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'...

benjs

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.

I addressed this literally two posts above yours.

CM189191

What an imaginary threat might look like. Score another one for the good guys?

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/shooting-florida-leaves-people-including-children-dead-reports-article-1.1945042

What are Florida's gun laws like? Oh well, at least they have prayer to make things better....

brianlux

Unsung, here's the Merriam Webster definition:

para-noid: adj. of, relating to, or suffering from a mental illness that causes you to falsely believe that people are trying to harm you.

If you really believe someone is trying to harm you, you might be paranoid. If you just think these things might happen to you and you think about that often you are probably just neurotic and obsessed. Don't worry, were all a bit crazy in one way or another. With the world the way it is today, you'd have to be out of your mind to not be a little crazy. My suggestion would be to take more time and relax. All that worry is going to eat up your days and someday you'll look back and think, "Man, all that worry and no one cut off my head after all! What was I thinking!!??"

From the former King of Worry to you, man. Relax!

unsung

Actually I am perfectly fine. Yesterday I found out my Congressman voted against auditing the Fed and voted for arming rebels in Syria, so the level of stupidity that I am allowed to accept in one day was already used up. Then I log on and find another big government statist forum newbie wallowing in the drool left behind from some other blind big govt acolytes and I figured out I could no longer handle so much stupid in such a short time frame.

Excuse me for a while, I have letters to write to a Congressman and I must retain my senses and illustrate to that fool why his decisions are based in some far off fantasy world.

CM189191

unsung said:

Actually I am perfectly fine. Yesterday I found out my Congressman voted against auditing the Fed and voted for arming rebels in Syria, so the level of stupidity that I am allowed to accept in one day was already used up. Then I log on and find another big government statist forum newbie wallowing in the drool left behind from some other blind big govt acolytes and I figured out I could no longer handle so much stupid in such a short time frame.

Excuse me for a while, I have letters to write to a Congressman and I must retain my senses and illustrate to that fool why his decisions are based in some far off fantasy world.

Guns for you = good
Guns for Syrian Rebels = bad?

Given all the crimes that are happening over there, shouldn't we be encouraging the maximum gun ownership?

Bank regulation = good
Gun regulation = bad

Well now I'm really confused....

Gern Blansten

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.

LOL...as if you aren't controlled by Ron Paul and the FakeLibertarianBots

Gern Blansten

I was watching part 2 of "The Roosevelts", which is Ken Burns' new documentary on PBS, last night. Teddy Roosevelt was very vocal about how the federal government needed to make sure that the upper class didn't take advantage of the lower class.

Teddy would be a democrat today. The GOP is completely off their rocker.

benjs

unsung, are you referring to CM as the "forum newbie" who joined in 2005 and has 600+ posts? I'm not sure why it's relevant how long you've been sticking around here, as it has no bearing on how much research one has done on his or her own. There is life outside of this community, and I think that how much time people commit to sharing information here is an absurd way to gauge the value of their voices. It's also an unfair assumption to make that because a person has 600 posts on the Pearl Jam forums, it means they're likely hopping on a bandwagon when posing an idea. I don't see the relation whatsoever.

I also don't understand why you have such a bone to pick with government statism - you can be pro-, neutral-, or anti- an idea and even if it doesn't agree with your train of thought. If an idea can be backed up with logic, it shouldn't be written off as "stupidity".

You haven't encountered "stupidity", you have encountered "differing opinions" (which might be lacking logical premises and causalities, but in that case you're welcome to inquire about the origins of opinions before writing them off). I can't think of a situation where that's a bad thing.

chadwick

brianlux said:

Unsung, here's the Merriam Webster definition:

para-noid: adj. of, relating to, or suffering from a mental illness that causes you to falsely believe that people are trying to harm you.

If you really believe someone is trying to harm you, you might be paranoid. If you just think these things might happen to you and you think about that often you are probably just neurotic and obsessed. Don't worry, were all a bit crazy in one way or another. With the world the way it is today, you'd have to be out of your mind to not be a little crazy. My suggestion would be to take more time and relax. All that worry is going to eat up your days and someday you'll look back and think, "Man, all that worry and no one cut off my head after all! What was I thinking!!??"

From the former King of Worry to you, man. Relax!

i don't believe he is paranoid at all & i would bet he is pretty darn relaxed. weren't you just punched in the skull last couple months ago? that very easily could've have been a kniving or a gunshot or a thorough ass beating. it doesn't have to be a gas station in dark hours, your very own home is where it could have took place. that idiot & his idiot friends would actually be safer assaulting you & your family at your castle than at the gas station.

why do people believe the government, cops & the cia are going to save them? horse dick, it's fucking ridiculous to not be the first one to defend yourself & your people. you drove away, that was the best move. what about being shot or stuck, sliced & beat nearly to death or worse?

i hear the forest fire was man made out there. california is a leading state in nutjobs & goofy ass violent bullshit. residence would be doing themselves a favor if they were educated in firearms & this starts at age of birth. as in, do not fuck with guns like they are toys. my brothers & me never had toy guns as not to get confused even for one half a second. guns are not toys.

so you are saying switzerland is full of paranoid nutcases?

Godfather.

CM189191 said:

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.

childish and insulting to who ? some would say we have not had a president since Bush left office but I'm sure that's not your opinion and I would not want to offend you with my opinion...you know that communism kind of sounds like it borders in meaning to what your are so passionate about in this thread,anyway have a fine day. )

Godfather.