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.
Statistically, you were more likely to have been gunned down where you stood. You might not want to press your luck quite so much in the future. You are not the imposing specimen you imagine yourself to be.
The phrase "harm reduction" is meanwhile relevant to the 30,000 annual deaths from gunshot wounds and nearly 200,000 serious and sometimes crippling injuries. What are you willing to do or see done in order to reduce this toll of death and mayhem in our society? Anything? Anything at all? Or are "stray bullets" just something we should all learn to "live" with in America?
Imposing figure? Lmao. Hardly. But, I am a dirty, rotten nasty , no issue pulling Apache tricks, kinda guy. I never asked for any trouble that ever found me. My hand was forced, and there was no other way out, than to fight. I haven't been in any kind of silly, circle and growl, shoving match , since grade school. If I have to defend myself, it for real, and the stakes are high.
Everything I said, I stand by. You are the one who might want to think about options. Running or cowering doesn't leave much, but pain. Adieu...
Pardon me..I got sidetracked, and didn't address the last part. What am I willing to do. Well, as it stands, I work with an outfit that teaches people self defense tactics. No, not just weapons training, though that is a part of it. Situational awareness, threat recognition, confrontation defusing, the things that help people recognize when its time to fight, or to get oneself extricated.
That's the thing about being armed. You had best have a thick skin. To many people don't realize that, and that's what we teach. When you take on the burden of being armed, get used to giving up that parking space the guy just cut you off from, shrug off the idiot driver that tried to cause a wreck, for a car length, the mouthy drunk who made the crude comment about your lady at the restaurant..and any number of other situations. When you're playing for keeps, that stuff isn't even worth your time. Helping people who have chosen to be armed, to realize the reality of that, is something I already have done, for a long time now.
That's a biggy. And people like us, are the reason that CCW holders aware as responsible as they are. You don't hear much, at all, about CCWs drawing for stupid reasons. Nor do they play schoolyard games with idiots in public. That's threat recognition. We are going to ignore the clown that wolf whistles our lady, because that's NOT a threat.
And drunk drivers agree that we need to do something about drunk drivers.
And law-abiding gun owners agree that psychos shouldn't be armed. Gun control has been spectacularly unsuccessful in addressing that. Nor has it helped in keeping weapons out of the hands of the criminal element.
It's not as if anyone argues that guns get up by themselves and shoot people. Many of us just don't see a reason why so many people need to have the ability to kill people so easily and so MANY of them (as you can with a gun).
As most of us know, there was a recent attack in China on elementary school kids which left 22 wounded. If the guy had a gun, it would have been like Newton, CT. Sure, a knife can also kill (happened in China a few yrs ago), but in general, it takes longer and is harder (which would give others time to stop the attacker).
I really don't see why anyone, other than the cops and military, should have the ability to STOCK UP on guns and ammunition. Sure, I can see having a single gun if you live in a city/suburb if you're scared in your home and maybe a few if you live in a rural area....even in those scenarios, no one really needs to have a gun that can fire many times before re-loading. And only a tiny fraction of people need to be able to have like more than 10 bullets at any given time. I live in TX, a totally gun loving state, which was a bit of a culture shock. I see no reason why people I know should have multiple guns as a HOBBY.
I think the reason is different for every person who owns a gun (or guns). I'm not even sure you could ever find out every reason. So I will just speak for me, obviously.
Owning gun(s) is for protection in my home and elsewhere. Shooting is I suppose considered somewhat of a sport such as target shooting, skeet shooting, competitions, matches, etc. I do not hunt, but that's also another reason people have multiple kinds in their homes.
I think really the problem isn't how many guns a person has in their home, but how to USE them. If they were not taught correctly by someone who actually knows the proper way to handle and use them, then owning a gun really shouldn't be on their to do list.
I see no reason to own anything you don't know how to use. If I don't know how to use something, I don't feel comfortable using it unless I do whatever measure of research to learn about it.
Also, criminals give something that is used for protection a bad name. I don't see why people who know how to use their weapons and the purpose of them, have to be punished for those who take those weapons and use them for bad purposes. It happens with everything though. Something good is made, and criminals come along and use it for something completely different and then the ones who actually need the item is the one who suffers.
Pardon me..I got sidetracked, and didn't address the last part. What am I willing to do.
That's all well and good. Sort of like the gun safety training that the NRA used to focus on back in the days before they became the notorious social pariah that they are today. Heck, they supported gun control laws back then. But none of your efforts to keep CCW types from adding to the levels of gun-related death and mayhem already out there do anything to reduce the levels of gun-related death and mayhem already out there. Which was kind of the question.
Proposed: Either you don't care about the levels of gun-related death and mayhem that are out there, or you are willing to do or see something done that would actually reduce it.
And law-abiding gun owners agree that psychos shouldn't be armed.
The problem here being that you have no way of telling us who these people are until they have gone off on some killing spree. THEN you are all over the place telling us that the warning signs were all there and somebody should have done something. It's a special brand of dishonesty that comes up with such things as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
Gun control has been spectacularly unsuccessful in addressing that. Nor has it helped in keeping weapons out of the hands of the criminal element.
That's all well and good. Sort of like the gun safety training that the NRA used to focus on back in the days before they became the notorious social pariah that they are today. Heck, they supported gun control laws back then. But none of your efforts to keep CCW types from adding to the levels of gun-related death and mayhem already out there do anything to reduce the levels of gun-related death and mayhem already out there. Which was kind of the question.
Proposed: Either you don't care about the levels of gun-related death and mayhem that are out there, or you are willing to do or see something done that would actually reduce it.
Harm reduction. Are you for it or against it?
I've offered solutions for harm reduction, but that doesn't jive with you, because GOD forbid we actually deal harshly with those who commit violent crimes! Nope, just blame others for their shortcomings instead of placing the blame where it actually lies.... THE INDIVIDUAL!!!! Furthermore, CCW types are NOT the type to go out there on a random killing spree! So again, why should CCW folks who tend to be the most efficient when practicing gun safety, have to have their rights compromised because of some wacko (who obviously doesn't have a legal license to conceal carry) shoots up a public place, or some POS gangbanging thug shoots up a crowd via a drive by shooting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard32
The problem here being that you have no way of telling us who these people are until they have gone off on some killing spree. THEN you are all over the place telling us that the warning signs were all there and somebody should have done something. It's a special brand of dishonesty that comes up with such things as that.
Also, criminals give something that is used for protection a bad name.
Despite the stereotypes that we all use to help simplify the world, people are not actually divided up into teams of criminals and law-abiders. As far as guns go, there are gun-owners who have already committed a gun-related crime and gun-owners who have not as of yet. That's really the most you can say for the law-abiders. As a group, you can't trust them. Some of them commit their first gun-related crime every day. You can't predict which ones it will be.
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.
