Because those moronic rights open the door for awful behaviour that results in people getting hurt and dying.
I agree with My2hands... guys walking around with their guns in public are fools. And if I can be honest... to me it seems as if they are supplementing character weaknesses like confidence and strength.
One way or another... they're weak. Pure and simple.
What about gals walking around with their guns in public? Firearm ownership among women is pretty damn high. So because they are weak, they should not be granted a way of protecting themselves?
Same opinion with one caveat: women are repeatedly the victims of men. Some of them are stalked or have some f**king loser in their past that is unstable and in possession of a 100 guns... sooo... I get where they are at.
Males are the problem here- especially the ones trying to make up a few inches by lookin' tuff with a big gun.
What about the woman with a stalker that gets a new boyfriend? Could that boyfriend not make a case for being in danger? Are you picking on the weak? What about the elderly or disabled? Regardless, weak or not, these rights have been granted to them and they really don’t have to explain why they are exercising that right (whether they are compensating for something, are women, are weak, or are just concerned about the rising violence in their area). To just say someone is “weak” is a pretty “weak” argument.
It's a strong argument.
I'm sorry you don't like it given the amount of truth there is to it.
I disagree, what truth do you speak of? I know plenty of “strong” people and plenty of “weak” people that carry, so I am not convinced. May be that you are referencing Canadian that you know?? I have been told that Canadians are weak, but I never took much faith in that statement. Maybe I should, since some random person said it based on their limited observations? Democrats are often referred to as “weak” as well...Maybe they just have small dicks? Lol
Because those moronic rights open the door for awful behaviour that results in people getting hurt and dying.
I agree with My2hands... guys walking around with their guns in public are fools. And if I can be honest... to me it seems as if they are supplementing character weaknesses like confidence and strength.
One way or another... they're weak. Pure and simple.
What about gals walking around with their guns in public? Firearm ownership among women is pretty damn high. So because they are weak, they should not be granted a way of protecting themselves?
Same opinion with one caveat: women are repeatedly the victims of men. Some of them are stalked or have some f**king loser in their past that is unstable and in possession of a 100 guns... sooo... I get where they are at.
Males are the problem here- especially the ones trying to make up a few inches by lookin' tuff with a big gun.
What about the woman with a stalker that gets a new boyfriend? Could that boyfriend not make a case for being in danger? Are you picking on the weak? What about the elderly or disabled? Regardless, weak or not, these rights have been granted to them and they really don’t have to explain why they are exercising that right (whether they are compensating for something, are women, are weak, or are just concerned about the rising violence in their area). To just say someone is “weak” is a pretty “weak” argument.
It's a strong argument.
I'm sorry you don't like it given the amount of truth there is to it.
I disagree, what truth do you speak of? I know plenty of “strong” people and plenty of “weak” people that carry, so I am not convinced. May be that you are referencing Canadian that you know?? I have been told that Canadians are weak, but I never took much faith in that statement. Maybe I should, since some random person said it based on their limited observations? Democrats are often referred to as “weak” as well...Maybe they just have small dicks? Lol
You're sinking lower and lower here.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Because those moronic rights open the door for awful behaviour that results in people getting hurt and dying.
I agree with My2hands... guys walking around with their guns in public are fools. And if I can be honest... to me it seems as if they are supplementing character weaknesses like confidence and strength.
One way or another... they're weak. Pure and simple.
What about gals walking around with their guns in public? Firearm ownership among women is pretty damn high. So because they are weak, they should not be granted a way of protecting themselves?
Same opinion with one caveat: women are repeatedly the victims of men. Some of them are stalked or have some f**king loser in their past that is unstable and in possession of a 100 guns... sooo... I get where they are at.
Males are the problem here- especially the ones trying to make up a few inches by lookin' tuff with a big gun.
What about the woman with a stalker that gets a new boyfriend? Could that boyfriend not make a case for being in danger? Are you picking on the weak? What about the elderly or disabled? Regardless, weak or not, these rights have been granted to them and they really don’t have to explain why they are exercising that right (whether they are compensating for something, are women, are weak, or are just concerned about the rising violence in their area). To just say someone is “weak” is a pretty “weak” argument.
It's a strong argument.
I'm sorry you don't like it given the amount of truth there is to it.
I disagree, what truth do you speak of? I know plenty of “strong” people and plenty of “weak” people that carry, so I am not convinced. May be that you are referencing Canadian that you know?? I have been told that Canadians are weak, but I never took much faith in that statement. Maybe I should, since some random person said it based on their limited observations? Democrats are often referred to as “weak” as well...Maybe they just have small dicks? Lol
You're sinking lower and lower here.
It's a strong argument.
I'm sorry you don't like it given the amount of truth there is to it
Because those moronic rights open the door for awful behaviour that results in people getting hurt and dying.
I agree with My2hands... guys walking around with their guns in public are fools. And if I can be honest... to me it seems as if they are supplementing character weaknesses like confidence and strength.
One way or another... they're weak. Pure and simple.
What about gals walking around with their guns in public? Firearm ownership among women is pretty damn high. So because they are weak, they should not be granted a way of protecting themselves?
Same opinion with one caveat: women are repeatedly the victims of men. Some of them are stalked or have some f**king loser in their past that is unstable and in possession of a 100 guns... sooo... I get where they are at.
Males are the problem here- especially the ones trying to make up a few inches by lookin' tuff with a big gun.
What about the woman with a stalker that gets a new boyfriend? Could that boyfriend not make a case for being in danger? Are you picking on the weak? What about the elderly or disabled? Regardless, weak or not, these rights have been granted to them and they really don’t have to explain why they are exercising that right (whether they are compensating for something, are women, are weak, or are just concerned about the rising violence in their area). To just say someone is “weak” is a pretty “weak” argument.
It's a strong argument.
I'm sorry you don't like it given the amount of truth there is to it.
I disagree, what truth do you speak of? I know plenty of “strong” people and plenty of “weak” people that carry, so I am not convinced. May be that you are referencing Canadian that you know?? I have been told that Canadians are weak, but I never took much faith in that statement. Maybe I should, since some random person said it based on their limited observations? Democrats are often referred to as “weak” as well...Maybe they just have small dicks? Lol
You're sinking lower and lower here.
It's a strong argument.
I'm sorry you don't like it given the amount of truth there is to it
Not sure why you're throwing someone else's comment at me.
Open carry is just another perpetuation of the outlandish American gun fetish. The gun culture in the US is pathetic, and unfortunately, the USA will continue to crank out humiliating gun death stats for as long as that culture persists. I personally think that this gun fetish makes America weaker in this world. When reality shows that America is more in line with third world nations than it is with the developed nations, it seems a little ridiculous to tout strength in the western world.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
All I know is I dont need some 23 year old clown strapped next to my mother and I while enjoying an omelette
He looked like a friggin moron, and I definitely did not feel safer in any way with Rambo Jr sitting there
Be afraid, be very, very afraid.
Remember the guy in Florida who was shot and killed by the “responsible” gun owner in the movie theater for talking on his cell phone during the previews? A CCW permit holder I believe. Everyday annoyances, who needs them?
All I know is I dont need some 23 year old clown strapped next to my mother and I while enjoying an omelette
He looked like a friggin moron, and I definitely did not feel safer in any way with Rambo Jr sitting there
Not sure where you are, but chances are he could just shoot your for his amusement and get away with it. Well as a PJ fan, you're probably white, so maybe not.
I really do get the sense that we're getting nostalgic for the ol' west. That's what happened at that convenience store. And the shooter; he was ready for it. He probably planned it. That's going to be a thing now; harassing black people until they give you an excuse, shooting them, getting acquitted, and becoming a white folk hero.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Because those moronic rights open the door for awful behaviour that results in people getting hurt and dying.
I agree with My2hands... guys walking around with their guns in public are fools. And if I can be honest... to me it seems as if they are supplementing character weaknesses like confidence and strength.
One way or another... they're weak. Pure and simple.
What about gals walking around with their guns in public? Firearm ownership among women is pretty damn high. So because they are weak, they should not be granted a way of protecting themselves?
Same opinion with one caveat: women are repeatedly the victims of men. Some of them are stalked or have some f**king loser in their past that is unstable and in possession of a 100 guns... sooo... I get where they are at.
Males are the problem here- especially the ones trying to make up a few inches by lookin' tuff with a big gun.
What about the woman with a stalker that gets a new boyfriend? Could that boyfriend not make a case for being in danger? Are you picking on the weak? What about the elderly or disabled? Regardless, weak or not, these rights have been granted to them and they really don’t have to explain why they are exercising that right (whether they are compensating for something, are women, are weak, or are just concerned about the rising violence in their area). To just say someone is “weak” is a pretty “weak” argument.
It's a strong argument.
I'm sorry you don't like it given the amount of truth there is to it.
I disagree, what truth do you speak of? I know plenty of “strong” people and plenty of “weak” people that carry, so I am not convinced. May be that you are referencing Canadian that you know?? I have been told that Canadians are weak, but I never took much faith in that statement. Maybe I should, since some random person said it based on their limited observations? Democrats are often referred to as “weak” as well...Maybe they just have small dicks? Lol
lol
I shouldn't have brought up the teeny peepee thing. It seems to have touched a nerve.
I'll say this (stay with me here): if we saturated society with countless weapons... we would have much more gun violence. We would also have many more 'accidents'.
Today, mountain biking with my buddies, some idiot was out there squeezing off a few rounds. This is very rare (1st time actually). We couldn't see him and we were hoping he didn't see us. I was wearing grey and black. I was cursing the fact I wasn't wearing something really bright. I was envisioning some drooling fool getting tired of shooting at beer cans and itching to shoot something that was moving- mistaking me for a deer or something.
My concerns were slightly paranoid and slightly based in reality. There are a ton of good, solid people that can handle the responsibility of a dangerous weapon in any setting. On the flip side, there are a ton of idiots that are prone to making a grievous error- either when angry, emotional, or simply out of sheer stupidity.
There's no way Canada is going backwards to establish really lenient gun laws that put guns in the hands of all those idiots so they can do idiotic things with them. And we're better for it.
If you had the ability to see into the future and you saw the violent death of your child which could be prevented with stricter gun laws... you'd advocate for stricter gun laws. Correct? Here's the thing... there are many people's children... right at this moment... destined for the fate I described with gun laws as they exist. They don't know it- the kids are riding their bikes and playing as we speak... but in a few days... good times go bad.
If you made meaningful changes... you'd be saving lives.
All I know is I dont need some 23 year old clown strapped next to my mother and I while enjoying an omelette
He looked like a friggin moron, and I definitely did not feel safer in any way with Rambo Jr sitting there
Be afraid, be very, very afraid.
Remember the guy in Florida who was shot and killed by the “responsible” gun owner in the movie theater for talking on his cell phone during the previews? A CCW permit holder I believe. Everyday annoyances, who needs them?
Brandishing a weapon over an argument does not make him responsible...
Because those moronic rights open the door for awful behaviour that results in people getting hurt and dying.
I agree with My2hands... guys walking around with their guns in public are fools. And if I can be honest... to me it seems as if they are supplementing character weaknesses like confidence and strength.
One way or another... they're weak. Pure and simple.
What about gals walking around with their guns in public? Firearm ownership among women is pretty damn high. So because they are weak, they should not be granted a way of protecting themselves?
Same opinion with one caveat: women are repeatedly the victims of men. Some of them are stalked or have some f**king loser in their past that is unstable and in possession of a 100 guns... sooo... I get where they are at.
Males are the problem here- especially the ones trying to make up a few inches by lookin' tuff with a big gun.
What about the woman with a stalker that gets a new boyfriend? Could that boyfriend not make a case for being in danger? Are you picking on the weak? What about the elderly or disabled? Regardless, weak or not, these rights have been granted to them and they really don’t have to explain why they are exercising that right (whether they are compensating for something, are women, are weak, or are just concerned about the rising violence in their area). To just say someone is “weak” is a pretty “weak” argument.
It's a strong argument.
I'm sorry you don't like it given the amount of truth there is to it.
I disagree, what truth do you speak of? I know plenty of “strong” people and plenty of “weak” people that carry, so I am not convinced. May be that you are referencing Canadian that you know?? I have been told that Canadians are weak, but I never took much faith in that statement. Maybe I should, since some random person said it based on their limited observations? Democrats are often referred to as “weak” as well...Maybe they just have small dicks? Lol
lol
I shouldn't have brought up the teeny peepee thing. It seems to have touched a nerve.
I'll say this (stay with me here): if we saturated society with countless weapons... we would have much more gun violence. We would also have many more 'accidents'.
Today, mountain biking with my buddies, some idiot was out there squeezing off a few rounds. This is very rare (1st time actually). We couldn't see him and we were hoping he didn't see us. I was wearing grey and black. I was cursing the fact I wasn't wearing something really bright. I was envisioning some drooling fool getting tired of shooting at beer cans and itching to shoot something that was moving- mistaking me for a deer or something.
My concerns were slightly paranoid and slightly based in reality. There are a ton of good, solid people that can handle the responsibility of a dangerous weapon in any setting. On the flip side, there are a ton of idiots that are prone to making a grievous error- either when angry, emotional, or simply out of sheer stupidity.
There's no way Canada is going backwards to establish really lenient gun laws that put guns in the hands of all those idiots so they can do idiotic things with them. And we're better for it.
If you had the ability to see into the future and you saw the violent death of your child which could be prevented with stricter gun laws... you'd advocate for stricter gun laws. Correct? Here's the thing... there are many people's children... right at this moment... destined for the fate I described with gun laws as they exist. They don't know it- the kids are riding their bikes and playing as we speak... but in a few days... good times go bad.
If you made meaningful changes... you'd be saving lives.
If you couldn’t see the person, why did you conclude they were “some idiot”? Being a responsible gun owner involves practicing and becoming proficient... These preconceptions are what keep me from taking many of your posts seriously. Your scenario is a double edged sword. If I could see into the future as you mentioned and less strict gun laws would save my child’s life, I would support that stance as well, would you? There are a number of victims that align with that scenario as well. If someone was merely being idiotic with a gun and hurt my child, I would blame the idiot, not the laws.
I don't believe that practicing and becoming proficient at all prevents gun rage/lame self defense claim incidents. I think any responsible gun owner has the potential to simply lose his temper during an altercation and shoot someone unjustifiably. The only way to reduce that risk is to require all gun owners, or at least those licensed to carry, to also attend extensive deescalation training and shit like that. If they don't, I have exactly ZERO faith that some well-trained gun-toting fella has the capacity to get involved in some kind of argument or fight that could and should be resolved without the use of a gun - I think any random responsible gun owner could lose his temper and shoot his "opponent" out of frustration and anger (or even just pure 'fraidy-cat worry that he might get a skinned knee or a black eye), rather than out of legitimate fear for his own life. Not that there is any chance of that kind of training to happen. Most police forces can't even manage to drill such valuable lessons into most of their recruits, so I don't expect gun totin' Joe Schmoe to do any better this day and age.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Because those moronic rights open the door for awful behaviour that results in people getting hurt and dying.
I agree with My2hands... guys walking around with their guns in public are fools. And if I can be honest... to me it seems as if they are supplementing character weaknesses like confidence and strength.
One way or another... they're weak. Pure and simple.
What about gals walking around with their guns in public? Firearm ownership among women is pretty damn high. So because they are weak, they should not be granted a way of protecting themselves?
Same opinion with one caveat: women are repeatedly the victims of men. Some of them are stalked or have some f**king loser in their past that is unstable and in possession of a 100 guns... sooo... I get where they are at.
Males are the problem here- especially the ones trying to make up a few inches by lookin' tuff with a big gun.
What about the woman with a stalker that gets a new boyfriend? Could that boyfriend not make a case for being in danger? Are you picking on the weak? What about the elderly or disabled? Regardless, weak or not, these rights have been granted to them and they really don’t have to explain why they are exercising that right (whether they are compensating for something, are women, are weak, or are just concerned about the rising violence in their area). To just say someone is “weak” is a pretty “weak” argument.
It's a strong argument.
I'm sorry you don't like it given the amount of truth there is to it.
I disagree, what truth do you speak of? I know plenty of “strong” people and plenty of “weak” people that carry, so I am not convinced. May be that you are referencing Canadian that you know?? I have been told that Canadians are weak, but I never took much faith in that statement. Maybe I should, since some random person said it based on their limited observations? Democrats are often referred to as “weak” as well...Maybe they just have small dicks? Lol
lol
I shouldn't have brought up the teeny peepee thing. It seems to have touched a nerve.
I'll say this (stay with me here): if we saturated society with countless weapons... we would have much more gun violence. We would also have many more 'accidents'.
Today, mountain biking with my buddies, some idiot was out there squeezing off a few rounds. This is very rare (1st time actually). We couldn't see him and we were hoping he didn't see us. I was wearing grey and black. I was cursing the fact I wasn't wearing something really bright. I was envisioning some drooling fool getting tired of shooting at beer cans and itching to shoot something that was moving- mistaking me for a deer or something.
My concerns were slightly paranoid and slightly based in reality. There are a ton of good, solid people that can handle the responsibility of a dangerous weapon in any setting. On the flip side, there are a ton of idiots that are prone to making a grievous error- either when angry, emotional, or simply out of sheer stupidity.
There's no way Canada is going backwards to establish really lenient gun laws that put guns in the hands of all those idiots so they can do idiotic things with them. And we're better for it.
If you had the ability to see into the future and you saw the violent death of your child which could be prevented with stricter gun laws... you'd advocate for stricter gun laws. Correct? Here's the thing... there are many people's children... right at this moment... destined for the fate I described with gun laws as they exist. They don't know it- the kids are riding their bikes and playing as we speak... but in a few days... good times go bad.
If you made meaningful changes... you'd be saving lives.
If you couldn’t see the person, why did you conclude they were “some idiot”? Being a responsible gun owner involves practicing and becoming proficient... These preconceptions are what keep me from taking many of your posts seriously. Your scenario is a double edged sword. If I could see into the future as you mentioned and less strict gun laws would save my child’s life, I would support that stance as well, would you? There are a number of victims that align with that scenario as well. If someone was merely being idiotic with a gun and hurt my child, I would blame the idiot, not the laws.
Because he's out shooting his rifle on the outskirts of town in a recreational area. This qualifies him as an idiot.
And to your counter scenario which you presented as a way to dodge the question... come on, man. You are reaching and this is what keeps me from taking many of your posts seriously.
Are you trying to suggest more guns equals fewer deaths by gun? Because if you read what you wrote... that is what you implied (guns save as many lives as they take).
I don't believe that practicing and becoming proficient at all prevents gun rage/lame self defense claim incidents. I think any responsible gun owner has the potential to simply lose his temper during an altercation and shoot someone unjustifiably. The only way to reduce that risk is to require all gun owners, or at least those licensed to carry, to also attend extensive deescalation training and shit like that. If they don't, I have exactly ZERO faith that some well-trained gun-toting fella doesn't have the capacity to get involved in some kind of argument or fight that could and should be resolved without the use of a gun, lose his temper, and shoot his "opponent" out of frustration and anger (or even just pure 'fraidy-cat worry that he might get a skinned knee or a black eye), rather than out of legitimate fear for his own life. Not that there is any chance of that kind of training to happen. Most police forces can't even manage to drill such valuable lessons into most of their recruits, so I don't expect gun tottin' Joe Schmoe to do any better this day and age.
Actually (here in TX anyway), the class to get a license to carry does involve learning to deescalate heated situations or avoid them all together and teaches that a firearm should only be used as a last resort. It also covers consequences of justified and negligent discharge of a firearm. I cannot speak to what other states or Canada teach. Your preconceptions about the majority of gun owners is just flat out false.
I don't believe that practicing and becoming proficient at all prevents gun rage/lame self defense claim incidents. I think any responsible gun owner has the potential to simply lose his temper during an altercation and shoot someone unjustifiably. The only way to reduce that risk is to require all gun owners, or at least those licensed to carry, to also attend extensive deescalation training and shit like that. If they don't, I have exactly ZERO faith that some well-trained gun-toting fella doesn't have the capacity to get involved in some kind of argument or fight that could and should be resolved without the use of a gun, lose his temper, and shoot his "opponent" out of frustration and anger (or even just pure 'fraidy-cat worry that he might get a skinned knee or a black eye), rather than out of legitimate fear for his own life. Not that there is any chance of that kind of training to happen. Most police forces can't even manage to drill such valuable lessons into most of their recruits, so I don't expect gun tottin' Joe Schmoe to do any better this day and age.
Actually (here in TX anyway), the class to get a license to carry does involve learning to deescalate heated situations or avoid them all together and teaches that a firearm should only be used as a last resort. It also covers consequences of justified and negligent discharge of a firearm. I cannot speak to what other states or Canada teach. Your preconceptions about the majority of gun owners is just flat out false.
Oh yeah? So is it as rigorous as deescalation training is for cops? Extensive training, which is what I said I think is needed? Because even with the training they get, many of them are not capable of deescalation when the time comes, and there is no way they are going through extensive deescalation training. Are these people given an extensive tests to confirm that they are deescalation experts? Nope, I don't trust a random person carrying a gun to be completely responsible and completely risk free AT ALL. Without police or military level training, I don't trust people's tempers, and especially not the tempers of men who think open or concealed carry is a great idea, enough for that to matter. People knowing the consequences are no less dangerous than those who don't btw. That's why the death penalty is useless. And this is not a "preconception about the majority of gun owners" on my part. This is really a statement about my views on human nature in general. I obviously don't think EVERY gun owner would shoot someone unnecessarily. I am saying that I have no reason to have faith that any one of them might not.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't believe that practicing and becoming proficient at all prevents gun rage/lame self defense claim incidents. I think any responsible gun owner has the potential to simply lose his temper during an altercation and shoot someone unjustifiably. The only way to reduce that risk is to require all gun owners, or at least those licensed to carry, to also attend extensive deescalation training and shit like that. If they don't, I have exactly ZERO faith that some well-trained gun-toting fella doesn't have the capacity to get involved in some kind of argument or fight that could and should be resolved without the use of a gun, lose his temper, and shoot his "opponent" out of frustration and anger (or even just pure 'fraidy-cat worry that he might get a skinned knee or a black eye), rather than out of legitimate fear for his own life. Not that there is any chance of that kind of training to happen. Most police forces can't even manage to drill such valuable lessons into most of their recruits, so I don't expect gun tottin' Joe Schmoe to do any better this day and age.
Actually (here in TX anyway), the class to get a license to carry does involve learning to deescalate heated situations or avoid them all together and teaches that a firearm should only be used as a last resort. It also covers consequences of justified and negligent discharge of a firearm. I cannot speak to what other states or Canada teach. Your preconceptions about the majority of gun owners is just flat out false.
Oh yeah? So is it as rigorous as deescalation training is for cops? Because even with the training they get, many of them are not capable of deescalation when the time comes. Are these people given an extensive test to confirm that they are deescalation experts? Nope, I don't trust a random person carrying a gun to be completely responsible and completely risk free AT ALL. Without police or military level training, I don't trust people's tempers, and especially not the tempers of men who think open or concealed carry is a great idea, enough for that to matter. People knowing the consequences are no less dangerous than those who don't btw. That's why the death penalty is useless. And this is not a "preconception about the majority of gun owners" on my part. This is a statement about my views on human nature in general.
Yeah, I disagree with all of the opinions that you just stated...So have a good day I guess and try not to be so paranoid...sounds like you have surrounded yourself with some very negative people to formulate such negative views of human nature in general.
I don't believe that practicing and becoming proficient at all prevents gun rage/lame self defense claim incidents. I think any responsible gun owner has the potential to simply lose his temper during an altercation and shoot someone unjustifiably. The only way to reduce that risk is to require all gun owners, or at least those licensed to carry, to also attend extensive deescalation training and shit like that. If they don't, I have exactly ZERO faith that some well-trained gun-toting fella doesn't have the capacity to get involved in some kind of argument or fight that could and should be resolved without the use of a gun, lose his temper, and shoot his "opponent" out of frustration and anger (or even just pure 'fraidy-cat worry that he might get a skinned knee or a black eye), rather than out of legitimate fear for his own life. Not that there is any chance of that kind of training to happen. Most police forces can't even manage to drill such valuable lessons into most of their recruits, so I don't expect gun tottin' Joe Schmoe to do any better this day and age.
Actually (here in TX anyway), the class to get a license to carry does involve learning to deescalate heated situations or avoid them all together and teaches that a firearm should only be used as a last resort. It also covers consequences of justified and negligent discharge of a firearm. I cannot speak to what other states or Canada teach. Your preconceptions about the majority of gun owners is just flat out false.
Oh yeah? So is it as rigorous as deescalation training is for cops? Because even with the training they get, many of them are not capable of deescalation when the time comes. Are these people given an extensive test to confirm that they are deescalation experts? Nope, I don't trust a random person carrying a gun to be completely responsible and completely risk free AT ALL. Without police or military level training, I don't trust people's tempers, and especially not the tempers of men who think open or concealed carry is a great idea, enough for that to matter. People knowing the consequences are no less dangerous than those who don't btw. That's why the death penalty is useless. And this is not a "preconception about the majority of gun owners" on my part. This is a statement about my views on human nature in general.
Yeah, I disagree with all of the opinions that you just stated...So have a good day I guess and try not to be so paranoid...sounds like you have surrounded yourself with some very negative people to formulate such negative views of human nature in general.
I personally see some of this as very justified. Cops receive all sorts of training and still there are issues. We expect Johnny Guntoter to be better at dealing with these situations while packing heat? Why would that be?
I don't believe that practicing and becoming proficient at all prevents gun rage/lame self defense claim incidents. I think any responsible gun owner has the potential to simply lose his temper during an altercation and shoot someone unjustifiably. The only way to reduce that risk is to require all gun owners, or at least those licensed to carry, to also attend extensive deescalation training and shit like that. If they don't, I have exactly ZERO faith that some well-trained gun-toting fella doesn't have the capacity to get involved in some kind of argument or fight that could and should be resolved without the use of a gun, lose his temper, and shoot his "opponent" out of frustration and anger (or even just pure 'fraidy-cat worry that he might get a skinned knee or a black eye), rather than out of legitimate fear for his own life. Not that there is any chance of that kind of training to happen. Most police forces can't even manage to drill such valuable lessons into most of their recruits, so I don't expect gun tottin' Joe Schmoe to do any better this day and age.
Actually (here in TX anyway), the class to get a license to carry does involve learning to deescalate heated situations or avoid them all together and teaches that a firearm should only be used as a last resort. It also covers consequences of justified and negligent discharge of a firearm. I cannot speak to what other states or Canada teach. Your preconceptions about the majority of gun owners is just flat out false.
Oh yeah? So is it as rigorous as deescalation training is for cops? Because even with the training they get, many of them are not capable of deescalation when the time comes. Are these people given an extensive test to confirm that they are deescalation experts? Nope, I don't trust a random person carrying a gun to be completely responsible and completely risk free AT ALL. Without police or military level training, I don't trust people's tempers, and especially not the tempers of men who think open or concealed carry is a great idea, enough for that to matter. People knowing the consequences are no less dangerous than those who don't btw. That's why the death penalty is useless. And this is not a "preconception about the majority of gun owners" on my part. This is a statement about my views on human nature in general.
Yeah, I disagree with all of the opinions that you just stated...So have a good day I guess and try not to be so paranoid...sounds like you have surrounded yourself with some very negative people to formulate such negative views of human nature in general.
No, you've obviously completely misunderstood my perspective if that's your conclusion. I'm not a paranoid person at all. I would say that most people who conceal or open carry are paranoid
though. Why else would they want to walk around packing heat? And I am not surrounded by negative people at all - that's kind of a silly comment. I have simply witnessed way too many people either in person or on the news who lose their tempers in times of aggravation and stress. This behaviour is the same reason bar fights and road rage incidents happen. If you don't think so, you're ignoring reality. Do you also leave your kids with strangers? I assume no. The reason you wouldn't is the exact same reason I don't just necessarily trust licensed gun owners who carry not to lose their temper and reach for their gun.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't believe that practicing and becoming proficient at all prevents gun rage/lame self defense claim incidents. I think any responsible gun owner has the potential to simply lose his temper during an altercation and shoot someone unjustifiably. The only way to reduce that risk is to require all gun owners, or at least those licensed to carry, to also attend extensive deescalation training and shit like that. If they don't, I have exactly ZERO faith that some well-trained gun-toting fella doesn't have the capacity to get involved in some kind of argument or fight that could and should be resolved without the use of a gun, lose his temper, and shoot his "opponent" out of frustration and anger (or even just pure 'fraidy-cat worry that he might get a skinned knee or a black eye), rather than out of legitimate fear for his own life. Not that there is any chance of that kind of training to happen. Most police forces can't even manage to drill such valuable lessons into most of their recruits, so I don't expect gun tottin' Joe Schmoe to do any better this day and age.
Actually (here in TX anyway), the class to get a license to carry does involve learning to deescalate heated situations or avoid them all together and teaches that a firearm should only be used as a last resort. It also covers consequences of justified and negligent discharge of a firearm. I cannot speak to what other states or Canada teach. Your preconceptions about the majority of gun owners is just flat out false.
Oh yeah? So is it as rigorous as deescalation training is for cops? Because even with the training they get, many of them are not capable of deescalation when the time comes. Are these people given an extensive test to confirm that they are deescalation experts? Nope, I don't trust a random person carrying a gun to be completely responsible and completely risk free AT ALL. Without police or military level training, I don't trust people's tempers, and especially not the tempers of men who think open or concealed carry is a great idea, enough for that to matter. People knowing the consequences are no less dangerous than those who don't btw. That's why the death penalty is useless. And this is not a "preconception about the majority of gun owners" on my part. This is a statement about my views on human nature in general.
Yeah, I disagree with all of the opinions that you just stated...So have a good day I guess and try not to be so paranoid...sounds like you have surrounded yourself with some very negative people to formulate such negative views of human nature in general.
I personally see some of this as very justified. Cops receive all sorts of training and still there are issues. We expect Johnny Guntoter to be better at dealing with these situations while packing heat? Why would that be?
You would be surprised at how very little firearm training police officers (that are not in some tactical unit) actually receive. They are usually some of the shittier shooters on the range. I used to help train police officers in deescalating situations when dealing with people with mental health problems...and just like any other human beings, some are better at it than others. Some people are just not able to control their anger and you’re right, they probably shouldn’t carry a gun around with them if that is the case. But I do not think that restricting the rights of people that do behave and are responsible as the route to go. Just my opinion.
I don't believe that practicing and becoming proficient at all prevents gun rage/lame self defense claim incidents. I think any responsible gun owner has the potential to simply lose his temper during an altercation and shoot someone unjustifiably. The only way to reduce that risk is to require all gun owners, or at least those licensed to carry, to also attend extensive deescalation training and shit like that. If they don't, I have exactly ZERO faith that some well-trained gun-toting fella doesn't have the capacity to get involved in some kind of argument or fight that could and should be resolved without the use of a gun, lose his temper, and shoot his "opponent" out of frustration and anger (or even just pure 'fraidy-cat worry that he might get a skinned knee or a black eye), rather than out of legitimate fear for his own life. Not that there is any chance of that kind of training to happen. Most police forces can't even manage to drill such valuable lessons into most of their recruits, so I don't expect gun tottin' Joe Schmoe to do any better this day and age.
Actually (here in TX anyway), the class to get a license to carry does involve learning to deescalate heated situations or avoid them all together and teaches that a firearm should only be used as a last resort. It also covers consequences of justified and negligent discharge of a firearm. I cannot speak to what other states or Canada teach. Your preconceptions about the majority of gun owners is just flat out false.
Oh yeah? So is it as rigorous as deescalation training is for cops? Because even with the training they get, many of them are not capable of deescalation when the time comes. Are these people given an extensive test to confirm that they are deescalation experts? Nope, I don't trust a random person carrying a gun to be completely responsible and completely risk free AT ALL. Without police or military level training, I don't trust people's tempers, and especially not the tempers of men who think open or concealed carry is a great idea, enough for that to matter. People knowing the consequences are no less dangerous than those who don't btw. That's why the death penalty is useless. And this is not a "preconception about the majority of gun owners" on my part. This is a statement about my views on human nature in general.
Yeah, I disagree with all of the opinions that you just stated...So have a good day I guess and try not to be so paranoid...sounds like you have surrounded yourself with some very negative people to formulate such negative views of human nature in general.
No, you've obviously completely misunderstood my perspective if that's your conclusion. I'm not a paranoid person at all. I would say that most people who conceal or open carry are paranoid
though. Why else would they want to walk around packing heat? And I am not surrounded by negative people at all - that's kind of a silly comment. I have simply witnessed way too many people either in person or on the news who lose their tempers in times of aggravation and stress. This behaviour is the same reason bar fights and road rage incidents happen. If you don't think so, you're ignoring reality. Do you also leave your kids with strangers? I assume no. The reason you wouldn't is the exact same reason I don't just necessarily trust licensed gun owners who carry not to lose their temper and reach for their gun.
Fair enough...I think that not trusting others is primarily what motivates people to carry in the first place.
But surely you're not claiming that the usual gun owner license training is better than the training even poorly trained cops get??? And how well they shoot is irrelevant to the conversation. Sure, I understand the theory of not restricting the right of people who don't or won't lose their tempers just to prevent those who will from doing so... But you know that doesn't work logically, right? There is no adequate way to predict this behaviour, so there is no adequate way to prevent it without removing the deadly weapon from the equation.
PS - unless there is a link to factual information, I think we can all assume that everything we say on these boards is just our opinion.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't believe that practicing and becoming proficient at all prevents gun rage/lame self defense claim incidents. I think any responsible gun owner has the potential to simply lose his temper during an altercation and shoot someone unjustifiably. The only way to reduce that risk is to require all gun owners, or at least those licensed to carry, to also attend extensive deescalation training and shit like that. If they don't, I have exactly ZERO faith that some well-trained gun-toting fella doesn't have the capacity to get involved in some kind of argument or fight that could and should be resolved without the use of a gun, lose his temper, and shoot his "opponent" out of frustration and anger (or even just pure 'fraidy-cat worry that he might get a skinned knee or a black eye), rather than out of legitimate fear for his own life. Not that there is any chance of that kind of training to happen. Most police forces can't even manage to drill such valuable lessons into most of their recruits, so I don't expect gun tottin' Joe Schmoe to do any better this day and age.
Actually (here in TX anyway), the class to get a license to carry does involve learning to deescalate heated situations or avoid them all together and teaches that a firearm should only be used as a last resort. It also covers consequences of justified and negligent discharge of a firearm. I cannot speak to what other states or Canada teach. Your preconceptions about the majority of gun owners is just flat out false.
Oh yeah? So is it as rigorous as deescalation training is for cops? Because even with the training they get, many of them are not capable of deescalation when the time comes. Are these people given an extensive test to confirm that they are deescalation experts? Nope, I don't trust a random person carrying a gun to be completely responsible and completely risk free AT ALL. Without police or military level training, I don't trust people's tempers, and especially not the tempers of men who think open or concealed carry is a great idea, enough for that to matter. People knowing the consequences are no less dangerous than those who don't btw. That's why the death penalty is useless. And this is not a "preconception about the majority of gun owners" on my part. This is a statement about my views on human nature in general.
Yeah, I disagree with all of the opinions that you just stated...So have a good day I guess and try not to be so paranoid...sounds like you have surrounded yourself with some very negative people to formulate such negative views of human nature in general.
No, you've obviously completely misunderstood my perspective if that's your conclusion. I'm not a paranoid person at all. I would say that most people who conceal or open carry are paranoid
though. Why else would they want to walk around packing heat? And I am not surrounded by negative people at all - that's kind of a silly comment. I have simply witnessed way too many people either in person or on the news who lose their tempers in times of aggravation and stress. This behaviour is the same reason bar fights and road rage incidents happen. If you don't think so, you're ignoring reality. Do you also leave your kids with strangers? I assume no. The reason you wouldn't is the exact same reason I don't just necessarily trust licensed gun owners who carry not to lose their temper and reach for their gun.
Fair enough...I think that not trusting others is primarily what motivates people to carry in the first place.
Agreed, that's true for many ... and that is exactly the point at which innocent people start getting killed, and the reason I don't think people should be allowed to carry.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Because those moronic rights open the door for awful behaviour that results in people getting hurt and dying.
I agree with My2hands... guys walking around with their guns in public are fools. And if I can be honest... to me it seems as if they are supplementing character weaknesses like confidence and strength.
One way or another... they're weak. Pure and simple.
I never said I would do it, I only carried concealed. But if I wanted to then nobody, cetainly no govt, should have the ability to stop me or anyone else.
Because people fucking die over this stupid ass "right." Over trivial fucking matters. Last thing I need is to fear going in public because I bumped into some asshole with an ego 100 times the size of his cock and he feels the need to shoot the fuck away at me because it's his raaht to bear awrmz.
Stop hiding behind the skirt of "It's my right." This is not what the founding fathers envisioned, and you know it! But go ahead, if it makes you feel like more of a man to have your sidearm strapped to you. By all fucking means bro, carry away. Just make sure the piece you carry is bigger than your dick.
Because those moronic rights open the door for awful behaviour that results in people getting hurt and dying.
I agree with My2hands... guys walking around with their guns in public are fools. And if I can be honest... to me it seems as if they are supplementing character weaknesses like confidence and strength.
One way or another... they're weak. Pure and simple.
I never said I would do it, I only carried concealed. But if I wanted to then nobody, cetainly no govt, should have the ability to stop me or anyone else.
I wish somehow the emotions and thoughts of someone who lost their child or parent to a gun toting moron could be temporarily transplanted into your brain for a day - aka empathy - so that you could understand better.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
But surely you're not claiming that the usual gun owner license training is better than the training even poorly trained cops get??? And how well they shoot is irrelevant to the conversation. Sure, I understand the theory of not restricting the right of people who don't or won't lose their tempers just to prevent those who will from doing so... But you know that doesn't work logically, right? There is no adequate way to predict this behaviour, so there is no adequate way to prevent it without removing the deadly weapon from the equation.
PS - unless there is a link to factual information, I think we can all assume that everything we say on these boards is just our opinion.
I’m all about increasing the training requirements for everyone. I feel that if someone is responsible enough to pass an FBI background check and has no criminal record, then they should be deemed responsible enough to carry. If you are prone to bar fights...maybe not...
Because those moronic rights open the door for awful behaviour that results in people getting hurt and dying.
I agree with My2hands... guys walking around with their guns in public are fools. And if I can be honest... to me it seems as if they are supplementing character weaknesses like confidence and strength.
One way or another... they're weak. Pure and simple.
I never said I would do it, I only carried concealed. But if I wanted to then nobody, cetainly no govt, should have the ability to stop me or anyone else.
I wish somehow the emotions and thoughts of someone who lost their child or parent to a gun toting moron could be temporarily transplanted into your brain for a day - aka empathy - so that you could understand better.
Maybe some woman who wanted a firearm but was denied by some bureaucrat and then got raped or killed has some thoughts to share on the subject.
Because those moronic rights open the door for awful behaviour that results in people getting hurt and dying.
I agree with My2hands... guys walking around with their guns in public are fools. And if I can be honest... to me it seems as if they are supplementing character weaknesses like confidence and strength.
One way or another... they're weak. Pure and simple.
I never said I would do it, I only carried concealed. But if I wanted to then nobody, cetainly no govt, should have the ability to stop me or anyone else.
I wish somehow the emotions and thoughts of someone who lost their child or parent to a gun toting moron could be temporarily transplanted into your brain for a day - aka empathy - so that you could understand better.
Maybe some woman who wanted a firearm but was denied by some bureaucrat and then got raped or killed has some thoughts to share on the subject.
every crime that ever happened is because there are not enough guns
Comments
Lol
I'm sorry you don't like it given the amount of truth there is to it
Open carry is just another perpetuation of the outlandish American gun fetish. The gun culture in the US is pathetic, and unfortunately, the USA will continue to crank out humiliating gun death stats for as long as that culture persists. I personally think that this gun fetish makes America weaker in this world. When reality shows that America is more in line with third world nations than it is with the developed nations, it seems a little ridiculous to tout strength in the western world.
He looked like a friggin moron, and I definitely did not feel safer in any way with Rambo Jr sitting there
Remember the guy in Florida who was shot and killed by the “responsible” gun owner in the movie theater for talking on his cell phone during the previews? A CCW permit holder I believe. Everyday annoyances, who needs them?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I really do get the sense that we're getting nostalgic for the ol' west. That's what happened at that convenience store. And the shooter; he was ready for it. He probably planned it. That's going to be a thing now; harassing black people until they give you an excuse, shooting them, getting acquitted, and becoming a white folk hero.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I shouldn't have brought up the teeny peepee thing. It seems to have touched a nerve.
I'll say this (stay with me here): if we saturated society with countless weapons... we would have much more gun violence. We would also have many more 'accidents'.
Today, mountain biking with my buddies, some idiot was out there squeezing off a few rounds. This is very rare (1st time actually). We couldn't see him and we were hoping he didn't see us. I was wearing grey and black. I was cursing the fact I wasn't wearing something really bright. I was envisioning some drooling fool getting tired of shooting at beer cans and itching to shoot something that was moving- mistaking me for a deer or something.
My concerns were slightly paranoid and slightly based in reality. There are a ton of good, solid people that can handle the responsibility of a dangerous weapon in any setting. On the flip side, there are a ton of idiots that are prone to making a grievous error- either when angry, emotional, or simply out of sheer stupidity.
There's no way Canada is going backwards to establish really lenient gun laws that put guns in the hands of all those idiots so they can do idiotic things with them. And we're better for it.
If you had the ability to see into the future and you saw the violent death of your child which could be prevented with stricter gun laws... you'd advocate for stricter gun laws. Correct? Here's the thing... there are many people's children... right at this moment... destined for the fate I described with gun laws as they exist. They don't know it- the kids are riding their bikes and playing as we speak... but in a few days... good times go bad.
If you made meaningful changes... you'd be saving lives.
I'm all for the 2nd amendment and owning whatever you want but I really don't like that anyone with a 3d printer can make gun parts without a license.
I'm not sure if they can make the whole gun or not? I've read a few stories and they are all unclear.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/nation-now/2018/07/23/3-d-printing-guns-downloadable-gun-legal-august-1/820032002/
These preconceptions are what keep me from taking many of your posts seriously. Your scenario is a double edged sword. If I could see into the future as you mentioned and less strict gun laws would save my child’s life, I would support that stance as well, would you? There are a number of victims that align with that scenario as well.
If someone was merely being idiotic with a gun and hurt my child, I would blame the idiot, not the laws.
Not that there is any chance of that kind of training to happen. Most police forces can't even manage to drill such valuable lessons into most of their recruits, so I don't expect gun totin' Joe Schmoe to do any better this day and age.
Because he's out shooting his rifle on the outskirts of town in a recreational area. This qualifies him as an idiot.
And to your counter scenario which you presented as a way to dodge the question... come on, man. You are reaching and this is what keeps me from taking many of your posts seriously.
Are you trying to suggest more guns equals fewer deaths by gun? Because if you read what you wrote... that is what you implied (guns save as many lives as they take).
And this is not a "preconception about the majority of gun owners" on my part. This is really a statement about my views on human nature in general. I obviously don't think EVERY gun owner would shoot someone unnecessarily. I am saying that I have no reason to have faith that any one of them might not.
Sure, I understand the theory of not restricting the right of people who don't or won't lose their tempers just to prevent those who will from doing so... But you know that doesn't work logically, right? There is no adequate way to predict this behaviour, so there is no adequate way to prevent it without removing the deadly weapon from the equation.
PS - unless there is a link to factual information, I think we can all assume that everything we say on these boards is just our opinion.
even imaginary ones