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

haymarket · May 12, 2014

TurtleDude said:
nope-you have labeled lots of pro gun posters as extremist in the past. I find their positions to be main stream and middle of the road

earlier today in a different thread someone had the post of the week commenting on the growing trend of far right extreme positions pretending to be mainstream. I commented that such intentional delusion approaches dissociative disorder. When one does not even know where their extremism places them in relation to their fellow Americans due to their own ideological blindness - they really have a problem.

One cannot attack the 80 to 90% of Americans who disagree with them on a gun control issue and then pretend that their position is "mainstream". The math and reality simply works against them.

TurtleDude · May 12, 2014

haymarket said:
earlier today in a different thread someone had the post of the week commenting on the growing trend of far right extreme positions pretending to be mainstream. I commented that such intentional delusion approaches dissociative disorder. When one does not even know where their extremism places them in relation to their fellow Americans due to their own ideological blindness - they really have a problem.

One cannot attack the 80 to 90% of Americans who disagree with them on a gun control issue and then pretend that their position is "mainstream". The math and reality simply works against them.

at one time most of america was against gay marriage. were those who supported gay marriage "extremist"? your 80-90% figure is a joke BTW

Goshin · May 12, 2014

haymarket said:
He cetainly is a fervent supporter of the gun lobby position on this board. If you find much of his material over the line that tells me you have a great deal of common sense.

Well thank you I certainly hope so.

Here's the thing... most of the strongly pro-gun advocates on DP are more passionate and more... erm... zealous about it all than Joe Average Gunowner, to be sure... and yet I think you'd find that 80% or more of the pro-gunners on DP, even, think most of what That Guy I Won't Name says is somewhere way off in... well, it would be best if I left that incomplete. I'm sure you get my drift.

But trying to take something he said and make into a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy or strategy... well that doesn't reflect well on you either, tbh.

Lursa · May 12, 2014

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.

Really? Ever read the famous FBI gun fight file?

There are definitely examples of where more rounds would likely have helped.

But all I have to see is report after report of cops missing every shot in gun fight (and the attackers) to know that I should have every advantage in a gun fight if I ever need it and no one else's imagined fears should prevent it.

Two easily imaginable scenarios that apply to my lifestyle.

--Multiple home invaders....how much good is a shotgun going to do me? Home invasions typically involved at least 2-3 attackers. I have 18 rounds in my 9mm at home.

--I am confronted in a isolated parking garage/lot by multiple attackers. Also very common. 18 shots seems reasonable to me if there are 3 of them and all of us are moving and attempting to seek cover.

I train to shoot and move but I am not going to kid myself and think I'm going to *get instantly disabling shots into multiple attackers.* I know the realities that a few shots my kill *eventually* but not STOP someone from continuing to shoot at me.

If you disagree I'll completely disbelieve you were ever in the military. Not that you care, but your credibility would go out the window.

The guns and magazines are out there.....take them away from the rest of us....they only go up in value for the criminals and the losers who spend their last weeks or months planning to shoot strangers in malls or schools. The equipment doesnt go away, nor the motivation.

So the rest of us deserve the ability to protect ourselves.

Boo Radley · May 12, 2014

Lursa said:
Really? Ever read the famous FBI gun fight file?

There are definitely examples of where more rounds would likely have helped.

But all I have to see is report after report of cops missing every shot in gun fight (and the attackers) to know that I should have every advantage in a gun fight if I ever need it and no one else's imagined fears should prevent it.

Two easily imaginable scenarios that apply to my lifestyle.

--Multiple home invaders....how much good is a shotgun going to do me? Home invasions typically involved at least 2-3 attackers. I have 18 rounds in my 9mm at home.

--I am confronted in a isolated parking garage/lot by multiple attackers. Also very common. 18 shots seems reasonable to me if there are 3 of them and all of us are moving and attempting to seek cover.

I train to shoot and move but I am not going to kid myself and think I'm going to *get instantly disabling shots into multiple attackers.* I know the realities that a few shots my kill *eventually* but not STOP someone from continuing to shoot at me.

If you disagree I'll completely disbelieve you were ever in the military. Not that you care, but your credibility would go out the window.

The guns and magazines are out there.....take them away from the rest of us....they only go up in value for the criminals and the losers who spend their last weeks or months planning to shoot strangers in malls or schools. The equipment doesnt go away, nor the motivation.

So the rest of us deserve the ability to protect ourselves.

You're likely to miss no matter how many rounds you have. It happens with adrenaline often. But, I haven't seen much fir stand toe to tie gun fights. These things are usually quick, and just meeting resistance is enough to win the day. This is not a war zone.

But, if you have that FBI file, link it. I'll look it over.

Lursa · May 12, 2014

haymarket said:
the fault of those who are engaged in intentional intimidation.

If I open carried around my town, I would be intentionally intimidating people? That would be my reason for openly carrying my firearm?

Never got an answer to this either:

Lursa said:
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?

TurtleDude · May 12, 2014

Lursa said:
Really? Ever read the famous FBI gun fight file?

There are definitely examples of where more rounds would likely have helped.

But all I have to see is report after report of cops missing every shot in gun fight (and the attackers) to know that I should have every advantage in a gun fight if I ever need it and no one else's imagined fears should prevent it.

Two easily imaginable scenarios that apply to my lifestyle.

--Multiple home invaders....how much good is a shotgun going to do me? Home invasions typically involved at least 2-3 attackers. I have 18 rounds in my 9mm at home.

--I am confronted in a isolated parking garage/lot by multiple attackers. Also very common. 18 shots seems reasonable to me if there are 3 of them and all of us are moving and attempting to seek cover.

I train to shoot and move but I am not going to kid myself and think I'm going to *get instantly disabling shots into multiple attackers.* I know the realities that a few shots my kill *eventually* but not STOP someone from continuing to shoot at me.

If you disagree I'll completely disbelieve you were ever in the military. Not that you care, but your credibility would go out the window.

The guns and magazines are out there.....take them away from the rest of us....they only go up in value for the criminals and the losers who spend their last weeks or months planning to shoot strangers in malls or schools. The equipment doesnt go away, nor the motivation.

So the rest of us deserve the ability to protect ourselves.

and if you (and I suspect you do-this is for those who continually prove they don't understand the issue) know anything about gun fights you will know that pistol rounds-even with a good center of mass hit on an attacker who is not wearing body armor (which has become more common) is less than 60% meaning if you are confronted with 2 attackers and your accuracy is 75% you are still going to need several rounds to guarantee both attackers stop their attacks. And if you are behind cover trading rounds with competent criminals, you aren't going to have an entire body to shoot at.

Only someone who has

1) never been in a gun fight

2) never studied civilian shooting cases

3) or is dishonest about his or her motives

could claim that 7 is a sufficient number of rounds

now there might be reasons that you carry less in your gun

I often carry a five shot revolver and my wife carries one of those little SIG 380s because they are convenient and easy to hide. but at home we have 17 shot Glocks (a 19 with a G17 Mag) 10 shot shotguns and 30 round M4 carbines because concealment is not a requirement.

there is never a downside to having more ammo than you needed to solve a problem

there is often a terminal downside to not having enough

cpwill · May 12, 2014

Cephus said:
It's also not necessarily about wanting to protect yourself either. My sister and her husband are into collecting guns and competitive shooting and that kind of thing. I don't have any interest in it but they do. Zero fear involved. It's the people who feel the need to put a gun under their pillow because they're afraid someone is going to break in that we need to worry about.

:shrug: I used to sleep sort of like that (it was by my mattress within arms reach) because I lived in the sort of neighborhood where A) that sort of thing happened and B) we were the only white kids who obviously weren't poor, making us seemingly easy targets.

Poll misses a point - preparedness is wise. Asking if you have a gun because you are afraid and if therefore people who don't have guns are less fearful is like asking if having a defense department means you are afraid, and if therefore people who are defenseless (say, for example, civilians caught in the middle of Syria's civil war) are less fearful.

How about this: who is less afraid? A woman watching a violent man break down her door who is praying that it takes him longer than the half hour or so that it will take the police to get there? Or a woman watching a violent man break down her door who is armed with a shotgun in case the cops don't make it.

Lursa · May 12, 2014

haymarket said:
There is no constitutional right to openly carry and intimidate your fellow Americans. I fully realize that your side knows they are a minority and knows they cannot win through sheer majority numbers so this is the strategy they have adopted. It is disgusting. It is unAmerican. And it is no better than terrorism.

Even more appropriate here. You dont seem to be able to grasp any view outside your own OR provide any reasons why your view is even reasonable. ALso silly in light of the fact that you do know a great number of people are carrying their firearms concealed and that does not intimidate you. I dont really get that.

Lursa said:
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?

Lursa · May 12, 2014

TurtleDude said:
but that assumes that people bearing guns are trying to intimidate those who are cowardly and afraid of armed citizens.

I reject your suggestion that merely bearing arms is designed to intimidate honest people.

Lursa said:
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?

My impression is that he believes that anyone who carries a gun...openly, and perhaps concealed...is doing so mostly out of ego, to prove something (to themselves or others). Again...an extremely limited view....one that supports his discomfort and not much else. I've seen no support anyway.

Goshin · May 12, 2014

Lursa said:
My i

My impression is that he believes that anyone who carries a gun...openly, and perhaps concealed...is doing so mostly out of ego, to prove something (to themselves or others). Again...an extremely limited view....one that supports his discomfort and not much else. I've seen no support anyway.

Yeah, I've tried to address this misperception among many of those on the anti side... but it seems rather pointless most of the time. They simply don't wish to believe that we're acting from rational motivations, for some reason.

Master PO · May 12, 2014

please turn in your firearms please...they are making me very afraid!:roll:

cpwill · May 13, 2014

TurtleDude said:
and if you (and I suspect you do-this is for those who continually prove they don't understand the issue) know anything about gun fights you will know that pistol rounds-even with a good center of mass hit on an attacker who is not wearing body armor (which has become more common) is less than 60% meaning if you are confronted with 2 attackers and your accuracy is 75% you are still going to need several rounds to guarantee both attackers stop their attacks. And if you are behind cover trading rounds with competent criminals, you aren't going to have an entire body to shoot at.

Only someone who has

1) never been in a gun fight

2) never studied civilian shooting cases

3) or is dishonest about his or her motives

could claim that 7 is a sufficient number of rounds

now there might be reasons that you carry less in your gun

I often carry a five shot revolver and my wife carries one of those little SIG 380s because they are convenient and easy to hide. but at home we have 17 shot Glocks (a 19 with a G17 Mag) 10 shot shotguns and 30 round M4 carbines because concealment is not a requirement.

there is never a downside to having more ammo than you needed to solve a problem

there is often a terminal downside to not having enough

I had a gunny once who had been pretty much everywhere and done pretty much every thing. From being one of the guys on the pilot rescue in Bosnia to standing up FAST to combat tour after combat tour after combat tour. He ran pretty slick (didn't carry much gear) on him except for this: he had a c-mag. That stood out, and I asked him one time about the discrepancy. "Son", he replied "let me tell you something." "Anyone worth shooting at, is worth shooting many times."

That always stuck with me.

Jerry · May 13, 2014

Boo Radley said:
You're likely to miss no matter how many rounds you have. It happens with adrenaline often. But, I haven't seen much fir stand toe to tie gun fights. These things are usually quick, and just meeting resistance is enough to win the day. This is not a war zone.

But, if you have that FBI file, link it. I'll look it over.

View attachment 67166374

Who is Joe D. Davis?

Cephus · May 13, 2014

cpwill said:
:shrug: I used to sleep sort of like that (it was by my mattress within arms reach) because I lived in the sort of neighborhood where A) that sort of thing happened and B) we were the only white kids who obviously weren't poor, making us seemingly easy targets.

If you weren't poor, why the hell did you live in that neighborhood? Why not move somewhere safer?

Poll misses a point - preparedness is wise. Asking if you have a gun because you are afraid and if therefore people who don't have guns are less fearful is like asking if having a defense department means you are afraid, and if therefore people who are defenseless (say, for example, civilians caught in the middle of Syria's civil war) are less fearful.

There's nothing wrong with being prepared but it's much better to live somewhere that you don't have to be prepared for imminent violence. If chronic violence isn't a problem, you don't need to have a gun close at hand, do you?

Federalist · May 13, 2014

haymarket said:
There is no constitutional right to openly carry and intimidate your fellow Americans. I fully realize that your side knows they are a minority and knows they cannot win through sheer majority numbers so this is the strategy they have adopted. It is disgusting. It is unAmerican. And it is no better than terrorism.

Sorry. We have a right to bear arms. Open carry is bearing arms.

Clearly, if someone is threatening you with violence, you have a case, but if they are just going about their business while armed, you are overreacting.

Jerry · May 13, 2014

haymarket said:
There is no constitutional right to openly carry and intimidate your fellow Americans. I fully realize that your side knows they are a minority and knows they cannot win through sheer majority numbers so this is the strategy they have adopted. It is disgusting. It is unAmerican. And it is no better than terrorism.

That grandma sure is terrifying.

haymarket · May 13, 2014

TurtleDude said:
at one time most of america was against gay marriage. were those who supported gay marriage "extremist"? your 80-90% figure is a joke BTW

The figure has been well established and here is ample verifiable evidence of it

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/

• Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 11-14, 2013: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 86 percent. Oppose: 13 percent.

• CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7, 2013: "Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances. ... If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show." Favor: 83 percent. Oppose: 17 percent.

"Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for anyone who wants to buy ammunition for a gun." Favor: 55 percent. Oppose: 44 percent.

• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

• CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. "Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

When 80 to 90% of those Americans polled support background checks and you loathe and oppose them, it is their view which is mainstream - not yours.

This issue is not gay marriage.

cpwill · May 13, 2014

Cephus said:
If you weren't poor, why the hell did you live in that neighborhood? Why not move somewhere safer?

It was a temporary move after college.

There's nothing wrong with being prepared but it's much better to live somewhere that you don't have to be prepared for imminent violence. If chronic violence isn't a problem, you don't need to have a gun close at hand, do you?

:raises eyebrow: Sure. And since car crashes happen so rarely, there's no need to wear a seatbelt, either. Death and chronic disease strike such a small portion of the population in any given year, why buy insurance?

AJiveMan · May 13, 2014

haymarket said:
The figure has been well established and here is ample verifiable evidence of it

Gabby Giffords says Americans "overwhelmingly" support expanding background checks | PolitiFact

When 80 to 90% of those Americans polled support background checks and you loathe and oppose them, it is their view which is mainstream - not yours.

This issue is not gay marriage.

Add to that the myths propagated that 1/2 to 1 million lives are saved by legal gun owners is in itself a lie.

haymarket · May 13, 2014

Lursa said:
If I open carried around my town, I would be intentionally intimidating people? That would be my reason for openly carrying my firearm?

Never got an answer to this either:

For three years I worked in the state capital as chief of staff for a state legislator. A few times each year, well organized armed groups of heavily armed men come to the capital to lobby. When they do so, school groups of children flee the capital on the spot as terrified people are simply disturbed by the appearance of them. Others were called in transit and turned around and went back aborting the education experience that was planned - in some cases for the better part of a year. So the public has been harmed.

I have repeatedly brought up the idea of armed men hostile to a speaker or viewpoint at public meetings that would have an obvious chilling effect upon the citizenry and their representatives. One gun advocate here openly admitted and welcomed such a chilling intimidation of others rights.

joG · May 13, 2014

cpwill said:
It was a temporary move after college.

In London I lived in what was then considered a slum and enjoyed it.

haymarket · May 13, 2014

Goshin said:
Well thank you I certainly hope so.

Here's the thing... most of the strongly pro-gun advocates on DP are more passionate and more... erm... zealous about it all than Joe Average Gunowner, to be sure... and yet I think you'd find that 80% or more of the pro-gunners on DP, even, think most of what That Guy I Won't Name says is somewhere way off in... well, it would be best if I left that incomplete. I'm sure you get my drift.

But trying to take something he said and make into a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy or strategy... well that doesn't reflect well on you either, tbh.

there is common ground upon which we agree Goshin. And I will not allow those views to frame the argument for all - although they are clearly out there and do exist and must be considered.

I respect your common sense Goshin - so I would appreciate it if you could give me an answer regarding the Norman Rockwell Freedom of Speech painting I have brought up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Speech_(painting)

Would it not have a chilling effect upon the citizens ability to exercise their right of free speech in a public forum if you add to the painting a few scowling heavily armed men who are obviously not happy with what the speaker is saying instead of the faces we do see in that town hall meeting?

That is NOT the America I want to live in nor do I think others do. I have seen with my own two eyes the effect forty or fifty armed men had on the Michigan state capital when they came to lobby all dressed in camo and heavily armed. School groups fled and children were denied their educational experience just so a bunch of grown men could play GI Joe and get off on the effect they were causing.

America is about a careful and considerate balancing of rights. The old saw about your right to swing your arms ends at the face of another comes to mind. You want to keep and bear arms? Fine with me. Get a CCW and bear all you want within the law and keep it concealed.

Jerry · May 13, 2014

haymarket said:
For three years I worked in the state capital as chief of staff for a state legislator. A few times each year, well organized armed groups of heavily armed men come to the capital to lobby. When they do so, school groups of children flee the capital on the spot as terrified people are simply disturbed by the appearance of them. Others were called in transit and turned around and went back aborting the education experience that was planned - in some cases for the better part of a year. So the public has been harmed.

I have repeatedly brought up the idea of armed men hostile to a speaker or viewpoint at public meetings that would have an obvious chilling effect upon the citizenry and their representatives. One gun advocate here openly admitted and welcomed such a chilling intimidation of others rights.

Oh the horror!

Jerry · May 13, 2014

haymarket said:
That is NOT the America I want to live in....

Open a Chip-In and I won't be the only one donating to buy you a seat next to Piers Morgan.

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.

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

More options

haymarket

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Lursa

Tenacious

Boo Radley

Lursa

Tenacious

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

cpwill

Lursa

Tenacious

Lursa

Tenacious

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

cpwill

Jerry

Cephus

Federalist

Jerry

haymarket

cpwill

AJiveMan

Paying To Play

haymarket

joG

haymarket

Jerry

Jerry