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.
Tell that to Priscilla Ford. Our history is full of energy spent on designing weapons or improvisation of things into weapons. I have had to use a firearm for defensive purposes before, but mainly use them for predator control( which is a defensive purpose) and competition. I enjoy the shooting sports. It gets tiring, al the rhetoric about firearms= violence out of hand. All the drivel about firearms owners 'living in fear' and such. Does a person who practices Aikido or Karate do so because of fear? Shooting is a martial art, and one that can be practiced and enjoyed by folks who are not physically able to practice others. We have several competitors who are in wheelchairs, and shoot at the top of their class. Oh, I'm sure they are petrified just going out the door though, after all, they own GUNS! Firearms are marvelous examples of mechanical engineering. Ballistic science is fascinating stuff, as is the chemistry involved. It all fits together into a precise science, right down to the man behind the trigger. Who must be conditioned and educated if he/she wants to apply the required skills in proper fashion. As in all other endeavors, it runs the gamut of rank beginners to seasoned professionals. Yet all some folks can see is the spew fed them by folks who do not understand, and never will, what the shooting tradition of this nation means. If only they could just keep their choices and views in their own circles, life would be grand.
Two slight differences of opinions I see here.
1: everyone just can't pack up and move
2: some had rather fight the bad guys than surrender.
Indeed, predators do not just go away because someone chooses to ignore them or bend around them. Sooner or later, we ALL must deal with the predators. Choosing to try and avoid them, often brings them looking for you. Nature of the beast, so to speak. Personally, I refuse to walk with my head down for anyone, and I am more likely to defer to a four legged predator than a two legged one. The former actually have a respectable purpose on Earth, while the latter are the closest thing to a true varmint in existence. More akin to a parasite than a true predator, worthy of nothing but contempt. It has been my experience that any predator is more likely to attack if they sense weakness. Thus, we have a duty to at least appear to be strong and hard, better to actually BE strong and hard. This helps to keep the wolves outside the glow of the fire.
Two slight differences of opinions I see here.
1: everyone just can't pack up and move
2: some had rather fight the bad guys than surrender.
Surrender? Who said anything about surrender?
Nobody messes with me. Now....granted - I'm 6 feet tall and 225 pounds. Is life that different for smaller guys? I've never seen any evidence of that - once you get past high school.
I think it is false reasoning. People who have them for defense only don't fire unless needed. Pretty clear to me gun control is a leftist agenda. Period. It doesn't take 20/20 vision to see that. Killers keep their guns and do what they want to do. Guns stored for self defense by law abiding people have no connection to bullets being fired and killing innocent people. The left wants to spin it but it just want turn.
In my view it simply contradicts the modern intellectual mindset (especially in intellectual states like Illinois) that conflicts are solved with firepower. But it is always easier to shoot criminals than to fight the causes of crime... To a certain extent I can even understand people who want to go the easy way, but I don't think firearms are the way to go for a sophisticated humanity of the 21st century, let alone thereafter.
Indeed, predators do not just go away because someone chooses to ignore them or bend around them. Sooner or later, we ALL must deal with the predators. Choosing to try and avoid them, often brings them looking for you. Nature of the beast, so to speak. Personally, I refuse to walk with my head down for anyone, and I am more likely to defer to a four legged predator than a two legged one. The former actually have a respectable purpose on Earth, while the latter are the closest thing to a true varmint in existence. More akin to a parasite than a true predator, worthy of nothing but contempt. It has been my experience that any predator is more likely to attack if they sense weakness. Thus, we have a duty to at least appear to be strong and hard, better to actually BE strong and hard. This helps to keep the wolves outside the glow of the fire.
Amen. If Chicago gets all the legal guns form the good people then the outlaws will have a hay day with home invasions knowing they can't be met with resistance. I still say it's nothing more than a leftest movement. Disarm the publick and rule then as you please. Going back to the dark ages.
In my view it simply contradicts the modern intellectual mindset (especially in intellectual states like Illinois) that conflicts are solved with firepower. But it is always easier to shoot criminals than to fight the causes of crime... To a certain extent I can even understand people who want to go the easy way, but I don't think firearms are they way to go for a sophisticated humanity of the 21st century, let alone thereafter.
You get shot while talking instead or reloading. Sophistcated humanity left Greece in runins. Will that be Chicago's fate? History is repeated over and over again because of blind philosophy.
You get shot while talking instead or reloading. Sophistcated humanity left Greece in runins. Will that be Chicago's fate? History is repeated over and over again because of blind philosophy.
Talking, hehe No, my point is that one big cause of gun violence for instance is drugs. So in the long run it makes more sense to make people resist taking drugs and thus stop feeding those gangs. But no, instead of addressing that problem at home, everybody blames the Mexicans for the violence, drug trafficking etc.
Gun buy back programs may or many not be ineffective in reducing gun violence by criminals but there are other areas of gun violence that they may be effective in preventing, such as accidental gun deaths that result from guns falling into the hands of children and those used in domestic violence and suicide. I think that is worthy enough to justify these programs.
In my view it simply contradicts the modern intellectual mindset (especially in intellectual states like Illinois) that conflicts are solved with firepower. But it is always easier to shoot criminals than to fight the causes of crime... To a certain extent I can even understand people who want to go the easy way, but I don't think firearms are the way to go for a sophisticated humanity of the 21st century, let alone thereafter.
This 'modern intellectual mindset' you speak of has not reached to near the extent you seem to think it has. Some types of conflicts are solvable with non violent methods, others, well, good luck using mere intellect and lofty ideals. This buy back program we are discussing here, is nothing more than the latter, a lofty ideal. Designed to convince folks that self defense is a bad thing, actually a criminal thing and that is complete and utter nonsense. Once again, you fall into the trap that equates firearms ownership, and a willingness to defend what is dear to you, with a desire to have to do so. Just because I am ready to defend my family, my property and myself, does not mean I WANT to. However, I would far rather meet a criminal attack with violence returned tenfold than depend on the tender mercy of a violent thug or predatory animal. The latter is a concern to me, but probably not so much with a Chicago resident. Chicago does, however have a hyper violent two legged predator element, that would gladly butcher a little old lady for her jar full of dimes. This element is not swayed by intellect or reason, but the business end of a .38 revolver would certainly get the point across.
A very valid question for a theoretical debate, but one that is not very relevant in reality for most people.
I'm no street fighter either, but in over 40 years of adult life I have never needed to be. Never - not once. Last time I was picked on was in about 1962 in junior high school. The important lesson I learned from those years was to recognize and avoid troublemakers and their gathering places. And it has always worked. Never did it occur to me that the solution to dealing with problem individuals was to take them on using a gun.
Now, if you live in a neighborhood where you can't walk your own street for fear of assault, the answer is to move - and make more careful choices in the future.
You blindly trust statistics, I'll trust my guns. Few crime victims ever thought they would be a victim.
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.
Firearms are marvelous examples of mechanical engineering. Ballistic science is fascinating stuff, as is the chemistry involved. It all fits together into a precise science, right down to the man behind the trigger. Who must be conditioned and educated if he/she wants to apply the required skills in proper fashion. As in all other endeavors, it runs the gamut of rank beginners to seasoned professionals. Yet all some folks can see is the spew fed them by folks who do not understand, and never will, what the shooting tradition of this nation means. If only they could just keep their choices and views in their own circles, life would be grand.
Agree 100%
No, my point is that one big cause of gun violence for instance is drugs. So in the long run it makes more sense to make people resist taking drugs and thus stop feeding those gangs. But no, instead of addressing that problem at home, everybody blames the Mexicans for the violence, drug trafficking etc.
