I'd like an anti to answer

N

NGIB

New member
We've all heard the argument that "non-hunting" guns serve no purpose other than to shoot other people. We've also heard the argument that we should rely on the police and the government to protect us therefore we don't need handguns. Both of these arguments are silly IMHO. Now, in light of the number of court decisions saying the police DO NOT have the responsibility to protect us they are now silly from a legal perspective as well. See this link:

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html

Since the courts have ruled that the police are under no legal obligation to protect us, what would an anti say to our argument that we need a gun to protect ourselves?

Wow, this is a good one for my 500th post, it's not a "vs" poll!
 
You really don't think this forum is teeming with anti-gun activists do you?

Firearms are:
Tools for professionals or for personal and home protection.

And

Sports equipment for hunters and target shooters.

And

Recreational devices for plinkers.

And

Objects of beauty or historical interest for collectors

And

political instruments for insurrectionists.

And

Penis supplements for mall ninjas.


I might have missed something
 
Actually, I was asking a rhetorical question and wondering how they'd answer. Liked the mall ninja purpose...
 
Since the courts have ruled that the police are under no legal obligation to protect us, what would an anti say to our argument that we need a gun to protect ourselves?
Click to expand...

Sent this off to my granola friend and her reply was:
Why do you need an automatic weapon to protect yourself? In what situations are you putting yourself in that pepper spray and tasers can't protect you? I also heartily agree with the "Penis supplements for mall ninjas."
Click to expand...

I'm still in the process of arranging a photo op of her face after I take her to the range, but suspect even then she'll have definite thoughts regarding targets versus full time carry.

I'll try and forward any responses to her if you want me to.
 
Ah, they'll use the level of force argument as if a taser or pepper spray will ALWAYS stop the attack. If this were the case, our cops wouldn't need to carry guns either. I've always felt the more we understand how they think the more logically and rationally we can counter the flawed arguments.

Doesn't really do any good but it's good mental exercise...
 
I'll throw this one out

True second amendment advocates believe they have the right to own any weapon available. Do you need a grenade launcher on your shoulder for self protection as you walk the mall? :D
 
Ah, they'll use the level of force argument as if a taser or pepper spray will ALWAYS stop the attack. If this were the case, our cops wouldn't need to carry guns either. I've always felt the more we understand how they think the more logically and rationally we can counter the flawed arguments.

Doesn't really do any good but it's good mental exercise...
Click to expand...

Not even going to send this to her, I'll respond from the pro-gun side.. you aren't seriously trying to imply that a gun will ALWAYS stop the attack?
 
In what situations are you putting yourself in that pepper spray and tasers can't protect you?
Click to expand...

I would just compile a list of situations that have happened recently that show that pepper spray or tasers would have not helped at all...

Church shooting in Colorado
VA Tech shooting
Lane Bryant shooting in Chicago? not sure on the location
...feel free to add more

Those situations happened when someone else started shooting and regardless of your choice of pepper spray or taser, neither would have prevented the attack or stopped it from going as far as it did. In the case of the church shooting, the gunman was stopped before any harm was caused IIRC
 
Not even going to send this to her, I'll respond from the pro-gun side.. you aren't seriously trying to imply that a gun will ALWAYS stop the attack?
Click to expand...

Nope I'm not as their are no 100% guarantees in the self defense arena.

But t'was I were in a life threatening situation I'd rather have my .45 than a can of pepper spray or a taser. Again, if these means of defense were superior to guns, cops wouldn't carry guns either. Also, how well will the taser work against multiple aggressors? How well will the pepper spray work in a rain or wind storm? My .45 will work in both situations as long as I do my part...
 
True second amendment advocates believe they have the right to own any weapon available. Do you need a grenade launcher on your shoulder for self protection as you walk the mall?
Click to expand...

I'll get flamed for this but I think truly reasonable and consistent regulation isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Seen a lot of posts recently about felons and guns. While I'm sure there are technical felons that don't deserve the lifetime ban I'm also just as sure the majority should never legally have a gun again.

As to the grenade launcher, can you limit the collateral damage with a high degree of certainty? Ditto with a machine gun...
 
SecDef said:
Why do you need an automatic weapon to protect yourself? In what situations are you putting yourself in that pepper spray and tasers can't protect you?
Click to expand...

It is less your granola friend's choice of defensive weapon, than it is her failure to think all the way through a defensive situation. Has she ever actually thought (or practiced) what she would do with the spray or Taser?

It sounds as if she has never felt threatened -- is always in condition green -- and probably could not employ her Taser to fend off an enraged attacker (road rage, fender bender, perceived disrespect) armed with a handy baseball bat, lug wrench, or pocketknife.
 
Actually, I was asking a rhetorical question and wondering how they'd answer.
Click to expand...

So if it is a rhetorical question, do you really want an answer or not? The title indicates that you want an answer, then you say it is rhetorical.

What does it matter how they would answer the question?

But t'was I were in a life threatening situation I'd rather have my .45 than a can of pepper spray or a taser.
Click to expand...

Ah, now we come to the crux of the issue. You don't understand why it is that anti-gun people don't perceive the same approach to conflict resolution as you do. This isn't a problem with just you, but with people on both sides of the issue. Each side believes strongly in their views and each side has some hokey hokey views. I am just as amazed by gun owners who feel defenseless because they don't have a gun on their person as I am by anti-gun people who believe they can be protected by the cops. Both views are extraordinarily naive. Both sides tend to take matters to an almost supernatural level in how strongly they hold their beliefs and I have seen where both sides invoke God for justification of being armed or not armed.

The antis think nobody should have guns but the cops and military...as if that has ever been a good idea. Many pro gun folks feel everyone should have guns (RKBA shall NOT be infringed) except for reasons they feel are okay such as maybe not children, maybe not really small children, maybe not the mentally retarded, mentally unstable, felons, people on medication that might affect judgment, etc., because apparently those people don't have the "right to defend themselves," as if guns were the only means of defense that ever existed. Both sets of opposing views have some theoretical validity, but reality invalidity.

My father is anti gun. He was a cop for 21 years and doesn't like guns. He owns several. If he had his way, nobody would have guns, but he realizes that such a concept won't ever be a reality and he doesn't want to be behind the power curve against an attacker. He no longer shoots, but takes my mother shooting. He is not unarmed, but would rather not be armed. He is one of the most practical anti-gun people that I have ever met.

Strangely, I know some gun folks that are very similar. They own guns and have carry permits, but don't carry and have all their guns locked up at home.
 
OK, I've known a few dedicated antis in my short but eventful life. I can think of two in particular who clarified their stance to me. They both had very similar viewpoints. One was a Tibetan Buddhist priest and the other a Catholic priest.

The Buddhist believed that all sentient beings had the right to live out their lives and seek whatever happiness they could and we have no innate right to harm any creature even to save ourselves. He believed that harming another, even a food animal would delay our spiritual progression. He believed that we should strive to allow each creature to fulfill its own destiny even if that destiny meant killing us.

The Catholic believed that all the universe was in God's hands and if God willed that someone would attack us and kill us then we would be best rewarded by bowing to the inevitable and doing our best to love the transgressor even if that love contributed to our own deaths.

Now, I'm sure that some of the readers are now foaming at the mouth for one reason or another after reading this post. Despite these two men's personal flaws I believe they were two of the three the most spiritually advanced people I've ever met. If I was as much of an advanced soul as either one of them I wouldn't be a gunny and I wouldn't be posting here and I admit they both knew something I don't. So before you start an antibuddhist or anticatholic rant or PM me to tell me about the flying spaghetti monster or something, just stow it. There are some things we don't know. OK?
 
The Buddhist believed that all sentient beings had the right to live out their lives and seek whatever happiness they could and we have no innate right to harm any creature even to save ourselves. He believed that harming another, even a food animal would delay our spiritual progression. He believed that we should strive to allow each creature to fulfill its own destiny even if that destiny meant killing us.
Click to expand...

The destiny of the Chinese is being revealed.

Paramilitaries open fire on hundreds of monks and nuns at Tibet rally

Paramilitary police opened fire on hundreds of monks, nuns and Tibetans who tried to march on a local government office in western China yesterday to demand the return of the Dalai Lama.
 
Seen a lot of posts recently about felons and guns. While I'm sure there are technical felons that don't deserve the lifetime ban I'm also just as sure the majority should never legally have a gun again.
Click to expand...

Before 1968, when a felon had paid his debt to society, I believe his firearm rights were restored automatically -- actually, they had never really been revoked in the first place other than guns were not available nor allowed while he was incarcerated. And I don't recall that ex-cons having guns was ever a problem. Of course, I was a young'un back then. Maybe some of the oldtimers here could fill us in.
 
Nuclear bombs aren't good for hunting either, and they sure are for killing people. Damn glad we have had them though. They even work by not using them. Firearms often have the same effect. Once a would be victim draws or the assailant otherwise learns his intended victim is armed, it can have a deterrant effect and no shot is ever fired. This happens more than cases where the gun is shot.
 
It is less your granola friend's choice of defensive weapon, than it is her failure to think all the way through a defensive situation. Has she ever actually thought (or practiced) what she would do with the spray or Taser?

It sounds as if she has never felt threatened -- is always in condition green -- and probably could not employ her Taser to fend off an enraged attacker (road rage, fender bender, perceived disrespect) armed with a handy baseball bat, lug wrench, or pocketknife.
Click to expand...

Her reply, for your indulgence:
I carry my pepper spray everywhere on my keys. If I ever find myself in a non "green" situation, my keys are in my hand. If I feel threatened, I am a lot more likely to use it than a gun. No seconds thoughts as to whether I hit friends near me or any other bystanders. Damn straight I'll use it!
Click to expand...

She goes on to say (and I'll paraphrase as this was over the phone) that the chances of being in the mall or church and needing a gun are so exceedingly slim that it isn't worth being prepared for them. Her metaphor: She doesn't carry snake anti-venom when she goes hiking, nor does she carry kitty litter in her car in the summertime in the event of a freak snowstorm and her car gets stuck.
 
well, i don't feel like i need an automatic weapon or grenade launcher or body armor. I do believe in the second amendment of course, but i do not believe it applies to all the firepower that has been produced for todays militaries.

I guess i feel that some of you need to read up on Freuds ideas on the subject of weapons.

YK

if that opinion makes me an anti then i guess some of you are just extremists.
 
I carry my pepper spray everywhere on my keys. If I ever find myself in a non "green" situation, my keys are in my hand. If I feel threatened, I am a lot more likely to use it than a gun. No seconds thoughts as to whether I hit friends near me or any other bystanders. Damn straight I'll use it!
Click to expand...

Not a horrible response, really. I can certainly understand it. However, I don't think it's a strong argument for those that would choose to carry a gun and would be willing to use it in an appropriate situation.

She goes on to say (and I'll paraphrase as this was over the phone) that the chances of being in the mall or church and needing a gun are so exceedingly slim that it isn't worth being prepared for them. Her metaphor: She doesn't carry snake anti-venom when she goes hiking, nor does she carry kitty litter in her car in the summertime in the event of a freak snowstorm and her car gets stuck.
Click to expand...

Again, the above applies. Perhaps I do choose to be prepared for freak snowstorms. Also, there's the idea that CCW licenses being common might actually reduce the level of random crime (as the criminals are more likely to face an armed victim). Deciding whether easy access to guns has a net positive or negative effect on crime is fairly complicated, but it's at least possible that gun ownership does reduce some forms of crimes (and there is research to support this). Whereas you aren't suddenly more likely to get bitten by a snake if carry of anti-venom is made illegal.
 
However, I don't think it's a strong argument for those that would choose to carry a gun and would be willing to use it in an appropriate situation.
Click to expand...

Well, I did neglect to add that she also feels that in her situation, she can make a mistake and nobody gets killed.

I'm gonna have to stop bugging her for responses until I can get a gun in her hands on the range (which she did agree to, cross your fingers).

I think the base issue with her is that she doesn't perceive a gun as a tool, but as an arbitrary death giver. We're working on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top