Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 233

5864 posts

Flag Post

Jhco,
bq. I would like to answer both of these posts at once. Self defense should be one of the most important things for gun ownership. Why should a person give up his life, or his family’s lives because your government doesn’t deem you lives as important enough to defend? I find this odd that you are left defenseless and at the mercy of the criminal element.

I quite agree. I believe the governments angle is that the police are more then capable, and that one should defer to them entirely in matters of home/property defense. I am not quite so convinced, obviously. Technically one is still allowed to use reasonable force in the case that ones life is threatened. But it is typically something fought over legally time and time again. In the case of property defense, it is not allowed, which I find innane.

Ung, I thought Canada did away with their draconian laws about gun ownership and self defense. Last I heard they did away with their registration scheme because of the cost and public condemnation. Do you ever shoot grandpa’s old rifle? You should, grandpa would be honored.

The gun ownership laws are still quite limited. There are three tiers with different rule sets. Long arms are fairly open, requiring permits for possession, storage, and transportation. Handguns are technically legal, but personal storage is quite difficult to get, and carrying license is all but impossible. Automatics and such are illegal, perhaps outside of certain collectors. The registration program was also partly balking as it was held to be retroactive. I know neither of my grandparents ever bothered, feeling it was a waste of their time and money. When they passed and came into the family the attempt to process and rectify things legitimately was a massive and ridiculous hassle that we generally regret. A great deal of the vintage rifles which most of the family had no interest in were surrendered to the authorities who summarily destroyed them. I myself have taken a few group shooting classes, never with the rifle in question; I’d have to file a permit to remove it to the household, to a vehicle (which I don’t have, and I can’t imagine they’d let me get away with having it public transit or just walking down the street.), to the shooting range and back again. It’s something I mean to do ‘one of these days’ that just hasn’t quite come around yet.

Ultimately I am not against the idea of registration (it was the fee attached which balked many.) or of planned transportation and lack of carry. But I find the restrictions upon home possession and use irksome. I am far more comfortable empowering my personal options then being forced to defer to the timely intervention of others. Boyscout rules.

Johnny,

The chances of coming into a situation where a gun is necessary for self defense are close to zero for the average person.

I’ve personally drawn a knife I carry for the purposes of defending myself about a half a dozen times. I suppose, ultimately, it was not necessary as I have never had to use it. Nevertheless, I would have much preferred to have overwhelming force then an edge. Not that I disagree with the rest of your post, but I have trouble believing that the average person is never involved or nearly involved in a violent crime. How that should effect gun control is of course another issue.

 
Flag Post

Well, if you plan ahead Ung, you don’t have to resort to firearms to secure your property. All manner of passive defense systems can quite easily come into play. As well as a few more…creative ones.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
As well as a few more…creative ones.

A sign saying exactly why people shouldn’t fuck with you house?

 
Flag Post

I was thinking more along the lines of kiln-dried trellis coated with waterproof pond-sealant paint, placed so as to provide easy access to the upper floor. At least until you try to put weight on it. Then it snaps very loudly, and drops you nine feet to the rubberised concrete path below. A sign may be simpler, but injury makes the point to the would-be burgler in a much more direct manner.

Easy to replace the trellis, too.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Setting out year-round food bins to attract deer so asshole city dudes can shoot them from a heated (w/ bar, etc.) blind only causes me to want to “hunt” THEM…sniper wise.

There used to be a service called Live-Shot, which ran in 2004-2005 before being forcibly closed down, that went one stage worse than that. It allowed remote control of the rifles in the dug-out, via computer mouse across the internet, wherever you happened to be. Pay to play, shoot real rounds at deer from the comfort of your own home, and they ship the meat to you.

Now this is coward and psychopathic.
What’s the joy of killing for killing.
What joy will you get in eating that meat for which you have not worked hard?

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by jhco50:

I would like to answer both of these posts at once. Self defense should be one of the most important things for gun ownership. Why should a person give up his life, or his family’s lives because your government doesn’t deem you lives as important enough to defend? I find this odd that you are left defenseless and at the mercy of the criminal element.

The reply to each of those sentences is: But that is not the case. The chances of coming into a situation where a gun is necessary for self defense are close to zero for the average person. And as the statistics show, wide spread gun ownership and lax gun control laws(or uncontrolled boarders to places with lax gun control laws) actually increases the number of cases where a person has to give up his life or his family´s lives to attacks from criminal elements.
In burglary cases the money spent on guns for home defense would be better spent on building modifications to make the building more secure.
The reality is that both recreational and criminal use are more than 100 times more likely than use in self defense(with recreational use again being more likely than criminal use).

Don’t you think people have to get out of their homes from time to time?
and average person does get in trouble more often than you think.
Also are you saying that a gun purchased by me for self defence should not be used for recreationary shooting?
Thats like saying a knife bought for self defence should not be used for skining a lamb.

 
Flag Post

Wow…I hope punisher is actually attempting to be inanely sarcastic here.
Otherwise, MY rejoinder is gonna seem a whooole lot more hostile than a mere mocking of his silliness here.

Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Don’t you think people have to get out of their homes from time to time?

Nah…haven’t ya ever heard of “home-bound”?
I hear it’s sweeping the nation…extreeeeemely popular now.

and average person does get in trouble more often than you think.
Please…OH PLEASE mystical sage,,,tell us more about this “average person” and how they get into WHAT KIND of “trouble” and just HOW OFTEN such happens that one would think.

Esp. touch on those “troubles” where having a gun in hand is of a real benefit//advantage?
AND, I’m NOT talking about coming upon a hard walnut to crack open. AND, please include the many incidents where some fool HAVING A GUN (legal permit to carry) makes inappropriate (illegal) use of it when “trouble” arrises….whether his doing or otherwise.

Also are you saying that a gun purchased by me for self defence should not be used for recreationary {recreational} shooting?

OF COURSE HE IS.
A tool for every purpose….a purpose for every tool.
Only a tool of a fool doesn’t know this.

Thats like saying a knife bought for self defence should not be used for skining a lamb.

Shit, dood…it’s YOUR knife. Play with it as ya see fit. Hell, even run with it. Whittle a while with it. Hone it, bone w/ it, roam w/ it. Do all manner of knifey things. Throw it, juggle it (and a chainsaw and ball-0-concertina wire for real fun), smuggle it into unusual places, snuggle it on cold winter nights.

I suggest the full Rambo. Just telling a “bad guy” that ya have one will cause them to run off so fast that they leave their ball sack behind….I guess as a parting jesture of AWE.

BUT, if ya’re gonna use a knife for self-defense….
ya just gotta go Crocodile Dundee on their asses.
The women will want you and the men will want to be you….guarateed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:Please…OH PLEASE mystical sage,,,tell us more about this “average person” and how they get into WHAT KIND of “trouble” and just HOW OFTEN such happens that one would think.

Esp. touch on those “troubles” where having a gun in hand is of a real benefit//advantage?
AND, I’m NOT talking about coming upon a hard walnut to crack open. AND, please include the many incidents where some fool HAVING A GUN (legal permit to carry) makes inappropriate (illegal) use of it when “trouble” arrises….whether his doing or otherwise.

Also are you saying that a gun purchased by me for self defence should not be used for recreationary {recreational} shooting?

OF COURSE HE IS.
A tool for every purpose….a purpose for every tool.

Let me elaborate for him.I have had to present a firearm three times, four if you count the bear on the camping trip that turned out to be a dog in the middle of nowhere.

The first time was when I felt someone watching my wife and I, actually he was watching my wife but I could feel him there. He was standing beside our picture window and didn’t see me. I saw him back away and ease his way to the door. Imagine his surprise when I met him at the door with a sidearm. He stammered a bit and took off. I wonder what could have happened if I didn’t have the upper hand?

The second time was in the same house. It was about 3 in the morning and I heard a know at the door. Again, I presented the same handgun. This time the guy seemed inebriated and after a brief silence he ask me how to get downtown. I let him go, but again I held the upper hand.

The third was when a fella was choking the neighbor in the street after I approached him speeding up and down the street with my daughter in the way on her bike. I told him to slow down and he got mouthy so I turned to call the sheriff. He followed me and the neighbor intercepted him. I saw what was happening and grabbed my revolver, stepped out on the porch and fired a warning shot. He stopped to look at me and I aimed at him and told him to leave in no uncertain terms. He mouthed off a bit and when he saw I wasn’t kidding he hightailed it. This was the only time I have experienced what is called tunnel vision.

All three times I held the upper hand and because of this the situation was diffused with out someone actually getting hurt. The point is, the deciding factor was a firearm.

Can I use your last statement to get another firearm? You know, a gun in a different caliber for a different purpose? Maybe not, I think I have used that excuse before. :(

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by jhco50:

I would like to answer both of these posts at once. Self defense should be one of the most important things for gun ownership. Why should a person give up his life, or his family’s lives because your government doesn’t deem you lives as important enough to defend? I find this odd that you are left defenseless and at the mercy of the criminal element.

The reply to each of those sentences is: But that is not the case. The chances of coming into a situation where a gun is necessary for self defense are close to zero for the average person. And as the statistics show, wide spread gun ownership and lax gun control laws(or uncontrolled boarders to places with lax gun control laws) actually increases the number of cases where a person has to give up his life or his family´s lives to attacks from criminal elements.
In burglary cases the money spent on guns for home defense would be better spent on building modifications to make the building more secure.
The reality is that both recreational and criminal use are more than 100 times more likely than use in self defense(with recreational use again being more likely than criminal use).

Don’t you think people have to get out of their homes from time to time?
and average person does get in trouble more often than you think.
Also are you saying that a gun purchased by me for self defence should not be used for recreationary shooting?
Thats like saying a knife bought for self defence should not be used for skining a lamb.

1. Yes i do think people have to get out of their homes from time to time, thats why i said in burglary cases. Which is the primary scenario besides being held up by a though on the street that has been presented here.
2. No the average Person does not get in to trouble where he needs and could use a gun for self defense more often than i think.
3. No i am saying that if you do not belong to a group with a significant cause for being a higher crime target, then your statistically not going to use a gun in justified self defense, because your never gonna get a chance. So if you think your buying a gun for self-defense then your wrong and its truly because it helps you sooth your paranoia.

Especially since the chances of you or your family being hurt by the weapon is higher than self-defense. As said in USA each year more than 100 times the number of guns are stolen, than there are cases of self-defense with guns. Some of those guns are used on the former owners and their family. Add in the number of gun accidents and the guns illegally used by owners on their own families and any claim that guns are good in general for protecting ones family turns shows it self as the delusion it is.

So sure you can use your paranoia-medicine for recreational purposes. I actually suggest you do, because otherwise its just an expensive dust-catcher.

 
Flag Post

Hearye, hearye…KKK’s mobile cathartic confessional is now taking new clients. jake-o, I haven’t a clue as to what was in my silly post that could have prompted ya to burbble out your “gun experiences”. OH WAIT…I see it. YOU were responding to the AVERAGE PERSON aspect of punishisher’s statement (I’m hugely glad he didn’t say “normal” person…jk, jk, jk).

HOWEVER, I don’t know if such was YOUR intention….but, do ya not see that ya pretty much shot down his arguement: “and average person does get in trouble more often than you think.”? A mere 3 times,, over what is probably quite a long span of time,, isn’t what I would call “more often than you think” and I know many ppl who “suffer” even fewer…because the subject comes up a tremendously often because I carry.

I often enquire of these ppl about how many flat tires they have had in their life. Quite shockingly, quite a few have NEVER HAD EVEN ONE.

Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:Please…OH PLEASE mystical sage {thepunisher},,,tell us more about this “average person” and how they get into WHAT KIND of “trouble” and just HOW OFTEN such happens that one would think.

Esp. touch on those “troubles” where having a gun in hand is of a real benefit//advantage?
AND, I’m NOT talking about coming upon a hard walnut to crack open. AND, please include the many incidents where some fool HAVING A GUN (legal permit to carry) makes inappropriate (illegal) use of it when “trouble” arrises….whether his doing or otherwise.

.

Let me elaborate for him.

Ya must have done one helluva job doing so. His terse addition (which was just now deleted….likey because of its lack of input) to your post above amounted to nothing more than a: I agree w/ jhco.
I have had to present a firearm three times, four if you count the bear on the camping trip that turned out to be a dog in the middle of nowhere.

See my above response to this where I point out how ya shot down punisher’s position of incidents like this being: “more often than you think”. The first time was when I felt someone watching my wife and I, actually he was watching my wife but I could feel him there. He was standing beside our picture window and didn’t see me. I saw him back away and ease his way to the door. Imagine his surprise when I met him at the door with a sidearm. He stammered a bit and took off. I wonder what could have happened if I didn’t have the upper hand?

Maybe ya could have found out by (since he hadn’t seen yet seen YOU) having your wife ask what he wanted (he did knock or ring the bell?) through a locked door…eh?

THEN, should he have sought entry…have wife back very far away and in safe position (yet visible) and YOU unlock the door & have wife call out: Come in. YOU would still be out of sight and only step into view were she not be able to make sense of the situation. Important note here concerning YOUR postion about yer presenting yer firearm (I would have had my shotgun). WHY?

I would have merely “become visible” to see what that would induce in his behavior. AND THEN, ONLY UPON A LEVEL OF BEHAVIOR from him that required presenting my weapon would I have done so. One aspect of why I utilize this method is: do not allow the “enemy” to fully know your capacity to defend. Another is to induce a level of behavior by them that reveals a better understanding of their interest//intent to my “domain” w/o the influence of “gun authority”. Such authority elicits a different form of info.

The second time was in the same house. It was about 3 in the morning and I heard a know at the door. Again, I presented the same handgun. This time the guy seemed inebriated and after a brief silence he ask me how to get downtown. I let him go, but again I held the upper hand.

Again…a very premature exposure of elevated defense….which could have triggered all manner of very oddly agressive action on his part,,,possibly due to his “altered state”.

But, do ya not think that a burgler might not know when to play the innocent “lame duck” ruse upon being discovered? This is one of the oldest tricks in the book…applied to many, MANY situations in life.

The third was when a fella was choking the neighbor in the street after I approached him speeding up and down the street with my daughter in the way on her bike. I told him to slow down and he got mouthy so I turned to call the sheriff.

1) how did ya manage to stop him?
2) When did he become “mouthy”? While IN his car? His getting OUT would have caused ME to assume great likelihood of trouble.
3) I would have ASKED him to PLEASE SLOW DOWN and explained why. After all, (ya imply ya didn’t know him)…he knows where YOU live. Taking a position of authority will very oftem most likely induce offensive (both meanings//levels) behavior.
4) Why didn’t ya call the sheriff BEFORE ya even attempted to stop him? A much earlier response factor here.
5) Upon making the decision to stop him…I would have had MY weapon tucked (out of sight) in MY pants behind my back. Boy Scout motto: BE PREPARED. Odd behavior (speeding up & down a street w/ a chill on a bike…did he see her?) would make me be very cautious that more & elevated behavior could ensue my having stopped him.
6)When he was following YOU, had ya turned your back? How far away was he from YOU when he assaulted the neighbor? I ask this because of the next quote.

He followed me and the neighbor intercepted him.
Why only the neighbor? Shouldn’t it have been BOTH OF YOU at the same time since the neighbor was near enough to have reached him before YOU?
I saw what was happening and grabbed my revolver, stepped out on the porch and fired a warning shot.
This is where YOUR “story” gets a little "weird.
1) as I stated above…I would have already had my weapon. After all, such is the main purpose for having it….to ensure MY (and others) safety in situations that can easily escalate.
2) Why did ya allow him to pursue ya in the first place? Esp. to the point the neighbor needed to place himself in jeopardy to the point of being choked.
3) What the fuck happened to cause being “mouthy” to hugely escalate to “choking” a person?
4) NOW, this is where this anecdote really gets bizzare. Ya “fired a warning shot”? Where, into the air? How inane. A kid on his to Wichita State Univ. for a class was shot in the eye as he was driving…by a woman,, 10-to-15 blocks to the north of his car window,, who fired her gun into the air to make a simlar “statement” to some men who “shouldn’t have been there” at her home.
5) I would have gotten “dead-sure-aim” close enough and shouted for him to decease. Should he have not (after a second shout), I would have shot a round into the ground a few feet from me (to the side…gotta reduce the chance of ricochet, esp. for innocents).
6) Should he have continued to choke the neighbor…the situation becomes extremely tenuous. Many thoughs have to race through the mind ATM.
He stopped to look at me and I aimed at him and told him to leave in no uncertain terms.
Getting even weirder now.
I wouldn’t have aimed merely because he stopped. He obviously HEARD that ya had a gun.
Why level the weapon…the CURRENT need for aiming it has abated.
He mouthed off a bit and when he saw I wasn’t kidding he hightailed it.
Getting even weirder now (I’ll explain even moreso below in a summation). Merely mouthing off—even facing an unaimed gun—is still no cause to drawn a bead. A step or 2 forward by him CERTAINLY IS. And, depending upon the distance (dead-sure-aiming distance allows for enough steps to level and fire), he likely would have went down by the 3rd step. MY first (likely second & third…intial shots can have a huge effect even if missed) shot would have been the thigh. The second (3rd or 4th…depending on situtation…him now armed) would have been DCM (dead center mass).

This was the only time I have experienced what is called tunnel vision.

MY training focused on NOT doing this. Doing so can risk serious collateral damage and even expose yourself to unseen dangers. Best scenario is to calm nerves, push down adrenalin, FOCUS 360 w/ extra dircetly ahead and periphial greatly enhanced.

All three times I held the upper hand and because of this the situation was diffused with out someone actually getting hurt. The point is, the deciding factor was a firearm.

The real point here: My opinion is that such use of a firearm is not as “smart” as it should be. Which only serves to strengthen the “anti’s” position—not so much on bans or controls—on much better REQUIREMENT OF EDUCATION.

Now for that summation I mentioned above.
I am greatly aghast as this whole “confession” of YOURS.
I made one “hint-of-an-allusion” of why when discussing the guy watching yer wife.
This being that I would want to see more of what this person’s REAL INTENTIONS were BEFORE a showing of MY capabilities.

BUT, why the fuck didn’t ya have these ppl on the ground waiting for the police…esp. the guy choking your neighbor? All I’m seeing here is a “gun nut” that is letting his “gun-induced-high-authority-level” be the huge factor in how such issues are handled…mostly because of the “boss-rush” it affords.

N O…“gun-authority” at its best gives a person a greatly enhanced opportunity to get to the bottom of the entire situation and let a higher authority sort it all out. YOUR allowing these ppl to leave made YOU judge & jury on situations that ranged from (possible) simple trespass right on up to deadly assault & battery. YOU DO UNDERSTAND that—while these actions by these ppl were DIRECTED AT YOU—they ppl were, in fact, breaking the LAW (as well as YOUR “personal laws”? YOUR actions therefore was actually "taking the law into your own hands.

Something is veeeeerrrry wrong here.

 
Flag Post

Guys, sorry about a “double-posting” here.
BUT, I’ve found that extremely long posts will “compress” into one huge “wall-0-text” and I have to go back and put in a whole lot of paragraph commands.

BUT, Johnny made such salient points that I want to comment on them. I really shouldn’t have to….he’s made them before,,,along w/ several others in various forms. His just happen to be a short, yet great, summation of a lot of good points that—for the most part as I am able to recall—HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED,,,if at all.

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

1. Yes, I do think people have to get out of their homes from time to time, that’s why I said in burglary cases. Which is the primary scenario besides being held up by a tough on the street that has been presented here.

This one is a no brainer. It should be obvious to all but the most unreasonable “gun devotee”.

2. No, the average Person does not get in to trouble, where he needs and could use a gun for self defense, more often than i think.

I well covered this in my above post..
BUT, I still want to see some form of rebuttal to it.

3. No, i am saying that if you do not belong to a group with a significant cause for being a higher crime target, then you’re statistically not going to use a gun in justified self defense, because you’re never gonna get a chance. So if you think you’re buying a gun for self-defense then you’re wrong and its truly because it helps you sooth your paranoia.

LOL…maybe “paranoia” is a weeebit “strong”,,,
BUT, the point is well made and still stands and should be addressed by ANYONE on either side of the issue.

Especially since the chances of you or your family being hurt by the weapon is higher than self-defense. As said in USA {Today?..the newspaper}, each year more than 100 times the number of guns are stolen, than there are cases of self-defense with guns. Some of those guns are used on the former owners and their family. Add in the number of gun accidents and the guns illegally used by owners on their own families and any claim that guns are good in general for protecting ones family turns shows itself as the delusion it is.

So sure you can use your paranoia-medicine for recreational purposes. I actually suggest you do, because otherwise its just an expensive dust-catcher.

These are some staggeringly strong points that very much need to be considered BY ANYONE who either owns a gun or is contemplating doing so. Each of us has many issues to consider when it comes to a tool w/ the capacity for such deadly or physically (as well as psychological) results.

As johnny well points out, the issue of gun CONTROL is as fraught w/ a multitude of variables as is the factors involving ownership//posession of guns themselves.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
2. No, the average Person does not get in to trouble, where he needs and could use a gun for self defense, more often than i think.

I well covered this in my above post..
BUT, I still want to see some form of rebuttal to it.

All you will get are the usual anecdotes. With the problem being that if they even came close to being statistically true, the average people(at least half of America) who don´t carry around guns and knifes should be dead/raped/mugged 3(Jhco)-12(Ungeziefer) times over. But surprise most of them dye from old age and assorted diseases. Hell there not even enough violent crimes(less than 500 per 100k residents) being reported each year to give everyone a turn.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-age-and-gender

So either guns (and knifes) magically attract self defense situations they then help solve or these anecdotes are statistically insignificant (either the people are not having average experiences or the anecdotes are simply not true).

 
Flag Post

No, i am saying that if you do not belong to a group with a significant cause for being a higher crime target, then you’re statistically not going to use a gun in justified self defense, because you’re never gonna get a chance. So if you think you’re buying a gun for self-defense then you’re wrong and its truly because it helps you sooth your paranoia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

I ran some brief numbers. The violent crime rate in my province is about 1 in a hundred per capita per annum. So based on that alone I run about a 1% chance per year.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/09/28/statscan-victimization-survey.html

Given that stats Can figures only about 30 percent of crime is reported. So that jumps to about 3% per year. Add in breaking and entering we’re at about 6% a year ish. Given a ten year period, chances are quite in favor a situation would occur.

Seems low to me compared to personal experience, but eh.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

No, i am saying that if you do not belong to a group with a significant cause for being a higher crime target, then you’re statistically not going to use a gun in justified self defense, because you’re never gonna get a chance. So if you think you’re buying a gun for self-defense then you’re wrong and its truly because it helps you sooth your paranoia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

I ran some brief numbers. The violent crime rate in my province is about 1 in a hundred per capita per annum. So based on that alone I run about a 1% chance per year.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/09/28/statscan-victimization-survey.html

Given that stats Can figures only about 30 percent of crime is reported. So that jumps to about 3% per year. Add in breaking and entering we’re at about 6% a year ish. Given a ten year period, chances are quite in favor a situation would occur.


Seems low to me compared to personal experience, but eh.

It comes out even lower considering that the Canadian statistic includes cases of

the much-more-numerous Assault level 1 (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm). wikiquote

Which explains why the counted rate of violent crime is higher in Canada than the US.

And i would not add breaking and entering since i have already pointed out repeatedly that guns are close to no use there, especially since there are way more effective and efficient ways for most people to protect their property if they really wanted too.

Also its only 3%(6 with burglary) chance per year if crime was evenly distributed on a 1 crime per person basis. But thats not the case. Here special victim groups like criminals, poor and etc. are many more times more likely not only to get targeted once but have a good chance to become victims several times during their lives. On the other hand if you don´t belong to other group your chances reduce dramatically.

And lets not forget that these statistics still don´t get you the 3-12 cases of self-defense since they include crimes where self defense is close to impossible. For example inner family Rape, Assault and Homicide.

 
Flag Post

Wow Karma! What a long post. First of all you were not there so you really can’t make too many observations. In the first two situations, I probably saved my wife from rape, or worse. If I had not been armed and called the police instead, they would have been there in time to clean up the mess the bad guys made. The point is, I had the ability to protect myself and wife from a potentially bad situation. This is the purpose of being armed and I can not see anyway to argue those points.

The fella racing up and down the streets was about 20. He was on an ATV, not in a car. My daughter was in kindergarten and riding her bike. We lived in a small community in the country.

There were three guys I approached, the first two I did explain the third was going to have to slow down before he hurt someone. One was holding a baseball bat and as I walked toward the house he told his friend he should hit me with it. As I walked toward the house the third rode up on his ATV. His friends were behind me. I told him he was going to have to slow down and he told me to mind my own business. I told him fine, I would be calling the sheriff. As I headed to the house to call the sheriff, he followed me and that is when the neighbor boy intercepted him. The fella then turned on the boy and started choking him. At this point it had gone beyond calling the sheriff and had to be taken care of immediately.

When I emerged from the house armed I fired a warning shot to get the fella’s attention and then I aimed directly at his chest. He was about 30 feet away. I then issued my orders. The second time I issued the orders I already had tunnel vision. For those who have never experienced this it is where your body goes from normal mode to total focus. Your vision is now focused entirely on your target with everything around the target gray, like looking through a tunnel. Your mind is 100% alert and you are aware of everything at once. I have never experienced it since and really don’t care to again.

Karma, your scenario is made without all of the details of the situations I was in. You are making rash judgements. I didn’t have a shotgun because I don’t use a shotgun for self defense. I use a handgun and I am proficient in it’s use. At 3PM in the morning, their is no reason for knocking on the door. I was in my home and presenting a firearm is perfectly reasonable at that time of the morning. All of the situations were defused with the actions I took and there is no reason for me to hide my weapon. doing that might give him the confidence to advance. Then instead of defusing the situation it would have escalated it. I don’t want to shoot someone and if I can defuse it before having to use my firearm, I will. I wanted them to know they screwed up and any further action on their part would be their last.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Wow Karma! What a long post. First of all you were not there so you really can’t make too many observations.

I’ll try and be more succinct than Karma…

Originally posted by jhco50:

In the first two situations, I probably saved my wife from rape, or worse. If I had not been armed and called the police instead, they would have been there in time to clean up the mess the bad guys made. The point is, I had the ability to protect myself and wife from a potentially bad situation. This is the purpose of being armed and I can not see anyway to argue those points.

1. Unless there’s something you’re not telling us, can’t see how you jump to your first conclusion… were these men, for example, wearing ski-masks and carrying baseball bats/knives/guns?

2. Yes you maybe stopped a crime from happening, but we’ll never know as one (as far as I can tell from what you wrote) was not attempted.

Maybe the chap looking through the window was intending a rape, or a burglary… or just checking he had the right house for the surprise birthday party (ok, unlikely, but possible, as you don’t say how long he was out there)… so why not, as you were completely aware of his presence, call the sherrif and wait to see what he did? IF he tried to come in, for whatever reason, before the sherrif got there, you’re at hand with your gun to help take a, potentially, violent criminal off the streets rather than just letting him go to try the same with someone else…

3. Out of sequence, but as we’re talking about these men you ‘protected’ yourself from… you can’t think of any reason to bang on the door at three in the morning?

  1. So drunk you can barely stand up, don’t know you’re not at your own door and can’t figure why the key doesn’t work?
  2. Drunk/high and think it’s the best prank in the whole wide world?
  3. Pregnant wife, in labour, in the car, cellphone broken, need help calling an ambulance
  4. Being chased by a gang of youths on the way home from the bar, in desperate need of assistance (like your neighbourhood atv riding idiots)
  5. Been assaulted, need you to call the police/ambulance

Well, there ya go, just some of the reasons I thought of in two minutes that don’t involve someone raping, or worse, your wife.

Yes, again, he could of been laying a ruse to gain entry for nefarious means but that’s where your other layers of ‘defence’ come into play before ‘waving a gun in his face’ (Incidentally, if you’re so sure he’s a threat, why did you ‘let him go’?).

A good security door, for example, would of allowed you to investigate without letting the, potential, bad guy in… calling the sherrif would help keep your neighbours safe, as he fled, if truly up to no good… or help a drunk, potentially injured, man off the streets.

Originally posted by jhco50:

The fella racing up and down the streets was about 20. He was on an ATV, not in a car. My daughter was in kindergarten and riding her bike. We lived in a small community in the country.

There were three guys I approached, the first two I did explain the third was going to have to slow down before he hurt someone. One was holding a baseball bat and as I walked toward the house he told his friend he should hit me with it. As I walked toward the house the third rode up on his ATV. His friends were behind me. I told him he was going to have to slow down and he told me to mind my own business. I told him fine, I would be calling the sheriff. As I headed to the house to call the sheriff, he followed me and that is when the neighbor boy intercepted him. The fella then turned on the boy and started choking him. At this point it had gone beyond calling the sheriff and had to be taken care of immediately…

NB I’m not saying you were wrong to assist the neighbour being choked – here your actions were, imo, completely justified… I just can’t see, from what you’ve written, why you had to allow it escalate to the point that such actions became necessary.

i.e. Your small, kindergarden aged daughter was riding her bike up and down the street where any idiot could drive up and hit her (as you were worried that these youths might do). I would of hoped that your first step would have been to remove her from the potentially dangerous situation before even thinking of addressing the atv rider(s)… which you could of then done later when they weren’t all pumped up on adrenalin from their riding… or you could have even left to the sherrif! Situation defused, nobody hurt, confrontation averted, neighbour not assaulted, no need to have drawn a gun…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Wow Karma! What a long post.

And yet, ya really did a shitty job of addressing almost all of it. Ya merely added more detail that pretty much threw gasoline on the fire. I gave many ALTERNATIVE and PREMPTIVE and LESSER scenarios that most any reasonably rational person would consider extremely important. So much so that were you to have actually shot one, some, all of them….a jury of these rational ppl might find ya guilty of some degree of manslauter,,,,IF ya were lucky and the charges being considered weren’t even higher.

THEN, the civil suits brought by family, etc. The burden of proof is much less than in criminal court. Just above, donseptico gave just a few “starters” that an attorney for the family would present to the jury that wouldn’t make ya look any too good. As I’ve stated many times before (and no apology made here for the pun), ya just pretty much have shot yourself in the foot on all of these issues were ya to have escalated them.

The fact that ya SHOT DOWN all of my common sense approaches only serves to give the “aniti’s” a great platform from which to shoot holes in arguements for lesser gun restictions. I’ve said it several times before: it APPEARS that YOU are a fine “poster boy” for even stronger gun CONTROL laws.

First of all you were not there so you really can’t make too many observations.

I can’t MAKE ANY AT ALL observations….since I wasn’t there…duh. However, I can form OPINIONS based on YOUR observations and those of any EYE witnesses. This forming of an opinion is what a jury would also do. The DA and/or plaintiffs attorney certainly would “put the jury there” in those situations via their arguments for proof of YOUR guilt.

In the first two situations, I probably saved my wife from rape, or worse.

PROBABLY? ? ? Right here is a great example of what I’m talking about when I say YOU are so “trigger happy” that it really isn’t all that hard to present to rational ppl just how bad this behavior of yours is.

I say this because,,as donseptico points out,,there can be MANY OTHER reasons for these first two situations to be far less than YOU assumed them to be. As I pointed out, these reasons might very well have been acertained had ya followed protocal that could keep ya out of court were ya to have shot them.

AND, HERE WE ARE W/ WEIRD AGAIN. If ya so believe these two men had such great intentions of “rape or worse”, why the fuck did ya allow them to leave…ALLOW THEM TO LEAVE? All I see here is the typical “gun nut” getting his rocks off because of the power they have due to a gun in their hand. What “community service” YOU so luv to tout via citizens carrying guns did YOU perform by allowing these ppl to “go their merry way”….esp the ATV kid who did great assault & battery?

If I had not been armed and called the police instead, they would have been there in time to clean up the mess the bad guys made.

Yeah,,yeah,,yeah…this mantra is one of the favorites of the “gun nut brigade”. There is absolutely no arguement about a gun already on scene being preferable to one “on its way”…..SHOULD THIS ON-SCENE GUN BE IN THE RIGHT HANDS. What YOU have presented here, it’s MY opinion that—as many on the forum have asserted in general—the on-scene gun probably should have waited for the arrival of the professional guns. Sorry, bub…there ain’t much other way to slice-&-dice it. YOU appear to be waaaay to zealous w/ yer “toys”.

The point is, I had the ability to protect myself and wife from a potentially bad situation. This is the purpose of being armed and I can not see anyway to argue those points.

N O…it’s rather obvious that YOU aren’t able to see arguements AGAINST yer points….I & donseptico fucking laid them out for ya and ya did what ya are so good at,,,completely ignore them in favor of not preferring to give expanded thinking of others an opportunity to modify your behavior.
>The fella racing up and down the streets was about 20. He was on an ATV, not in a car. My daughter was in kindergarten and riding her bike. We lived in a small community in the country.

Was your daughter IN THE FUCKING STREET? That’s fine if it is nothing more than a glorified shared driveway to personal ones…I support this (even though it’s not consider such by some assholes who believe it is their personal race track).

BUT, again…was his “racing” within the legal speed limits? If not…just get your daughter off the street and call the police,,,esp. since one of his friends had a ball bat (was there somewhere near that would make a bat a reasonable thing to have?) HOWEVER, some things here just don’t add up. Ya say it was “a small community in the country”. Wouldn’t this mean that ya knew these ppl?…that the sheriff would know them and talk w/ them? Wouldn’t they likely live in YOUR neighborhood…did these guys come to YOUR street to just race up & down? Did the two on foot walk THAT FAR (w/ a ball bat) to watch their friend show off his toy….for an extended period of time?…on YOUR street?

There soooooo many ways to handle situations that can bring good resolution. And then there are the asshole-stooopid ones. I often wonder if the “gun nuts” don’t use these dumbass methods in hopes they can—as johnny points out—justify their “paranoia”.

There were three guys I approached, the first two I did explain the third was going to have to slow down before he hurt someone.

“Diplomacy” isn’t your strong suit…eh? How I would have handled it: Talk to the two as if interested in maybe owning an ATV…basically doing something to “get on their good side” and show that I wasn’t a “hostile”. From such a position, one is much more likely to “talk some sense into them”. Find common ground to attain common interest (in slowing down for safety’s sake).

One was holding a baseball bat and as I walked toward the house he told his friend he should hit me with it.

And, we wonder why he might have said this…eh? Had MY attempt at finding commonality NOT WORKED, I would have said: Well, guys…it’s been nice talking to ya and thanks for the info on the ATV. Now, I gotta get back to watching the game. THEN I would call the police (w/o telling them I was going to…duh) and get my gun. Get my gun to NOT use it to enforce my “orders”….but, ONLY to be prepared should any escalation of the kids’ stoopidity occurr.

As I walked toward the house the third rode up on his ATV.

This meant WHAT? Some kind of paranoia induced “rational” that it was “bad”. I imagine he just wanted to know what ya were saying to his friends.

His friends were behind me.

Where were this friends when ya talked to them…IN THE STREET? If on the sidewalk, are ya saying the rider came up BEHIND ya or IN FRONT of ya…ON YOUR PROPERTY?

I told him he was going to have to slow down and he told me to mind my own business. I told him fine, I would be calling the sheriff.

Ya just couldn’t keep yer mouth shut and do the sensible thing. Ya already had three ppl who though nothing of breaking traffic (and common safety sense) laws. Ya already heard a tacit verbal threat of serious bodily injury. WHY THE FUCK would ya then say something in an authoritive, aggressive, “legal-threatening” manner?

AND, to top it off….ya even got stooopider and told them ya were calling the sheriff. Yeah, that makes sense….throw gasoline on a fire.

As I headed to the house to call the sheriff, he followed me and that is when the neighbor boy intercepted him.

The kid couldn’t yell to ya? Why did the kid deem it necessary to “attack” him? In actuality, your neighbor might have had to prove legal provacation for his attack on that guy.

The fella then turned on the boy and started choking him. At this point it had gone beyond calling the sheriff and had to be taken care of immediately.

I agree. I just think YOU are responsible for PRECIPITATING this situation because of very poor “diplomacy skills”. Man up and take some blame. A lot of what ya’re saying here just doesn’t add up…at least to much more than just dumb-ass-shit-4-brains-gun-nut logic.

When I emerged from the house armed I fired a warning shot to get the fella’s attention and then I aimed directly at his chest.

I’ve already addressed this and YOU have choosen to completely ignore my concerns and alternatives.
AGAIN, did ya fire it into the air. Sure, NOW ya will say ya did as I would. Discharge of a firearm has some very strict guidelines. YOU may well have been proven to NOT BE in safe waters w/ your firing of your weapon.

He was about 30 feet away. I then issued my orders. The second time I issued the orders I already had tunnel vision. For those who have never experienced this it is where your body goes from normal mode to total focus. Your vision is now focused entirely on your target with everything around the target gray, like looking through a tunnel. Blah..blah..blah,,,just more of the “gun nut” mantra. I made a point about this and YOU COMPLETELY IGNORE IT in favor of “petting” your excuse for “gun-zeal”.
Your mind is 100% alert and you are aware of everything at once

BULLSHIT. A mind in a tunnel CAN NOT be aware of everything. I addressed this and—per typical jake—YOU JUST IGNORE IT.

I have never experienced it since and really don’t care to again.

jake-o, sorry old fella…it is MY OPINION which is generated by ONLY WHAT I’VE SEEN on this forum ya might just well have a CONSTANT FORM of “tunnel vision” due to viewing the world from inside yer ass. It’s a good place for a person to have their head when they strive to be egocentric.

Karma, your scenario is made without all of the details of the situations I was in,

No shit…Sherlock. And a lot of the reason I don’t have all of the details is that YOU are providing very little….at least any that make much sense.

You are making rash judgements.

LOLFUCKING LOL.
All I have been doing is stating how TO NOT MAKE RASH JUDGEMENTS.
AND YOU refuse to comment on them….even when I’m tacitly saying that YOUR judgements were “rash”.

I didn’t have a shotgun because I don’t use a shotgun for self defense.

I use whatever the fuck I have at hand. A shot gun is highly effective…for several reasons. It is big and racking one into the chamber is a sound that really demands attention.

I use a handgun and I am proficient in it’s use.

Well, good for YOU.
NOW, become proficient in having good judgement when, where, how, why to use it.

At 3PM in the morning, their is no reason for knocking on the door. I was in my home and presenting a firearm is perfectly reasonable at that time of the morning. All of the situations were defused with the actions I took and there is no reason for me to hide my weapon. doing that might give him the confidence to advance. Then instead of defusing the situation it would have escalated it.

What a crock-0-shit.
donseptico already gave some—right off the top of his head—reasons for “guarded” behavior for that scenario rather than RAMBOing on his ass. I luv how ya make a huge leap from “might” to “would”.

I don’t want to shoot someone and if I can defuse it before having to use my firearm, I will. I wanted them to know they screwed up and any further action on their part would be their last.

In MY opinion,,,,YES, YOU DON’T WANT TO SHOOT someone….BUT, ya do luv to feel the rush of having “gun-power”. We here in Kansas see it all too often in ppl who obtain a CCP. We try to weed them out when we see it during their classes, but we can’t catch all of them.

jake-o, all ya’ve done w/ yer posts here is simply give good cause to credit the efforts of the “anti’s”. donseptico has already kicked a stone down the mountain. Get ready for the avalanche.

 
Flag Post

First off, the second amendment states, and I quote, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It means that we are only allowed to have guns when we are in a properly formed militia in order to protect the country. It does not say that anyone can have a gun. the president cannot take away the second amendment, but he has every right to follow it to a t, unlike the previous presidents.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by raiden1710:

First off, the second amendment states, and I quote, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It means that we are only allowed to have guns when we are in a properly formed militia in order to protect the country. It does not say that anyone can have a gun. the president cannot take away the second amendment, but he has every right to follow it to a t, unlike the previous presidents.

Well to be fair, everyone kinda does have to be armed to the teeth to deal with the U.S. army at this point.

 
Flag Post

Okay, raiden….I’m gonna break down YOUR post into parts that I want ya to expound on as to just what ya’re meaning….okay?

Originally posted by raiden1710:

First off, the second amendment states, …….. It means that we are only allowed to have guns when we are in a properly formed militia in order to protect the country.


Okay, tell ME where ya’re getting this ONLY. I just can’t make that connection in what I read of the 2nd Amend.

And, not to be a nit-picker here,
BUT…there is often quite a big difference between your “properly formed” and a “well regulated” malitia.

It does not say that anyone can have a gun.

Well, ya’re talking oranges & bowling balls here. The 2nd is balking IN GENERAL about the RIGHTS of ppl….not any ONE of them in particular. But, please do tell me more of your thinking on this.

the president cannot take away the second amendment,

Well…DUUUuuuuh.

but he has every right to follow it to a t,

Maybe a DUTY…eh?

unlike the previous presidents.

Oh, fershitshur…ya just gotta tell ME a whooooole lot more on this subject.

Okay, it’s time I “let the lizard loose” on ya w/ my jaded view on the 2nd.

Perhaps….JUST PERHAPS, that while the founding pops actually were real kool dudes and believed very strongly in human rights, etc…..I see them as also being damn good businessmen and smart cookies and military strategists.

In the “business of governing ppl.”,,,the financial side of it….the “blending” of a RIGHT w/ a military expense is a stellar concept….everybody luvs it.

Financially, that young govt. doesn’t need to PROVIDE the small arms for its army since most of it wasn’t a “standing army” any way. And, a “practical” tool (food, fun, & other protection—hostile Indians) could do double duty as a military weapon.

Plus, having a huge amount of arms in a hugely widespread area gives double advantage.

1) It reduces chance of weapons centralized in an armory from capture//destroy that could be devastating….regardless of how well protected. If the armory was lost….so goes the war. Guns safe in a very well protected armory are good. BUT, guns have to have a man behind them to be of any real use. Are ya gonna keep a man-pre-gun garrison at the armory? Is an armory a good place to stand for the fight? Is being pended down in a hole while the enemy ravages your territory a good thing?

2) In those days, transportation was slow. Getting guns from the armory (saying that intell allowed ya to know the enemy was coming and where) to where needed could take several days….long enough for the enemy to win a battle here…one there…gain momentum to win the war.

NO to armories. Arms dispersed throughout a very mobile infantry was financially, strategically, and common-sense-human-rights savy a very sly move on the FF’s part. My hat off to them.

While there is some merit to such dispersion of firepower for protection of human rights from govt. tyranny,,,within or without……those days are loooooong passed. We now know our Constitution is worth the paper it is written on. We don’t have this “WEAPON-NEED” to ensure our liberties.

It is fucking ludicrous to even hint at that our current citizen armament is of a nature to prevent or even make a tyranny not be considered. I well realize this concept of citizen arms is one of the other huge bullshit mantra crap the NRA spouts off constantly as being a huge factor in the 2nd. The fact of it is that—as vika points out—this thinking is just plain daft.

The NRA, et al should do some hard thinking on what is real and what isn’t and work on presenting the sensible realities of gun ownership and leave the bombastic rhetoric in the past where it died long ago. Time goes by and things change. Change w/ the times or be victim of change. Simple.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

Well to be fair, everyone kinda does have to be armed to the teeth to deal with the U.S. army at this point.

I think Raiden’s point was more along the lines of “Why do the citizens need to be armed to defend the US when we have an army?”

Perhaps to defend the citizens from that army. But if so, handguns, shotguns, and even sniper rifles are not going to be enough. We’d need citizen tanks, planes, and ICBMs to do that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by raiden1710:

First off, the second amendment states, and I quote, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It means that we are only allowed to have guns when we are in a properly formed militia in order to protect the country. It does not say that anyone can have a gun. the president cannot take away the second amendment, but he has every right to follow it to a t, unlike the previous presidents.

Karma pretty much answered this, but I would like to add that the 2nd Amendment is not about protecting the country just from foreign enemies, but to protect us from our own government when and if it gets off on it’s duties. at this point in time, it has and is getting farther from what it is supposed to be allowed to do. This explains the second surge in gun sales.

I don’t’ know how much knowledge you have about the Constitution, but it is the basis of our country. Washington has in the last 40 or so years has forgotten this and taken more power than it is supposed to have. None of the presidents have the power to make changes without the states agreeing to it with a majority of states agreeing to the changes.

As for the argument that only guns kill, here are some crime statistics from our government published in the Daily Caller.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/27/fbi-crime-stats-you-are-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-hands-and-feet-than-by-a-shotgun-or-rifle/#ixzz2DTxdCSt4

Vicka,
I don’t know how much you know about rebellions, but you pick up weapons as you go. I do not believe we will, if in the case of a civil war, be fighting our own military. I believe the military will come down on the people’s side for the most part. I feel we would be fighting a foreign country’s military, probably inserted in our country by the UN. As you know, many of the soldiers countries with rebellion have joined their rebels.

 
Flag Post

Oh, goodie…
Let’s see what we have to throw up against a modern army, navy, air force.
Small-townies and farmers w/ guns…..a small amount of insignificant ppl,,,,
Big cities, etc. with even fewer per capita armament,,,
yet, all of these are nothing more than a stick of straw against a mighty oak club.
Yeah….it should be a very interesting fight.
Good grief.

An invasion on American soil will require very little conventional battle …esp. small arms usage. I know the NRA luvs to see itself as “defenders of the homeland”. BUT, seeing their children starve or being hung up on the family farm silo might make keeping that gun a very moot point.

The real war on America will be fought economically…
it will be strategically managed via resources….no food, no water (at least..CLEAN), no gasoline for cars, no heat against the cold, no electricity to do squat. Damn soon, “we the people” will hand over ANYBODY’s gun for the promise of relief. Sorry, that’s just human nature.

If the takeover can’t be smooth & (minimally?) bloodless….
STRATIGIC damage to our infrastructure really isn’t all that hard to do.
Nor, is it hard to undo once the takeover is complete.
Electricity, natural gas, clean water, etc.

Damage to our sensitive power grid will fuck up sooooooo much that ya can’t image the shit-storm resulting. AND NO, they don’t have to blow up power plants. All they need to is cut simple transmission lines out in the country side. Even our citizen malitia can’t cover every mile of them. Cut ‘em as fast as they are repaired. It really won’t take long for the effect to be devastating.

Hell, due to govt. DEREGULATION of the national power grid, we’re quite adept at even fucking ourselves out of electricity Once down, it takes some very tricky maneuvering to get a grid back up. Just imagine flying over the entire New England area and seeing it pitch black. Think of what this would look like. Hint: candles wouldn’t show up on a pic like this. Who fucking has emergency candles these days anyhow?

So…NAH.
We’re toast if we don’t manage DIPOLMACY world-wide and prevent hostile takeovers.
Oooopps…that’s what our latest GOP presidential candidate did to make HIS millions and said is what America needed….a “businessman”. And ya wonder why the world was supporting Obama….DUH.

We citizens and our guns can sooooooo fuckin’ easily be kicked to the curb and have our land taken from us by means soooooo slick that we won’t even see it coming and it would be days before we realized the full impact of it all. Do ya think any of those poor bastards who lost their pensions, etc. from those big corps (lost in hostile takeovers) saw any such thing coming?

 
Flag Post

You have some good points there. In fact we are on the verge of tactics like these. If we go over the fiscal cliff, we are looking at a recession deeper than the one we supposedly came out of. It will hit fast and hard. This is the fact we are facing at this moment and it looks like it is going to happen.

Now, the latest idea to come out of Washington is federalizing people’s 401k’s. They would take the money, probably blow it, and give these people an IOU. Then they would promise the owners of these retirement accounts, they would pay them back with payments. This is exactly what they do with SS and look how they are screwing that up. It amounts to stealing people’s retirements.

If this happens we will see people going hungry and more jobs and homes lost. I fully expect to see this unless our politicians come up with permanent fix, which it looks like they won’t. But when this happens, people are not going to sit down and starve, they are going to go violent. Violence we haven’t seen in this country since the civil war. It won’t matter to them if they don’t have the latest battle implements. If you recall, we went against England in the same manor and some of the other countries, France comes to mind, ran guns into our country to arm the rebels. What makes you think this won’t happen again?

I cannot state a definite scenario. I can’t tell you exactly what is going to happen. I can tell you we are poised for violence and both parties are to blame. Oh, I don’t believe the NRA claims to be defenders of this country. I know you think your mentioning the NRA in disparaging ways upsets me, it doesn’t.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

As for the argument that only guns kill, here are some crime statistics from our government published in the Daily Caller.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/27/fbi-crime-stats-you-are-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-hands-and-feet-than-by-a-shotgun-or-rifle/#ixzz2DTxdCSt4

1. Where has any one claimed that only guns kill? 2 You source is even most likely wrong. Because they forget that in around 1.500 cases the type of fire arm was not specified. With around 5% of the reported firearm murders being rifle and shotgun this would mean an extra 60 Deaths which puts rifles and shotguns back in front of personal weapons(which includes pushing people, for example off of roofs or in-front of buses and etc.). But even then thats only 5% of the deaths by firearms. Handguns which are more widely criticized by anti-gunners, because they are much more interesting for criminals make up more than 90% of the fire arms murders and more than 50% of all murders.

I don’t know how much you know about rebellions, but you pick up weapons as you go. I do not believe we will, if in the case of a civil war, be fighting our own military. I believe the military will come down on the people’s side for the most part. I feel we would be fighting a foreign country’s military, probably inserted in our country by the UN. As you know, many of the soldiers countries with rebellion have joined their rebels.

Rebellions don´t tend to last long when at least not some of the military joins their side. Exception being when they are funded from outside. In case of a civil war. It is clear that much more than half of the population will not join the side of conservative radicals. Who are the ones dreaming of over throwing the current president. Neither the liberals nor the moderates nor the "i don´t give enough damn about politics to fucking vote" would join such a rebellion against the current government. 20% of the active Army and Army reserves are Black who are not only certain not to join the white conservative rebellion but fight it to the teeth if need be. And no that does not mean that the 80% rest will be joining such a rebellion. It is gonna be a lot less than that, closer to 0% than 80%(or even 50%).

The UN will not interfere in case of a us civil-war, especially if that would mean fighting against US military. Nothing for them to gain, until the endgame when the victors are already clear and spoils of victory are to be handed out.