time. do you want to have to reload while someone is shooting at you or you have been wounded?

why do you even entertain the validity of such a moronic law

I want that asshole Cuomo's guards to be limited to 7 shots

AlabamaPaul said:

Why not approach this from the angle of okay let's assume 7 rounds/mag are adequate, how many mags am I allowed to have in my possession?

Click to expand...

IMO the proper amount of ammo per mag is the maximum possible within whatever paramaters exist, which include the size of both weapon and ammo, along with how rapidly you want to reload and how many rounds you want to fire before reloading.

For example you COULD build a drum mag of some sort to feed rounds to a semi-auto pistol (or even a full-auto pistol), but any advantage having 50-100+ rounds available might convey is offset by how ridiculously unwieldy the resulting amalgamation would be.

There's a reason LMG's (I think) and definitely heavier weapons are carried/serviced by a team, in the military.

TurtleDude said:

that's really stupid. I am a pretty good steel shooter, I see hard core shooters vying for 20 dollar prizes bobble reloads all the time. do you want to have to reload while someone is shooting at you or you have been wounded?

why do you even entertain the validity of such a moronic law

I want that asshole Cuomo's guards to be limited to 7 shots

Click to expand...

Slow down Kimosabe, it was a suggestion to see just how far the advocates of magazine restrictions want to go. It might help in your arguments...

TurtleDude said:

I am not asking you to discuss the dishonesty of the FDR administration. I want you to tell me if you believe that action by FDR was proper and constitutional.

of course no one is going to ban all weapons. but the left is doing what it can to get rid of pro gun groups who contribute a lot of money to the GOP. a complete gun ban is not needed to kill sport shooting and hunting and self defensive gun use

what are you saying by you don't think there are any safety issues with magazine limits

are you saying that public safety is not advanced with such limits or potential crime victims' safety is not decreased with magazine limits.

the first position is sound, the second position is uber-moronic

Click to expand...

Pro gun groups contribute to both parties. You should no that.

In a very narrow way, public safety is improved, or likely improved by having to mass killer have to reload sooner. But it's a very narrow group that it would affect. It doesn't worry me at all to be limited if there was a change of decreasing the kill power of these guys. And I do not believe my safety is at all affected.

Im not not sure what you want from concerning FDR. Didn't his efforts hold up? And didn't it help with the gun violence of the 30's?

TurtleDude said:

actually you got destroyed. I showed several shooting cases where more than 7 rounds were needed

you conceded there is absolutely no deleterious impact in citizens having 15 or 20 shot magazines and given no downside, it only makes sense to have more rounds than needed to solve a problem then less

your recollection of what happened is dishonest or faulty

if there is no downside to me doing something and there is even a very slight chance of a benefit in me doing something, common sense dictates doing that thing is the smart choice

Click to expand...

No, go, you showed used, not needed. I showed you were people tend to empty whatever they have, but that's not need.

For or most, see my answer above, there is no real effect. There's also no real harm.

And nd no, my recollection is fine. And you guys throw around the word dishonesty too much. I've come to believe it's a tactic to avoid actual discourse.

TurtleDude said:

actually you got destroyed. I showed several shooting cases where more than 7 rounds were needed

you conceded there is absolutely no deleterious impact in citizens having 15 or 20 shot magazines and given no downside, it only makes sense to have more rounds than needed to solve a problem then less

your recollection of what happened is dishonest or faulty

if there is no downside to me doing something and there is even a very slight chance of a benefit in me doing something, common sense dictates doing that thing is the smart choice

Click to expand...

well if the USSC had not opened its big mouth and applied the bill of right to states....we would not bee[buzz] having this problem

AlabamaPaul said:

Slow down Kimosabe, it was a suggestion to see just how far the advocates of magazine restrictions want to go. It might help in your arguments...

Click to expand...

nope it doesn't. I am aware of this argument-its stupid. if a killer actually could not find normal capacity magazines (a normal capacity magazine is the magazine normally issued with the weapon-for example 17 rounds for a Glock 17, 30 rounds for an AR 15) for his weapon, the normal response is a New York Reload

ernst barkmann said:

well if the USSC had not opened its big mouth and applied the bill of right to states....we would have bee having this problem

Click to expand...

that's a good point

on the federal level we have this

1) NO delegation of authority to the Federal government to regulate small arms

2) AND a direct and pretty adamant prohibition on such activity

versus state power

where we have

1) the tenth amendment

2) 200+years on restrictions based on place and use

3) limited only by the state constitution in question

Now with McDonald and the application of the 14th amendment (and while I note that the 2A was not intended to limit state action, once the courts incorporated other BoR provisions the 2A had to be included, we have a direct conflict between power the states obviously once had vs the 2A

If FDR had not screwed things up, this never would have happened

TurtleDude said:

nope it doesn't. I am aware of this argument-its stupid. if a killer actually could not find normal capacity magazines (a normal capacity magazine is the magazine normally issued with the weapon-for example 17 rounds for a Glock 17, 30 rounds for an AR 15) for his weapon, the normal response is a New York Reload

Click to expand...

In most instances here, you're not debating a rational person, so you have to lead them to the water...

AlabamaPaul said:

In most instances here, you're not debating a rational person, so you have to lead them to the water...

Click to expand...

anyone who supports magazine limits is not rational

TurtleDude said:

anyone who supports magazine limits is not rational

Click to expand...

Glad you understand...

TurtleDude said:

anyone who supports magazine limits is not rational

Click to expand...

I would support "magazine limits" only if the limits were in place to prevent the manufacture of unsafe (as in, likely to kill the operator) equipment.

More along the lines of quality assurance than anything.

Of course, potential lawsuits prevent such things already, I would think.