You don't need to carry a gun personally, police will protect you (Obama, party)

[dubyanumberone]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

Cut me a break.
When have I ever said anything about your right to do whatever you choose.
Another of these absurd threads gets started every few days by some idiot who claims that those who don't believe in carrying weapons makes us weak or that we cry victim.

I'm sick of these guys who are so darned insecure that they project their weaknesses and fears on the entire world and claim that crime is so prevalent that those of us who don't believe in an armed world are weak and "victims".

If so many gun owners and "right-to-carry" morons weren't so dumb and spending their time insulting those who believe differently, this wouldn't be an issue. Ahh yes, the main cause of crime is the insensitivity and racism of gun owners. Darn whitey is keepin me down! I had no choice but to rob that little old lady! Give me a break.

Sorry that you guys feel so darned insecure in your manhood that you feel the need to carry weapons. For some insecurity may be the main reason they purchase a handgun but for the vast majority this isn't that case. My reasons for supporting gun ownership are twofold and I think are similar to most folks. One, protection of self and property. Two, I enjoy target shooting and skeet shooting (no desire to hunt). I'm quite secure in my manhood, thank you.

How many of you have been attacked and have had to use your gun? Not yet thank God but if it happens I'd prefer to be able to defend myself.
What are the stats on kids getting killed because of an unlocked gun in the house? I don't know the number but even one is too high and completely unacceptable. Most everyone I shoot with has children and each and every one of them has taught their children gun safety, has a gun safe and has set firm rules about handling guns. If a child is killed because some parent left their gun out that falls on the parent. You can't blame the gun. How many kids drown every year in their own pool because they weren't supervised? Are we going to ban swimming pools too? People need to take some personal responsibility and raise their kids. How many people are killed because of drunk gun owners? Again, that falls on the moron shooting while drunk not the gun. Our rule when shooting is that once you crack that first beer, you are DONE shooting. No exceptions. How many die each year driving drunk? Are we going to ban cars? Again, the person is to blame, not the gun (or car).

.

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by delusianne

If the OP wants to fuss about anything in this case s/he should fuss about the police, or the woman herself, not securing the windows.

What this has to do with gun control and liberals is beyond me.

I had to go back through the whole thread to verify, and did not see the terms 'gun control' or 'liberal' used once, except for this post. Soooooo, I fail to see the correlation as well. Things seem to have centered around whether one takes personal security and self defense under the auspices of being self reliant, or relies on the police for 'protection'. Not everyone who has replied advocates for being armed, even if being self reliant is their choice, and nobody, save you, has brought political leaning or the 'gun control' debate into it per se.Lol, this is actually the only thread on this type of subject I have ever seen where someone did not immediatly throw out the "L" or "C" words, right out of the gate.The core issue is whether or not he police can be relied on to respond before it's to late, when one is faced with violent attack. The answer is, undeniably, no, they cannot.The police cannot be held accountable for this as a general rule, they are not omnipitent, so, it would seem to be prudent for people to be able, willing, and ready, to defend themselves, should the need arise. Granted, security precautions, such as locking doors and windows, is always advisable. There is no sense in inviting the wolves to dinner, but, neither is it advisable to let them have their way should they force their way in. Unless thst is ones preferred method. To each their own............

[DanoTex]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

Cut me a break.
When have I ever said anything about your right to do whatever you choose.
Another of these absurd threads gets started every few days by some idiot who claims that those who don't believe in carrying weapons makes us weak or that we cry victim.

I'm sick of these guys who are so darned insecure that they project their weaknesses and fears on the entire world and claim that crime is so prevalent that those of us who don't believe in an armed world are weak and "victims".

If so many gun owners and "right-to-carry" morons weren't so dumb and spending their time insulting those who believe differently, this wouldn't be an issue.

Sorry that you guys feel so darned insecure in your manhood that you feel the need to carry weapons.

How many of you have been attacked and have had to use your gun?
What are the stats on kids getting killed because of an unlocked gun in the house? How many people are killed because of drunk gun owners?

"If so many gun owners and "right-to-carry" morons weren't so dumb and spending their time insulting those who believe differently, this wouldn't be an issue."

Seems your rant is a continuous insult to those you're complaining about being so insulting.

So are you the pot or the kettle?

Dano

[chielgirl]

It's called replying in kind.
And if you want to consider yourselves the morons of whom I speak, I believe that's on you.
I don't recall naming any one person.

[dubyanumberone]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

It's called replying in kind.
And if you want to consider yourselves the morons of whom I speak, I believe that's on you.
I don't recall naming any one person.

But do you really belive that most instances where someone was forced to use a firearm to defend themselves was caused by them insulting someone becuase of their "differences"? You can't really believe that most gun owners are walking around packing heat and insulting people in the hopes they get into a situation.

[jeepejeep]

Chielgirl is suffering from hoplophobia. I believe she means well but is so afraid of an inanimate object she cannot help herself. It's a very common occurrence with many people. I've come across it in real life also, not just on here. I've managed to get a few of these folks to a shooting range and after actually having some experience with a firearm and seeing others using them in a fun, reasonable manner, they usually walk away with quite a different view. The fear of the unknown is formidable. A few of these formerly anti-gun, fearful, hoplophobic people are now gun owners. One hunts with me now.

[BurtsBees]

Originally Posted by TKramar

So let's get rid of the police entirely.

All they really are is another group of gun wielding thugs and fascists.

Take off your tinfoil hat and go outside and see the real world. Some sunlight would probably do you some good.

[TKramar]

I see the real world. In the real world, there is evil in everyone, or at least the capacity for evil. Why do you think police departments have an internal affairs department? To investigate those not toeing the company line.

[dubyanumberone]

Originally Posted by TKramar

I see the real world. In the real world, there is evil in everyone, or at least the capacity for evil. Why do you think police departments have an internal affairs department? To investigate those not toeing the company line.

There are bad apples in every walk of life, including law enforcement, however, the vast majority of law enforcement personel are good people who do the best job they can as fairly as they can.

[mossomo]

Contrary to what we grew up being told, police have no general duty to protect individuals. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.
Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

PublicRights.org - Police NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT Individual SAFETY

In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff's 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: "What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?" Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another.