10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gary_Sheldrake said:
Thank you for your concern Annie. If someone decides to hurt me because I am non-violent, then who is it that really gets hurt? I would have no problem with a sign. There is no escaping death, so I see little point in compromising my conscience over the fear of such things. As for friends and family, it’s a mater of principle about not having guns around. They also know my positions on participating in any cycle of violence, and without my ever mentioning it, many of my friends have followed my lead over time in becoming vegetarians. I have never recommended it to any of them.
Click to expand...
Ah. I see your mindset. You wouldn’t harm Bambie. You do know that Jesus ate meat, right?

Even though the Church allows for self defense I don’t think that she mandates it. Although I think that it would be incumbent on you to protect your children against attack. If you came to our house you would be in no danger of being shot even though hubby would be packing. He is always armed if a stranger enters the house. If the stranger has come in peace he has no worries. This, btw, is legal in our state he did not “carry” when we lived in California. We are strictly law abiding.

Annie
 
LongingSoul said:
The guns lethal mystique comes from the fact that it involves no personal contact with its target. Aim is highly assured, the lethal effect is highly assured and it doesn’t involved making physical contact with a great degree of force to effect the death of a target. It removes much of the natural horror that is experienced in taking away a life. If it wasn’t so ‘special’ as a weapon, it wouldn’t attract such infatuation, devotion and esteem the way it does.
Click to expand...
LS you say that guns removes much of the natural horror that is experienced in taking away life and I couldn’t disagree more. Have you seen an animal after its been shot?

My brother used to take his nephews hunting. He would not allow them to go with him on a hunting trip until they saw him shoot a small animal after it was shot. There are place near where he lives where they could go to shoot rabbits. What one sees is more than I can deal with. I’d never go hunting. Besides I don’t like the idea of hunting for sport. I am all for hunting for food, however.

Annie
 
Robert_Sock said:
Code: 
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
What about “myth #5.” Are you denying the above statistics? Do you have proof to the contrary?

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
I’m very skeptical of your stats there Robert. I have not dealt with them because of that. I don’t see any references and I joined a long discussion on this topic not too long ago on CA and the anti-gun folks lost the stat. game.

Annie
 
Annie39 said:
LS you say that guns removes much of the natural horror that is experienced in taking away life and I couldn’t disagree more. Have you seen an animal after its been shot?

My brother used to take his nephews hunting. He would not allow them to go with him on a hunting trip until they saw him shoot a small animal after it was shot. There are place near where he lives where they could go to shoot rabbits. What one sees is more than I can deal with. I’d never go hunting. Besides I don’t like the idea of hunting for sport. I am all for hunting for food, however.

Annie
Click to expand...
When you choose to view the aftermath of a kill that is one thing, but when you have to make contact with force to effect the killing, you are actually participating in the tragedy first hand. It involves a lot more than aiming from a distance and moving on. For example, drive by shootings are more common than ‘drive by’ stabbings or ‘drive by’ stranglings or ‘drive by’ clubbings. There is the element of power and detachment in using a gun that minimises the need to experience any horror consequence in bringing down a target.

I agree that hunting for thrill killing and trophy collecting is inhumane. I think it is a precurser to psychopathy. Hunting for legitimate culling or food is a whole different thing.
 
20 years in the military as an operator. With the increase in communications ability that cell phones and the internet give us comes an increased capability of centralization of thought/policy…leading right to the federal political party leadership. Lois Lerner is not the exception anymore, but she is the rule. Look at what Sargeant Major Barrett, the senior enlisted guy the the United States Marines, just said in support of cutting military retired pay. Look at the sheer number of senior military who have been forced into retirement under the current administration simply because they disagreed with the political leadership.
Click to expand...
The subject was government conspiracies to subjugate the people. You say you are speaking from experience from your time in the military. What did you do while you were in the military that should be of concern to us? I would be happy to notify them in case you’re collecting a pension or other benefits for what you did. So either you saw it first hand or you didn’t. If you did, you should tell us. If you didn’t, then you need to stop telling people that you are speaking from experience. Tell us what you did. Tell us what you saw.
That may be the single least accurate statement anybody has ever posted on any internet forum anywhere since the creation of the internet. Furthermore, it shows that you personally have ZERO understanding of the tea party movement. Let me school you on the basics of the tea party movement. TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. The fundamental belief of the tea party is that the federal government is too big, too intrusive, and is out of control. It is the ANTI-SOCIALIST movement.
Click to expand...
So, you collected a salary from the government teat for 20 years on other people’s tax money and now you would like to complain about the taxes you pay. That sounds very Tea Partyish.
The Tea Parties (since it is a true grassroots organization, the Tea Party movement is a diverse group of smaller groups) are certainly evolving and maturing. And they, unfortunately, have a small number of extremists who, of course, attracted the majority of media attention so that the liberal commentators could present the extremists as the spokesmen of the movement.
Click to expand...
The reason that the extremists from the Tea Party got the most media attention is because the leaders of political parties usually do get the media coverage.
Sure, you have the right to say what you want. However you will only maintain that right as long as good men in uniform protect you and your family from external threats, and good men without a uniform protect you and your family from the totalitarianism potential within our own government.
Click to expand...
As you may have missed it before, I did serve in uniform.
By the way, what do all totalitarian governments have in common? Yep, you guessed it…citizens are not allowed to be armed.
Click to expand...
Totalitarian governments have heavily armed militaries. Insofar as I am aware, to be a member of their armies, you have to be a citizen.
And thank you for your service. Of course, the Gestapo also had the mission of “protecting” the people, especially after the people were disarmed.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I did not belong to the Gestapo.
 
LongingSoul said:
When you choose to view the aftermath of a kill that is one thing, but when you have to make contact with force to effect the killing, you are actually participating in the tragedy first hand. It involves a lot more than aiming from a distance and moving on. For example, drive by shootings are more common than ‘drive by’ stabbings or ‘drive by’ stranglings or ‘drive by’ clubbings. There is the element of power and detachment in using a gun that minimises the need to experience any horror consequence in bringing down a target.

I agree that hunting for thrill killing and trophy collecting is inhumane. I think it is a precurser to psychopathy. Hunting for legitimate culling or food is a whole different thing.
Click to expand...
That is your subjective opinion and one that I do not share. How do you think that I (an older woman) in hand to had combat with the average intruder? Or even my husband for that matter. Perps like to pick on older folks.

BTW earlier in this thread you asked why visitors to the USA couldn’t carry guns for protection. IMHO an argument could be made to change this rule but I can’t tell you how surprised that you asked that question. However, it would not have saved the Australian ball player he was blind sided.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Code: 
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
What about “myth #5.” Are you denying the above statistics? Do you have proof to the contrary?

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
I am going to take it that you believe if someone who is killed with an arrow is less dead 🤷
Btw, I have lived in less-then-good areas of the cities that I have lived in and I have had guns. Maybe statistices tell you what you want to hear, but I know that they canbe twisted to prove just about any thing. 🤷
 
Robert_Sock said:
Code: 
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
What about “myth #5.” Are you denying the above statistics? Do you have proof to the contrary?

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
Mother Jones claims that keeping a gun at home doesn’t make you safer. Some studies do arrive at this conclusion, though they typically do so by treating all “gun owners” as a single group and underestimating the prevalence of armed self-defense without firing a shot… These studies include only cases in which someone actually shot and killed an assailant.

So…when you include the incidents of an armed homeowner chasing the bad guy away without shooting him…then statistically… you are safer with a gun at home.
 
LongingSoul said:
When you choose to view the aftermath of a kill that is one thing, but when you have to make contact with force to effect the killing, you are actually participating in the tragedy first hand. It involves a lot more than aiming from a distance and moving on. For example, drive by shootings are more common than ‘drive by’ stabbings or ‘drive by’ stranglings or ‘drive by’ clubbings. There is the element of power and detachment in using a gun that minimises the need to experience any horror consequence in bringing down a target.

I agree that hunting for thrill killing and trophy collecting is inhumane. I think it is a precurser to psychopathy. Hunting for legitimate culling or food is a whole different thing.
Click to expand...
You do not need a gun to have a drive by shotting; all you need is a crossbow and bolts (crossbow arrows). :doh2:
 
Annie39;11914986]Ah. I see your mindset. You wouldn’t harm Bambie. You do know that Jesus ate meat, right?
Click to expand...
That is correct. I wouldn’t harm anything. You may harm whatever you like if it pleases you.

As for Jesus, I have not seen an inventory of his diet. It has been suggested that He may have kept company with Essenes, and if this is true, it would give some clues as to His diet.
Even though the Church allows for self defense I don’t think that she mandates it. Although I think that it would be incumbent on you to protect your children against attack. If you came to our house you would be in no danger of being shot even though hubby would be packing. He is always armed if a stranger enters the house. If the stranger has come in peace he has no worries.
Click to expand...
My children were raised and travelled the world with me without a scratch. I like to think they were protected in part by my intellect and the good sense I imparted on them. those who are not confident in their abilities in that regard may in fact feel the need for a backup such as a weapon. As for strangers entering my house, I have deadbolts and an alarm system. Unless an intruder knows you and has a particular reason to come after you, strangers usually intrude on the places most easily intruded upon.
 
Annie39 said:
That is your subjective opinion and one that I do not share. How do you think that I (an older woman) in hand to had combat with the average intruder? Or even my husband for that matter. Perps like to pick on older folks.
Click to expand...
When you live in a culture with a massive volume of guns in circulation, it is reasonable to feel constantly afraid and to assume the worst scenario. When you live in a culture where the number of guns in the community is minimal, it is not a fear that dominates a persons life. That doesn’t mean that we have our head in the sand like an ostrich, it just means we don’t have to live like Chicken Little.
BTW earlier in this thread you asked why visitors to the USA couldn’t carry guns for protection. IMHO an argument could be made to change this rule but I can’t tell you how surprised that you asked that question. However, it would not have saved the Australian ball player he was blind sided.
Click to expand...
My question there was not about wanting tourists to have access to defense guns, but in response to a poster who said that the Bill of Rights pertaining to guns could never be changed because it is a *‘God given’ right to bear arms for private self defense. I ask then if it is more than just a political/civil right that promotes the common good of the community… and actually is *a universal god given human right that by nature would apply to all people regardless of their qualities and capacities, why should it be limited to only a certain type of people? ie. American national/mentally competant/financially competant etc. etc. What other god given universal human rights are so limited to a small section of humanity deeming by default that many other people aren’t human.

The right to security of person is a universal god given right that applies to everyone. The right to bear arms for private defense is a political/civil right that anticipates the government turning the US defense forces on civilians and anticipates that foreign Kings are likely to come and enforce foreign rule over US citizens. In anticipation of those events, it is legitimate to enforce the founding principle of the right to bear arms for a civil militia for the common good. If those scenarios envisaged by the founders are remote… the principle is defunct in favour of laws that truly serve the ‘general welfare’ (common good) as envisaged by the founders.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I do not see where your post is addressing any of the points that I made.

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
Because your bias blinds you. Your “points” are statistical jokes. The first rule of statistics is “association does not equal causation.”. Your “points” are simple associations.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
Because your bias blinds you. Your “points” are statistical jokes. The first rule of statistics is “association does not equal causation.”. Your “points” are simple associations.
Click to expand...
Do you care to back up your assertion?

LOVE! ❤️
 
tabycat said:
You do not need a gun to have a drive by shotting; all you need is a crossbow and bolts (crossbow arrows). :doh2:
Click to expand...
In most other countries, crossbows are subject to similar restrictions to guns. They fall under the same category of weapon.
 
Robert_Sock said:
No, I’m suggesting that there are certain levels of anger, hatred, rage and mental illness, that once reached, a person ought to be not be allowed gun ownership.

Ah, so now you’re being MUCH more specific by stating “adjudicated.” This is a very small group of the mentally ill.

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
Those “levels of anger, hatred, rage, and mental illness” are already defined, and if you reach them, you are no longer allowed to possess a gun. You reach that “level” if you commit a felony, because felons are also on the prohibited persons list.

Yes, you must be “adjudicated” mentally ill. This is called due process, a constitutionally protected RIGHT you have which protects you from your government. Would you like to give that right up as well??
 
Gary_Sheldrake said:
The subject was government conspiracies to subjugate the people. You say you are speaking from experience from your time in the military. What did you do while you were in the military that should be of concern to us? I would be happy to notify them in case you’re collecting a pension or other benefits for what you did. So either you saw it first hand or you didn’t. If you did, you should tell us. If you didn’t, then you need to stop telling people that you are speaking from experience. Tell us what you did. Tell us what you saw.
Click to expand...
Ignoring your uncharitable nonsense, I gave you several examples of how the government is not just individual people working in their individual cubicles (or, as you alluded to, silos). You refuse to see the examples that I gave, but instead devolve into personal insinuations, which is a typical leftist method. Just another example of how YOU could easily have become one of the Gestapo.
Gary_Sheldrake said:
So, you collected a salary from the government teat for 20 years on other people’s tax money and now you would like to complain about the taxes you pay. That sounds very Tea Partyish.
Click to expand...
More leftist propaganda…Those who serve in the military are collecting “from the government teat”, while those on the various means-tested assistance programs are “those in need.”

As to the (general) Tea party ideology - there are very, very few functions that are bestowed upon the Federal government in the constitution. Having a national military is one of them, paying for health care for everyone is NOT. That is the big difference between the Tea party and the leftists, who would rather have free health care for all but no military.
Gary_Sheldrake said:
Totalitarian governments have heavily armed militaries. Insofar as I am aware, to be a member of their armies, you have to be a citizen.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Jews were also citizens. Until their rights were taken away from them…kinda like you want to do to some American citizens.
 
Here are the facts about guns as I understand them.
  1. Be safe.
  2. Guns are simply tools. So, like tools have more than you think you’ll need, and don’t keep them all in one place.
  3. Nothing is more dangerous than an unloaded gun.
  4. Being proficient with any tool requires practice. So do that.
  5. Be sure of your target, and what’s behind it.
  6. Firearms and alcohol/drugs do not mix well.
  7. Don’t hunt with people who are careless with their firearms.
  8. Shot placement is the most important part of shooting.
  9. Do not leave firearms where children, and unqualified people can get to them.
  10. Guns, it’s better to have one and not need it. Then to need one and not have it.
Resucito!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top