Imaginary threat

unsung

Tell me again that I'm paranoid and shouldn't conceal carry.

Perfect example of just giving them what they want and how it just won't work out that well for you.

http://usat.ly/1s7BNbP

CM189191

You're paranoid and shouldn't conceal carry.

The news acts as a megaphone, amplifying sensationalist stories and instilling fear. Cherry picking one isolated event as 'proof' goes against the hundreds of studies, statistics that prove otherwise.

Furthermore, the NRA and the Congressional Right Wing routinely block any federal funding for gun studies that would provide further evidence that yes, guns unnecessarily kill move people than they protect.

Additionally, the 'example' you provided shows the police doing their job to serve & protect. Not some ordinary JoeSchmoe with a Conceal/Carry.

Finally, Australia reformed gun laws in 1996 after a mass shooting. Semi-automatic rifles were prohibited (with exceptions). The world's biggest buyback saw nearly 700,000 guns removed from circulation and destroyed. A third of the guns in Australia were handed in to the government. There had been 11 gun massacres in the decade preceding 1996, but there have been no mass shootings since. Another law in 2002 tightened restrictions a bit more, restricting caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.

All gun sales are subject to screening (universal background checks), which means you cannot buy a gun over the internet or at a garage sale. Gun ownership requires a license, and every sale is subject to a 28-day waiting period. Relevant factors include the applicant's living circumstances, mental and physical health, restraining orders or other encounters with the law, type of gun desired and for what purpose, safety training, storage arrangements, and the public interest.

A uniform system for registering and licensing firearms was introduced. The licensing process considers not only the applicant's age and criminal convictions, but also a range of other factors relevant to possession of a product that is (a) designed for killing and (b) highly coveted by people who should not have it.

Australia also requires a justifiable reason for the type of weapon the applicant wants to own. If you say you plan to hunt rabbits, your license doesn't allow you to a high-powered rifle. And if you already have a couple of guns suitable for hunting rabbits, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify acquiring more. This is a measure against the accumulation of private arsenals. A significant legal and cultural difference between our two countries: Australia doesn't accept anticipation of killing another person (self-defence) as a reason for owning a gun. To qualify for a handgun license, you must belong to and regularly attend a target shooting club.

In a 2010 paper, economists Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill found that the law change had led to a 65 percent decline in the rate of firearm suicides. Firearm homicides fell by 59 percent.

Less guns = less gun deaths

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure,"

Additional Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/america-mass-murder-australia-gun-control-saves-lives
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-australians-gave-back-their-guns/2013/08/23/108458dc-0c09-11e3-8974-f97ab3b3c677_story.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

ikiT

You're paranoid and shouldn't conceal carry.

unsung

So who protects me and my family?

CM189191

unsung said:

So who protects me and my family?

.....The Police Department, Fire Department, CIA, NSA, TSA, FBI, UN, ATF, DHS, The Army, The Navy, The Air Force, The Marines, The Coast Guard, The Secret Service......

These are the people charged with protecting you and your family. Your infantile fantasies of rushing in to save the day from some unknown evil lie somewhere between slim and none. Your gun is more likely to maim or kill yourself or someone you love than the boogeyman.

Gern Blansten

You're paranoid but I don't care if you conceal.

JimmyV

We're pointing to a plot foiled by the Australian government as evidence that we need to conceal carry because governments cannot/will not protect us? Seems like the logic there is flawed.

Gern Blansten

JimmyV said:

We're pointing to a plot foiled by the Australian government as evidence that we need to conceal carry because governments cannot/will not protect us? Seems like the logic there is flawed.

Exactly....and even if you do carry that doesn't guarantee you'll be able to defend yourself. It's just flawed thinking all around.

That being said I don't have a problem with handguns and conceal carry.

unsung

Numerous Court rulings have said law enforcement has no obligation to protect an individual.

Besides I'll do a better job protecting myself.

chadwick

you have every right to protect you & yours. the cops, the cia & that entire list up above can not be everywhere at the same time & they sure as heck aren't protecting everyone. people who gladly turn over their rights to defend themselves, their families & other innocent people are in some head space i do not grasp... i will not grasp. if defending yourself from some nasty bullshit is a firearm, so be it.

the vile idiots have a lot of guns & they do not care about gun laws. why give up your rights so that the only folks with guns are the military, cops & nasty turd criminals? i think a good guy should have a gun on him or at least at the house if he or she wishes

do not ever count on anyone else to save you but yourself first & foremost... why give that up?
doesn't make sense

protect you & yours first then call the law if need be

unsung

:-bd

CM189191

unsung said:

Numerous Court rulings have said law enforcement has no obligation to protect an individual.

Besides I'll do a better job protecting myself.

Which Court rulings? Be specific.

You'll want to ask Joseph Wilcox how that worked out for him....

CM189191

chadwick said:

you have every right to protect you & yours. the cops, the cia & that entire list up above can not be everywhere at the same time & they sure as heck aren't protecting everyone. people who gladly turn over their rights to defend themselves, their families & other innocent people are in some head space i do not grasp... i will not grasp. if defending yourself from some nasty bullshit is a firearm, so be it.

the vile idiots have a lot of guns & they do not care about gun laws. why give up your rights so that the only folks with guns are the military, cops & nasty turd criminals? i think a good guy should have a gun on him or at least at the house if he or she wishes

do not ever count on anyone else to save you but yourself first & foremost... why give that up?
doesn't make sense

protect you & yours first then call the law if need be

Scary criminals with guns can't be everywhere all the time either. I'm not suggesting you give up any rights. You want a gun to protect your property and family? Great, keep a gun at home. But there's no reason to have conceal/carry with you all the time in public spaces that you share with other members of the public. I have a right to go out in public and feel safe as well. Not to be intimidated by some ammosexual who thinks they're protecting themselves by carrying a sidearm on their coffee run to Starbucks.

Godfather.

it's kind of scary that someone would want to control my gun owneship rights...but then again we have (whats loosely called) a first lady who wants to control the food your children eat at school %-( it's always ticked me off that a person can be given the athority to control different wants or needs of another.

Godfather.

CM189191

Godfather. said:

it's kind of scary that someone would want to control my gun owneship rights...but then again we have (whats loosely called) a first lady who wants to control the food your children eat at school %-( it's always ticked me off that a person can be given the athority to control different wants or needs of another.

Godfather.

The 3 word of the 2nd Amendment is 'Regulated'. What do you think was meant by that?

The entire reason we have food at school is for national defense. It was instituted because our children were malnourished and underfed. This makes it difficult to maintain and create an effective army. Today you have top military brass coming out and saying they can't find enough good recruits because children are lazy, fat, and out of shape. Makes sense that our school children should have a healthy diet in that context.

Also, the wife of the President is the First Lady. To suggest otherwise is childish and insulting.

benjs

Godfather. said:

it's kind of scary that someone would want to control my gun owneship rights...but then again we have (whats loosely called) a first lady who wants to control the food your children eat at school %-( it's always ticked me off that a person can be given the athority to control different wants or needs of another.

Godfather.

A government's primary obligation is to protect its citizens, so I think it's kind of scary that someone would propose that anyone but the government (which is supposedly democratically elected) should control your gun ownership rights when that decision inherently affects the safety and security of its citizens. Who would you propose be responsible instead?

I'd apply the same logic to the management of school food programs: who would you propose be responsible instead? Parents don't always have time to prepare food for their children, which leads to the necessity of cafeteria offerings, which leads to the necessity of management of a food program.

What's kind of scary to me, personally, is the way that governments are known to respond to the will of the lobbyists who support their party financially in order to facilitate changes in gun ownership regulations, as well as the will of lobbyists from various food boards (dairy, cattle, etc.) who similarly make proposals which put their own potential financial gains front and centre.

unsung

CM189191 said:

chadwick said:

you have every right to protect you & yours. the cops, the cia & that entire list up above can not be everywhere at the same time & they sure as heck aren't protecting everyone. people who gladly turn over their rights to defend themselves, their families & other innocent people are in some head space i do not grasp... i will not grasp. if defending yourself from some nasty bullshit is a firearm, so be it.

the vile idiots have a lot of guns & they do not care about gun laws. why give up your rights so that the only folks with guns are the military, cops & nasty turd criminals? i think a good guy should have a gun on him or at least at the house if he or she wishes

do not ever count on anyone else to save you but yourself first & foremost... why give that up?
doesn't make sense

protect you & yours first then call the law if need be

Scary criminals with guns can't be everywhere all the time either. I'm not suggesting you give up any rights. You want a gun to protect your property and family? Great, keep a gun at home. But there's no reason to have conceal/carry with you all the time in public spaces that you share with other members of the public. I have a right to go out in public and feel safe as well. Not to be intimidated by some ammosexual who thinks they're protecting themselves by carrying a sidearm on their coffee run to Starbucks.

Your hurt feelings don't trump my rights.

unsung

This thread is full of big government statists who actually believe that people don't know what's best for themselves and instead they need obama and his wife making food decisions for them. She pushes a diet heavy in grains.

The level of stupidity is increasing here daily.

Any person that spends one minute researching food would know that the govt food pyramid is also pushed by lobbyists, heck the entire food industry is subsidized by the taxpayers.

I'll see you guys in a while, I'm taking a break from here, I can't deal with people who want others to control them.

CM189191

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

chadwick said:

you have every right to protect you & yours. the cops, the cia & that entire list up above can not be everywhere at the same time & they sure as heck aren't protecting everyone. people who gladly turn over their rights to defend themselves, their families & other innocent people are in some head space i do not grasp... i will not grasp. if defending yourself from some nasty bullshit is a firearm, so be it.

the vile idiots have a lot of guns & they do not care about gun laws. why give up your rights so that the only folks with guns are the military, cops & nasty turd criminals? i think a good guy should have a gun on him or at least at the house if he or she wishes

do not ever count on anyone else to save you but yourself first & foremost... why give that up?
doesn't make sense

protect you & yours first then call the law if need be

Scary criminals with guns can't be everywhere all the time either. I'm not suggesting you give up any rights. You want a gun to protect your property and family? Great, keep a gun at home. But there's no reason to have conceal/carry with you all the time in public spaces that you share with other members of the public. I have a right to go out in public and feel safe as well. Not to be intimidated by some ammosexual who thinks they're protecting themselves by carrying a sidearm on their coffee run to Starbucks.

Your hurt feelings don't trump my rights.

I should say they do!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

JimmyV

unsung said:

This thread is full of big government statists who actually believe that people don't know what's best for themselves and instead they need obama and his wife making food decisions for them. She pushes a diet heavy in grains.

The level of stupidity is increasing here daily.

Any person that spends one minute researching food would know that the govt food pyramid is also pushed by lobbyists, heck the entire food industry is subsidized by the taxpayers.

I'll see you guys in a while, I'm taking a break from here, I can't deal with people who want others to control them.

You should take a deep breath. Just my advice.

CM189191

unsung said:

This thread is full of big government statists who actually believe that people don't know what's best for themselves and instead they need obama and his wife making food decisions for them. She pushes a diet heavy in grains.

The level of stupidity is increasing here daily.

Any person that spends one minute researching food would know that the govt food pyramid is also pushed by lobbyists, heck the entire food industry is subsidized by the taxpayers.

I'll see you guys in a while, I'm taking a break from here, I can't deal with people who want others to control them.

Good, take your ball and go home.

...complains about Big Government, relies on Federal Document to preserve his 'rights'...