Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CurlyDrew42

What do you say to people?

Recommended Posts

I have friends that are not in any way into firearms, not for sports, not for collecting not for defense.  Most of them don't know anything about guns or gun laws. Whenever a mass shooting hits the news they all flip out and start yelling about gun laws and banning this and that.  Don't get me wrong, a little reasonable regulation would probably go along way but some of these people want to ban firearms completely.  My first reaction is to role my eyes and ask them if they really think their proposed gun ban is going to stop criminals from owning guns.  Normally intelligent, thoughtful people seem to lose all common sense.  How do you explain to your friends and family who are not gun friendly that they are spewing nonsense without alienating or insulting them.  Because I really suck at that particular conversation.

Share this post


Link to post

join the club there. Many of my wife's friends are retired school teachers or administrators, a few in the newspaper/tv business.

Most of the time I listen patiently until they start to run out of steam and then speaking in a polite voice I say

1. The perpetrator was a previously convicted felon.

2. The perpetrator was adjudicated mentally incompetent.

3. The perpetrator was a known drug user/abuser by admission or evidence.

4 The perpetrator was a non-resident alien in the country illegally.

5. The perpetrator was prohibited from purchasing a firearm and had another person purchase the firearm for them. (both have now committed felonies)

6. The perpetrator was prescribed any of several anti-depressants and was not taking them or had just stopped taking them

7. The perpetrator was drunk at the time of the offense

8. The perpetrator was previously convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, possibly under a restraining order

9. The perpetrator was in a "gun free" zone with a firearm

10. The perpetrator was carrying concealed without the proper CCW in a non authorized location

 

All of those things with the exceptions of #7, #9, #10 are automatic disqualifiers for the purchase of a firearm. Using a firearm under any of those circumstances is already illegal under most state laws and many times under federal law. Possession in many locations is prohibited either by choice of the establishment or by law (think courthouses, airports etc) I read somewhere that there are about 20,000 laws relating to the possession, use and purchase of firearms. Contrary to what our former white house occupant liked to say it is not legal to buy automatic firearms at the gun show without a background check and federal tax stamp. In many states a check is required even on a face to face private transaction of a modern firearm of any type (here in Colorado for example). Hard to think of an act with a firearm that does not already have a law about it.

 

I then ask what is their "common sense" law that they would like to see legislated and implemented? They usually come back with "guns are only for the National Guard" I then point out the Constitution and its amendments predated the National Guard by quite a few years. Further if they are under 45 THEY are part of the "militia" IIRC. (not sure of the correct age) and would most likely be expected to show up with an appropriate firearm if called upon.

 

Or I ask them why don't they show a little honesty and admit that they really want all guns banned.

With some hundreds of millions in circulation that would be like trying to ban wasps, spiders or centipedes. They are annoying to us for sure but impossible to remove from circulation. So long as we have a free society there is no law that will make people behave civilly, morally or honestly if they choose not to. People will always behave in their own best interest and sometimes that coincides with societies best interest and sometimes not.

 

Most of the time they have no answer only the vague mumble about "guns are bad and only bad people have guns".

Guess I am bad.

Good luck and if you come up with something better let me know

 

:FlagAm: :FlagAm: :FlagAm:

 

Gateway Kid

Share this post


Link to post

People have a really hard time with the idea that a gun ban will not stop criminals from having guns.  Nor will it stop someone who is unhinged from getting their mitts on a gun.  Crazy SoBs manage to get a drivers license all the time in this country after all.

Share this post


Link to post

I AM NOT....I REPEAT...NOT GIVING UP ANYMORE SLICES OF MY 2ND AMENDMENT PIE!

Share this post


Link to post

Cocaine is illegal.

Meth is illegal.

Child molestation is illegal.

Murder is illegal.

We have very strict laws regarding those. Still happens. If criminals obeyed laws then we wouldn't have criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, CurlyDrew42 said:

I have friends that are not in any way into firearms, not for sports, not for collecting not for defense.  Most of them don't know anything about guns or gun laws. Whenever a mass shooting hits the news they all flip out and start yelling about gun laws and banning this and that.  Don't get me wrong, a little reasonable regulation would probably go along way but some of these people want to ban firearms completely.  My first reaction is to role my eyes and ask them if they really think their proposed gun ban is going to stop criminals from owning guns.  Normally intelligent, thoughtful people seem to lose all common sense.  How do you explain to your friends and family who are not gun friendly that they are spewing nonsense without alienating or insulting them.  Because I really suck at that particular conversation.

 

Once you accept the fact that ANY further regulation is UNREASONABLE and most existing regulation is both ineffective and unconstitutional, you can then move on to the realization that your acquaintances are either ignorant of true reality or are only concerned with complete control, starting with your gun rights and eventually all of your rights and choices.  While you tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and they either don't realize or refuse to openly admit that they want EVERYTHING their way, including what you do and think, that IS what they seek whether you like it or not!!!

 

NO MATTER HOW you approach them, they will NEVER agree with your point of view and thoughtful discussion and explanation can't work because your opinion and point of view mean next to nothing to them if you don't agree with their position!!  It has nothing to do with logic!! They only respond in an emotional manner and that is the tool of choice of the people that they follow!!  They don't see that when they force you and me into submission, they will be the next ones subjugated because they've forfeited their rights by supporting the removal of yours!!!

 

If they won't listen to you now, they probably never will!!  Move on to folks who will accept your point of view and those who do more than dismiss your opinion out of hand!!  There are many who, when enlightened to the realities of our world, will agree that what you say on this subject has merit!!  Those are the ones to reason with and try to convince!!!

Share this post


Link to post

1. Ask them if they knew how strict the firearms laws are in Chicago. 

2. Explain to them how strict Chicago's firearms laws really are so that there was no misunderstanding. I would also explain how strict the laws are for the entire state of Illinois. Go on line and show them the actual facts so there is no doubt.

3. Ask them if they knew that between 1 January and 31 October that there were 569 murders in Chicago and of these 527 involved a firearm.

4. Ask them why does Chicago, a City with arguably the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation, located in a state with restrictive firearms laws experience so many firearms related homicides. 

5. Ask them why all those restrictive firearms laws have also not prevented close to 3000 additional people from being shot.

6. Ask them if they believe in the Black Lives Matter Movement and racial injustice protests by the NFL.

7. Ask them why if the above is so important, that they are not expressing outrage over the fact that approximately 80% of Chicago's homicides are African Americans.

 

Second talking point.

Ask them if they believe that stricter gun laws reduce overall homicide rates and not just firearms related homicides.

Ask them if they know the difference between Texas' and California's gun laws. Go on line and show them the difference. Also point out that California and Texas have almost the same population.

Ask them if they know the per capita homicide rate for California. BTW in 2015 it was 4.8 per 100,000

Ask them if Texas with its liberal firearms laws has a higher or lower per capita homicide rate than California. Then explain that it is also 4.8 per 100,000

Now ask them why California doesn't have a lower per capita homicide rate when all those Second Amendment infringing firearms laws that they want passed nation wide still has a homicide rate that is the same as a state without all those laws.

2015 per capita homicide rates by state.

 

3rd talking point. Year is 2014

Ask them how many people in the US died from Poisoning. 51966 per the CDC

Ask them how many people died in motor vehicle accidents. 33736 per the CDC

Ask them if they know how many firearm related deaths there were in the United States last year.  33594 per the CDC

Ask how many of those firearm related deaths were actually homicides and not some other cause. 11008 Per Table 10 of this CDC report

Where is their demand for more laws to prevent deaths by poisoning. After all for every homicide due to a firearm almost 5 (4.72) die due to poisoning

 

4th talking point

Ask them how many medical malpractice deaths they think there are in the United States every year. Research currently suggests that at least 251,454 deaths are due to medical errors every year in the United States.    NPR report

Ask them which is more dangerous. A firearm or a Hospital?

Now where is their outrage and demand for laws to prevent all those deaths due to preventable medical errors.  

 

Share this post


Link to post

One thing I've asked a few is-- "Have you ever fired a gun?" Most always answer no. Some have actually let me show them how to safely shoot and now for some reason their whole attitude has changed?!

Maybe if we banned motor vehicles we would have less deaths on the road too, especially "High Capacity" vehicles. They don't get the correlation even though many drunk drivers are already with a suspended license and drive anyway. Laws only affect the "Law abiding".

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, CurlyDrew42 said:

I have friends that are not in any way into firearms, not for sports, not for collecting not for defense.  Most of them don't know anything about guns or gun laws. Whenever a mass shooting hits the news they all flip out and start yelling about gun laws and banning this and that.  Don't get me wrong, a little reasonable regulation would probably go along way but some of these people want to ban firearms completely.  My first reaction is to role my eyes and ask them if they really think their proposed gun ban is going to stop criminals from owning guns.  Normally intelligent, thoughtful people seem to lose all common sense.  How do you explain to your friends and family who are not gun friendly that they are spewing nonsense without alienating or insulting them.  Because I really suck at that particular conversation.

 

 

I appologize for this being long but I am trying to answer your question..  The best way to accomplish this is to let them speak first. Simply ask them why they feel the way they do. This way they’ll expose their own ignorance. If you begin by pointing out their lack of knowledge, they’ll only wall your empirical arguments out with anger. By letting them first stumble over their own views, they’ll instead find themselves in an internal struggle. As they thrash about for reasons to support why they feel this way or that, they’ll be looking for real answers, not just emotionally pushing back against your facts.  As they explain their feelings, keep in mind that when you answer them, there is no reason to slip and slide down the porcelain wall of their ignorance. Address their points, but lead the conversation quickly to a fact-based debate. Do this by waiting for them to finish before politely challenging their false premises—go right for the basis of their point of view. Ask for a historical justification for their anti-gun views. If you do this well, they’ll soon realize they’re in over their heads.  When they do realize that, resist the urge to push them all the way under. Instead, throw their drowning ego a life preserver. You need to let them save face as they swim toward the truth.  This is critical because the viewpoints of anti-gunners are typically based on emotion. You need to guide them toward reason.  They typically respond with a generality, such as that they feel there are too many guns in society. They don’t have any experience with guns and are afraid of firearms.  Those who naively think disarming law-abiding citizens will make them safer.  Ask, “Why would disarming your neighbor make you feel safer?”  After they answer, ask if they know their neighbors. This humanizes the point.  Then ask why they feel average Americans can’t be trusted.  Wherever the conversation goes, just be sure to let them know that it’s okay they don’t know these things, as schools rarely teach this information. Then tell them about your favorite books or articles on these topics, and offer to share them.  The committed anti-gun zealot who truly hates you.  I like to ask, “What makes you feel so cruel toward women and the elderly?” They usually respond with shock, as they gasp, “What?!!” After they’ve had their say, explain that it’s cruel to prevent, for example, an elderly man or woman from having the one tool that we know can stop a bad guy from badly injuring or killing them.  Point out that anti-Second Amendment policies empower thugs and murderers. This is a cruel thing to do to good, law-abiding people. Depending on the particular person and the context of the opportunity, you can easily let their egos off the hook by explaining that they probably just haven’t had the opportunity to hear this side of the argument before.  With all these types of people, if you ask the right questions you can at least make them start considering more seriously the real truth about gun ownership. And since we have the facts on our side, once they start looking for the truth, it’s up to us to help them find it.  

 

Charlie

Share this post


Link to post

SD, check your numbers on the ratio of firearm/poisoning deaths...  unless there was a typo, it looks like it should be about 35% more from poisoning than firearms, rather than 472%.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said:

SD, check your numbers on the ration of firearm/poisoning deaths...  unless there was a typo, it looks like it should be about 35% more from poisoning than firearms, rather than 472%.

There is a decimal place in there For every Homicide death by a firearm 4.72 people die due to poisoning.

51966 / 11008 = 4.721 

Share this post


Link to post

Curley Drew

 

Not wanting to start a fight but what exactly did you mean when you said "a little reasonable regulation would probably go along way"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I was comparing these numbers:


 

Quote

 

Ask them how many people in the US died from Poisoning. 51966 per the CDC

Ask them if they know how many firearm related deaths there were in the United States last year.  33594 per the CDC


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said:

I was comparing these numbers:

 

Ask them how many people in the US died from Poisoning. 51966 per the CDC

Ask them if they know how many firearm related deaths there were in the United States last year.  33594 per the CDC

 

 That number included all deaths by firearm. Out of all 33594 firearm related deaths only 11008 were homicides. 21386 of those deaths were suicides by firearm with the remainder other causes. 

 

I see I forgot one of the links to the data It is table 10 of this CDC report

 

Share this post


Link to post

There is nothing you can say that they will accept.   Most likely, if you try, they will end up snapping off a line like "Well, I hope you get shot!" and stomping off.

Share this post


Link to post

Sadly, what Joe says happens all too often.  :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, CurlyDrew42 said:

I have friends that are not in any way into firearms, not for sports, not for collecting not for defense.  Most of them don't know anything about guns or gun laws. Whenever a mass shooting hits the news they all flip out and start yelling about gun laws and banning this and that.  Don't get me wrong, a little reasonable regulation would probably go along way but some of these people want to ban firearms completely.  My first reaction is to role my eyes and ask them if they really think their proposed gun ban is going to stop criminals from owning guns.  Normally intelligent, thoughtful people seem to lose all common sense.  How do you explain to your friends and family who are not gun friendly that they are spewing nonsense without alienating or insulting them.  Because I really suck at that particular conversation.

 

Give an inch they take a mile. Anyway, what do you believe "a little reasonable regulation" is? We already have regulation, maybe if the government was able to enforce what is already on the books it may make a difference - who knows. IMHO, folks bent on harm will find a way regardless of what tool is used. In the church shooting case it seems the USAF dropped the ball.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/air-force-failed-to-submit-texas-shooters-criminal-history/

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said:

Sadly, what Joe says happens all too often.  :(

 

 

Yep.  Their minds are shut tight against facts and reason,  only feelings matter. 

 

When I get home from work I'll expand on this, as well as try to find some answers for the ammo extortion bill.

Share this post


Link to post

There is no such thing as reasonable regulation when it comes to firearms and the Second Amendment and our God given rights to keep and bear one. The Second Amendment is very clear and easy to read. What part of "shall not be infringed" do folks not understand. 

 

Of all the firearms laws in this country, NOT A SINGLE ONE IS A REASONABLE REGULATION. 

 

PF

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Not wanting to start a fight but what exactly did you mean when you said "a little reasonable regulation would probably go along way"

 Personally, I'd like to one set of rules rather than state and federal.

 

Like concealed carry reciprocity, I think that if you can carry concealed in one state you should be able to carry concealed in any state.  it took me a month to figure out the best way to get my own guns from California to Washington because of state regulations on both ends.  As it is I don't think I can drive down to a match in CA because taking my pistols across state lines in a locked gun case in my truck is a major no no apparently.  Which to me seems kinda dumb.  So Instead of driving down and stopping at different clubs along the way (which would be awesome) I'd have to fly in and rent a car then drive . . . it's a weird question of states rights vs federal involvement for me but I personally think it is ridiculous that gun laws change from state to state.

 

I'd like to see firearm licenses treated like drivers licenses. Only without the lines at the DMV/DOT/DOL.  Take a test, demonstrate your ability and understanding of how to safely operate the weapon, renew every X number of years.  Anyone who takes a basic NRA class already does that for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CurlyDrew42 said:

 Personally, I'd like to one set of rules rather than state and federal.

 

Like concealed carry reciprocity, I think that if you can carry concealed in one state you should be able to carry concealed in any state.  it took me a month to figure out the best way to get my own guns from California to Washington because of state regulations on both ends.  As it is I don't think I can drive down to a match in CA because taking my pistols across state lines in a locked gun case in my truck is a major no no apparently.  Which to me seems kinda dumb.  So Instead of driving down and stopping at different clubs along the way (which would be awesome) I'd have to fly in and rent a car then drive . . . it's a weird question of states rights vs federal involvement for me but I personally think it is ridiculous that gun laws change from state to state.

 

I'd like to see firearm licenses treated like drivers licenses. Only without the lines at the DMV/DOT/DOL.  Take a test, demonstrate your ability and understanding of how to safely operate the weapon, renew every X number of years.  Anyone who takes a basic NRA class already does that for the most part.



First you have to ask yourself why anyone should have to beg permission from the State to exercise a civil right.  Then you have to ask yourself why your civil rights should be taken from you when you cross a state line.  Next ask yourself what other civil right enumerated in the Bill of Rights requires that you pass a test in order to exercise.  

 

 

On 11/6/2017 at 3:52 PM, CurlyDrew42 said:

Don't get me wrong, a little reasonable regulation would probably go along way but some of these people want to ban firearms completely.



A long way to what?  We have background checks.  We have gun free zones.  We have defacto registration with the Bound Books and 4473s.  You have turned a constitutionally protected civil right into largess to be granted by the o, so gracious State.

And whose idea of "reasonable?"  Feinstein's? Schumer's?  Pelosi's?  Joe "Blast Away" Biden's?  Years ago, maybe 15 years or so, DiFi's office sent to me quite by accident, a copy of some of her proposals that were on the back burner.  A Magna Cum from Harvard law couldn't pass the paper test requirements and a Camp Perry champion couldn't pass the practical test.  The Bill of Rights is the only "reasonable" gun law we need, or should have.  And, per the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights is off the political table:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."


: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
 

 

Maybe you could tell them that^^^^^  the Bill of Rights, because "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution" puts a wall of separation around our civil rights so the politicians can't get their grubby hands on them.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps you should remember this.

 

Arms are not just guns but any weapon you can think of. Our right to keep them is so we can protect ourselves from whatever form of government might be an oppressor. Or to protect ourselves from foreign invaders

The duty to protect what is ours is our God given right (and just common sense). What we use to accomplish that is no ones business. 

Once upon a time, a man killed 25% of the worlds population with nothing but the jaw bone of an ass.

Maybe there should have been an outcry to outlaw asses.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

God given?  Lets leave deity out of the conversation please.  Separation of church and state.  Also, so far as I know none of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution or the Amendments was in any way a divine being. No almighty sky father reached down and made this country, just men and women.

 

Ease off, I was asked my opinion and I gave it.  If you think Safety, Education, Testing and Documentation are unreasonable that's your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, CurlyDrew42 said:

God given?  Lets leave deity out of the conversation please.

 

 

Noted - can't quote any of the founding documents.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CurlyDrew42 said:

God given?  Lets leave deity out of the conversation please.  Separation of church and state.  Also, so far as I know none of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution or the Amendments was in any way a divine being. No almighty sky father reached down and made this country, just men and women.

 

Ease off, I was asked my opinion and I gave it.  If you think Safety, Education, Testing and Documentation are unreasonable that's your opinion.

 

Who defines these safety tests??? Carefully consider the ramifications and untended consequences of that answer. Consider that currently school districts cannot even come to a consensus as to what should or shouldn't be taught in school much less what should or shouldn't be in a text book.

 

Documentation of firearm ownership is the first step in confiscation of those same firearms. The founding fathers understood this. This is one of many reasons why the right to bear arms is enshrined our constitution. Consider that when you know who has the means to resist you have the means to suppress that same resistance.

 

More deaths can directly be attributed to the pen than will ever be attributed to the sword.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, CurlyDrew42 said:

God given?  Lets leave deity out of the conversation please.  Separation of church and state.  Also, so far as I know none of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution or the Amendments was in any way a divine being. No almighty sky father reached down and made this country, just men and women.

 

Ease off, I was asked my opinion and I gave it.  If you think Safety, Education, Testing and Documentation are unreasonable that's your opinion.

 

feel free to show us all where the phrase "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution, go ahead, we'll wait.....if you don't want to believe in it that way, that is your right, but those of us that do have that right as well.  It doesn't matter as much where anyone thinks our Constitutional rights came from, just that they are being threatened.  And I doubt any of us has any objection to safety, education, and testing, there's nothing wrong with any of those concepts, we just don't want the government forcing them down our throats as a way to take away our rights.  As for documentation, that one isn't at all necessary....and does nothing to prevent any crimes from being committed...

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, CurlyDrew42 said:

Separation of church and state. 

 

Read the letter from the Danbury Baptists and then read Jefferson's reply from which that phrase (you do know that it is not in the Constitution, don't you?) is paraphrased. Jefferson doesn't mean what many claim he meant.

Share this post


Link to post

Lets keep it on track please

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Waite, that was the point I was trying to make, let's keep this about the 2nd, not the 1st, no reason for anyone to make your job any harder.  I apologize to you if it didn't come out exactly right, I was in a hurry this morning as it was almost time to leave for work....:blush:

 

I did get this part right tho.... "It doesn't matter as much where anyone thinks our Constitutional rights came from, just that they are being threatened."

Share this post


Link to post

One of the favorites of the antis is a proof-text of Schenck, usually along the lines of "You can't shout fire in a theater" in order to show that civil rights are limited.   But, that is well out of context of the part of the decision.

 

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.” Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

 

If we translate Schenck to apply to the 2nd, it would read something like “The most stringent protection of the rights to keep and bear arms would not protect a man in wantonly opening fire in a public place and causing death, injury, and panic.  It does not even protect a man who brandishes a firearm in public with the intent of causing fear and panic among the people.”

Schenck doesn't limit free speech, or any civil right, it just says that if you cause unnecessary harm through your exercise of your rights, you can't claim it was your right to do so.  The thug who shot up the theater in CO can't hide behind the 2nd claiming it was his right to do that.

Share this post


Link to post

the 2nd amnt is only a restatement of the rights that predated it.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, CurlyDrew42 said:

God given?  Lets leave deity out of the conversation please.  Separation of church and state.  Also, so far as I know none of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution or the Amendments was in any way a divine being. No almighty sky father reached down and made this country, just men and women.

 

Ease off, I was asked my opinion and I gave it.  If you think Safety, Education, Testing and Documentation are unreasonable that's your opinion.

 

Sorry guy, but 'deity' has everything to do with our rights - God given means that cannot be taken away by man (government)...please show me where in the Constitution it states 'separation of church and state' - it doesn't exist.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/#4c05a815d02d

 

http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html

 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/how-are-gun-rights-god-given-and-inalienable/

 

Anyway, I know we need to stick with our God-given 2nd Amendment Right on this forum so I'll refrain from any further comment about this erroneous and mis-understood "seperation of church and state" thing.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post

a few thoughts,--

 

you cannot fight an emotional argument with facts.

 

anti-gun people feel threatened -- by something they don't understand

 

when threatened people will direct their energy such as to effect protection from whatever threat they perceive

 

the threat energy can be -- and is -- directed by interested parties

 

the proper response to the "active shooter" threat is preparedness and training.

 

I have noticed some focus on this approach recently.   it is the right response to this threat.   

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996 said:

anti-gun people feel threatened -- by something they don't understand

 

 

 

That's part of it.  But how often have you heard some well known anti-civil rights type say something along the lines of "Gun owners should be shot" ? Or had an anti-civil rights advocate tell you "Well, I know that if I had a gun right now I'd shoot you!"?  They are controlled by their out of control emotions and violent tendencies, but since they are o, so illuminated, o, so progressive, o, so tolerant and inclusive, THEY can't have those traits and so project them onto others.  Deep down they know that they can't be trusted with a firearm but can't accept that they have no self-control or self-discipline so it must be those irredeemable, deplorable, stinking, free-loading, cave-dwelling people in Podunk who bitterly cling to their Bibles and guns that must be prevented from owning guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

They are controlled by

?

 

they are controlled by their training. their training is repeated via the "media" over and over ad nauseum: "Guns cause shootings".    this has become ingrained into large parts of society to the point that anyone offering a contrary view will immediately get one chastised as a "nut case", or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.