America's Gun Violence

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Why are you scared of someone using their Rights?

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

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Why are you scared of someone using their Rights?

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

my2hands said:

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

my2hands said:

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

Halifax2TheMax said:

my2hands said:

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?

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Why are you scared of someone using their Rights?

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.

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Why are you scared of someone using their Rights?

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.

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.