I'm sure you wouldn't. But I'm not sure that's the same thing. 60% of gun deaths are suicide. 1% are accidents. Plenty more are the result of situations that escalate precisely because everyone has a gun (or are perceived to have a gun). So it's a legitimate question to ask whether owning a gun would make you more or less likely to be shot.Apologies for jumping In in that question, I would never consider any gun crime, ever
No, thank you.
And, not to be impolite, but what’s it to ya? You’ll never see it unless you come to the range with me or come upstairs in my house uninvited looking to harm me or my family.
Your car is more dangerous than my guns, yet I doubt you’re going to stop driving!
Hmmm. I think maybe we get to define aberrant ourselves. And the fact that you don’t agree maybe suggests you are a wee bit closer to gun fetishism than you should be. Certainly it suggests a lack of empathy for those of us who can’t understand the totemistic fascination with them. Although I have a theory about that. Most gun owners don’t like it very much.As evidenced by the number of such pictures you see every year like this, it is clearly NOT normal behavior. However, neither is it aberrant behavior.
Again, I’m not sure why the angst?I figured as much. I explained what it is to me — and to all of us — but no responsible nor irresponsible gun owner is going to listen, ever.
I’ve also explained three times why the car or any other consumer product whataboutism is a bad analogy (positive social utility trade off vs guns which are designed specifically and only to harm), so I’m not sure why you’d think your last sentence would resonate.
But to humo(u)r you I’d offer that I bet I’ve had more experience driving than you’ve had shooting. I’d also offer my car costs more than your gun, it’s harder to get a license to operate it and I pay more in taxes on my car. Maybe raising the cost of guns, gun licenses and taxes on guns to car-type levels would resonate with you. And then, as with cigarettes, we could use those funds to flood the airwaves with anti-gun commercials.
There is only one of us who is entranced by the issue, and it ain’t me!Hmmm. I think maybe we get to define aberrant ourselves. And the fact that you don’t agree maybe suggests you are a wee bit closer to gun fetishism than you should be. Certainly it suggests a lack of empathy for those of us who can’t understand the totemistic fascination with them. Although I have a theory about that. Most gun owners don’t like it very much.
No no — I know you’re not. I’m just asking if you would voluntarily give up your gun, not marching against. But I already know you won’t.Again, I’m not sure why the angst?
I’m not your enemy. I’m all in favor of very strict gun laws and even stronger penalties. No issue with that at all. I am willing to operate within ANY GUN LAWS PASSED. However, that’s not enough for you!
You not only want me to disavow having guns for myself, but want me to be marching against guns. Funny stuff!
Again, I’m not your enemy, so don’t try to make me out to be one.
The issue is enforcing the laws already on the books and being strict about it. Where laws need toughening, toughen them.No no — I know you’re not. I’m just asking if you would voluntarily give up your gun, not marching against. But I already know you won’t.
My next idea is that things change when responsible gun owners advocate for them, not when non-gun-owners do. You say you are for stricter controls and tougher laws but unfortunately the largest collection of responsible gun owners in the nation isn’t; it’s by and large the opposite. So the burden of positive change falls entirely on non-gun owners.
But if that change goes too far, you know how to silence them? Show them your gun. The armed have a distinct advantage over the unarmed when it comes to change.
The only solution is for everyone in the USA to be a responsible gun owner, which is the default position of every responsible gun owner.
The entirety of the discussion is a circular reference. Change will never happen. Ever.
But you’ve never had to do it or had anyone shooting back… I hope it never comes to it mate, but you just don’t know.Hopefully, we will never have to find out, but I think you’d be on the wrong side of history if push came to shove.
If it’s me or him…or any member of my family and him…it’s him!
I don’t mean to sound overly dramatic, but I’ve trained, I’ve simulated and I’ve practiced for well over a decade.
In a stress/range setting, I can put two in the chest and one in the head in a couple of seconds. Only 1 of those needs to hit the target in a household setting to put anyone down, or make them crawl away in deep regret! I know that sounds crazy to some of you, and braggadocio to others, but it’s a fact based on t
years of training and practice. I’m not a hillbilly or a gun nut, but I am serious about gun safety and ability to perform.
Genuine question (don't know if it's been asked either), but why do you feel the need to have 3 lethal weapons in the house if it's only for the unlikely event of home invasion?...
I have 3 firearms, one a holdover from a previous “job” that I use at the range. The other 2 are home & concealed carry weapons.
...
They’re basically all holding hand guns with long barrels apparently, so nothing to see here. Perfectly normal behaviour.