Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh it definately does. People do very brazen things in areas that already have strict gun control, like NYC.
Where else can you attempt to mug people with screwdrivers on the Subway?
If a criminal has a good idea that most people are not armed and will not put up much of a resistance, the law-abiding citizen is just a fattened calf ripe for the taking in their eyes.
You have to be pretty hard core to not care someone is armed. Most criminals look to attack the weak and unaware in the street.
Of course, but I'm not sure what this has to do with whether people practicing concealed carry will deter perpetrators of mass shootings, considering that such criminals often commit suicide or intend to die during their shooting. If that is not a "hardcore" criminal, I'm not sure what is. I wasn't talking about daily street crime.
However, it is interesting that there is still a large amount of gun violence in areas such as housing projects, where there is also a large number of armed individuals.
Children have a natural fear of things they can't see in the dark. Otherwise, their fears are taught to them.
Of course they are, but they learn many things from sources other than their parents. This isn't a nature/nurture debate. No one is arguing that a child's fear of guns is a natural trait. That is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
You're talking about the person, not the gun.
The little girl should not be any more frightened--or less--of a man other than her father whether he wears a gun or not.
But if he's wearing a gun in Texas, at least, the great odds are that he's definitely not been convicted of any felonies or serious misdemeanors.
Of course I'm talking about the person. I never understand this line of reasoning. No one -- no one -- thinks that guns can magically shoot themselves. Why gun rights advocates feel the need to point out that "guns don't kill people, people do" is beyond me. Everyone is aware that the person pulling the trigger is the cause of a gun death, but if that gun is not present, there is no gun death.
Are you really saying that a child shouldn't be more afraid of a stranger with a gun than her own father with a gun, or did I misread that?
Of course they are, but they learn many things from sources other than their parents. This isn't a nature/nurture debate. No one is arguing that a child's fear of guns is a natural trait. That is absurd.
So you're really giving credence to the concept of practicing open carry to inoculate people against an irrational fear of guns.
Quote:
Of course I'm talking about the person. I never understand this line of reasoning. No one -- no one -- thinks that guns can magically shoot themselves. Why gun rights advocates feel the need to point out that "guns don't kill people, people do" is beyond me. Everyone is aware that the person pulling the trigger is the cause of a gun death, but if that gun is not present, there is no gun death.
Are you really saying that a child shouldn't be more afraid of a stranger with a gun than her own father with a gun, or did I misread that?
What I'm saying is that the child should not be any more or less fearful of the man, whether he's wearing a gun or not. He is not any more or less a potential threat to the child, whether he's wearing a gun or not--the child should be equally wary of him either way.
So you're really giving credence to the concept of practicing open carry to inoculate people against an irrational fear of guns.
I'm doing no such thing. I don't think less fear of guns in our society would be a positive thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
What I'm saying is that the child should not be any more or less fearful of the man, whether he's wearing a gun or not. He is not any more or less a potential threat to the child, whether he's wearing a gun or not--the child should be equally wary of him either way.
Why are we still talking about this? Why is child rationality relevant to gun control?
I do not agree that a stranger with a gun presents zero added risk over a stranger without a gun. I agree that most people who wear their guns visibly are probably up to nothing nefarious. However, the added risk isn't zero. This discussion is pointless, however, because I'm not sure children are even very rational to begin with. They think in terms of "bad guys" and "good guys," so I simply don't get the relevant of whether children can rationally be afraid of guns to anything that is relevant to a gun control discussion.
Just because you can doesnt mean you should...
If I as a policeman was traveling and this yahoo was next to me and I took him down I wonder if I would be charged..probably
Probably shot and charged (if you were still alive) and he would have been justified doing so.
I think that if I had all the irrational fears mentioned I'd just stay under the bed 24/7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
You can't be serious. It is very easy to imagine inanimate objects that present great danger. Imagine a crane holding a wrecking ball above your house. What if you also knew that the crane was very old, hadn't been serviced in years, and several inspectors had thought there was a good likelihood that the crane could fail? Or imagine a building that was very old and had been condemned. The idea that things are not dangerous because they are inanimate is silly. Tornadoes are inanimate. So are avalanches, earthquakes and lightning.
However, you are obviously ignoring some important considerations here. While few people would be afraid to look at a gun in a glass display case, that is not the situation in real life. There is a person who is holding that gun, and if that person is a stranger, we don't know anything about that person's psychological makeup. Further, there is always some risk of an accident.
It is not irrational for a child to be afraid of a gun.
Proved his point, though, didn't he? Sort of overkill but he didn't break the law.
What was his point? Maybe you can explain it.
All I got is, "Hey Sheep! I'm gonna shove a loaded AR15 with 100 rds in your face and there's not a thing you can do about it."
If there was another point to this rude, self indulgent, monkey spanking exercise, please, bring us up to speed.
That's what it boils down to. I don't even carry, but I respect the fact that these people are standing up for their rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
