im an anti w/ questions
- Thread starter James Castilla
- Start date
- Status
Mostly Harmless
Member
Here's my $0.02
About 35 years ago when I was a young and stupid teenager, I was raped by 2 men, became pregnant, and was kicked out of school. Basically it was a major life-changing event.
I had been taught as a "good girl" to do what adults told me, to be polite, demure, not to resist, make a fuss, or to defend myself.
Five or 6 years later, while walking by the river late one night, I was accosted by a "gentleman" who asked me for a light for a cigarette. When I proffered my lighter, he grabbed me by the throat and attempted to strangle me. Unfortunately for him, I'd learned a little in the intervening years and was carrying a knife in my boot. I stabbed him and ran. I told no one, burned the bloody clothes I'd been wearing (dark colors are very useful as they don't show bloodstains to the naked eye in the dark) and nearly ruined the knife scrubbing it with peroxide. Funnily enough, there were no more reports of rape/murders of young women in the city for a while, though they had been happening on a regular if not very frequent basis.
20 years ago, while in the Middle East, I got myself into the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people. Out in the desert late one night, we were being shot at. At the time I knew almost nothing about guns. I had been given a 9mm which I'd never shot, but had been shown how to operate it. I picked it up and shot back. My companions were also shooting with their .357s. Very quickly there was no more incoming fire. When that little mess was cleaned up, there were several BGs on their way to meet Allah, one of whom had a couple of 9mm holes in him.
These days I live a much less "exciting" life. I know a lot more about guns, shoot on a regular (but not frequent enough) basis, and am fully appreciative of my Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. I shoot for fun mainly; because it's something that both my son and I enjoy; and lastly because you never know when you'll find yourself in a situation where knowing how to shoot well could save your life. I don't carry on a daily basis (something to do with permits and unconstitutional laws and being an alien I guess) but will when I can do so legally.
Would I shoot and/or kill again? In self-defence, or in defence of my partner or son yes. Without hesitation or remorse. Am I a bloody-thirsty sociopath looking for an excuse to go berserk at the mall? Depends who you ask
(I am after all Mostly Harmless )
Would I take up arms against a tyrannical government? Well, that was kinda sorta part of the reason I did what I did in the MidEast.... But as it's getting harder and harder to find a country where the government is not at least bordering on tyrannical in some way (my polite friends call them "coercive collectivist") I guess I might have to make a stand here one day.
J.
Not all Brits are anti-gun wimps.
About 35 years ago when I was a young and stupid teenager, I was raped by 2 men, became pregnant, and was kicked out of school. Basically it was a major life-changing event.
I had been taught as a "good girl" to do what adults told me, to be polite, demure, not to resist, make a fuss, or to defend myself.
Five or 6 years later, while walking by the river late one night, I was accosted by a "gentleman" who asked me for a light for a cigarette. When I proffered my lighter, he grabbed me by the throat and attempted to strangle me. Unfortunately for him, I'd learned a little in the intervening years and was carrying a knife in my boot. I stabbed him and ran. I told no one, burned the bloody clothes I'd been wearing (dark colors are very useful as they don't show bloodstains to the naked eye in the dark) and nearly ruined the knife scrubbing it with peroxide. Funnily enough, there were no more reports of rape/murders of young women in the city for a while, though they had been happening on a regular if not very frequent basis.
20 years ago, while in the Middle East, I got myself into the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people. Out in the desert late one night, we were being shot at. At the time I knew almost nothing about guns. I had been given a 9mm which I'd never shot, but had been shown how to operate it. I picked it up and shot back. My companions were also shooting with their .357s. Very quickly there was no more incoming fire. When that little mess was cleaned up, there were several BGs on their way to meet Allah, one of whom had a couple of 9mm holes in him.
These days I live a much less "exciting" life. I know a lot more about guns, shoot on a regular (but not frequent enough) basis, and am fully appreciative of my Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. I shoot for fun mainly; because it's something that both my son and I enjoy; and lastly because you never know when you'll find yourself in a situation where knowing how to shoot well could save your life. I don't carry on a daily basis (something to do with permits and unconstitutional laws and being an alien I guess) but will when I can do so legally.
Would I shoot and/or kill again? In self-defence, or in defence of my partner or son yes. Without hesitation or remorse. Am I a bloody-thirsty sociopath looking for an excuse to go berserk at the mall? Depends who you ask
(I am after all Mostly Harmless )Would I take up arms against a tyrannical government? Well, that was kinda sorta part of the reason I did what I did in the MidEast.... But as it's getting harder and harder to find a country where the government is not at least bordering on tyrannical in some way (my polite friends call them "coercive collectivist") I guess I might have to make a stand here one day.
J.
Not all Brits are anti-gun wimps.
CasualShooter
Member
Many years ago in a major U.S. City, I observed that when a perpetrator was killed in the act by the victum or in a shootout with police following a bank robbery or other violent feloneous act, a funny thing would happen.
For the next few weeks there would be a major reduction in the number of calls, broadcast by the police dispatcher, concerning not only robberies; but, also other violent "part I crimes", as well.
Those who espouse the mantra that effective and successful resistance by the victums (including CCW for self defense) is not a deterrant to crime are full of $---! They are either ignorant of the subject or they are liars trying to advance their agenda by any means.
Criminals are generally bullies.
Bullies don't pick on the strong - They're Chicken.
Good Guys still outnumber Bad Guys.
CCW deters crime and saves lives!
Zackmeister
Member
It's the thread that wouldn't die! Just kidding.. it has been great to read everyone's eloquent responses. I own guns because I enjoy shooting and it lets me do something together with my dad. When I hit the big two-one, I'll probably get my CCW. I suppose that means another new gun because I don't think my Raging Bull .44 would very inconspicuous..
gehwehrnut
Member
Wow! I stumbled across this board a few days ago and have just been kind of watching to see what kind of people were here. I've posted a couple of unimportant posts. Queries, mostly. I am very impressed with the level of respect and number of intelligent posts. This proves to me what a great board you all have here. I didn't see a belittling post in this thread (and I read 95% of the posts). Most everyone made very concise statements. Statements made to inform, not flame or bash.
I, myself, am not new to the wonderful world of firearms, having been around them all my life and pretty much always having owned them.
James, you are proof that antis shouldn't be stereo-typed and that there are some very open-minded and responsible thinking people in your ranks. I hope that the responses and answer provided by the fine members of this forum have helped to prove the same about us.
I, myself, am not new to the wonderful world of firearms, having been around them all my life and pretty much always having owned them.
James, you are proof that antis shouldn't be stereo-typed and that there are some very open-minded and responsible thinking people in your ranks. I hope that the responses and answer provided by the fine members of this forum have helped to prove the same about us.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
One doesn't just have to float around in a seas of subjective opinion. This question can be couched in terms of symbolic logic.
Are you familiar with game theory? Imagine a game of Prisoner's Dilemmna except that you only get one time to play it with each other prisoner and you only have to lose once to lose forever. In such a world then any tool neccessary to keep the majority of players honest has positive constructive value don't you think?
The gun has specific calculable value on a concrete level regardless of one player's inability to see it with such from their armchair perspective
I would suggest you draw a truth table then assign specific values using your local hometown statistics for criminal behavior to calculate a gun's constructive value for you given a lifetime of chance encounters with other players. Even if one entirely ignores the concept of "herd immunity" one should be able to denmonstrate utility.
Orthonym
Member
Ping...ing...ing...ng.
James, are you there?
James, are you there?
AZLibertarian
Member
James,
I don't know if you're still out there, and I'm relatively new here myself and picked up this thread late. The eloquence of this group is still impressing me. I hope you're having the same impression.
Most of the others here have made my major points, but I'll add a couple...
I'm one of the few Arizonans who has renewed my CCW twice. I had to think long and hard about getting it at all. Fundamentally, I don't believe I ought to have to apply to the government to carry the means to defend myself and my loved ones, but the rest of AZ does, so I went with the majority. The reason I carry is about control. When the Bad Guy (BG) sticks a weapon in your face, he has a number of choices. He can take your wallet and watch; He can take these and go on to rape you (men get raped, too) or your loved ones; or he can rob you, rape you, and then kill you. In all of this, an unarmed victim has very little control over the outcome. However by me jumping through the hoops to carry my gun legally, I now have some element of control over the outcome of a very rare, but potentially very dangerous situation. I prefer to retain that control.
You have acknowledged your change in position about the dangers of a bullet hole in an airliner. I'll tell you that I am a Captain at a major national airline. A .45 inch hole in my plane would hardly be noticable. [BTW, I believe the Federal Air Marshals do not carry frangible ammunition. They're more concerned with one-shot kills done with hollow-point ammuntion, than damage from errant shots] Even if the hole enlarged, the situation might be something I'd concern myself about, but I wouldn't envision a catostrophic decompression. The masks would drop out of the ceiling, I'd descend to land somewhere short of my destination, but in all but the most extreme circumstance, everyone would sleep in clean sheets that night. Hollywood has done a great disservice to your first impression of what might happen. I'll also let you know of a little secret. In Congressional testimony regarding the 9/11 attacks, Boeing representatives said that they were aware of 11 cases of passenger planes being hit by gunfire. That these airplanes didn't fall out of the sky, or blow up, or whatever some scriptwriter has envisoned ought to mean something.
As an airline pilot, I would love to carry a gun at work. However, the government has that program so screwed up that I won't consider it until there are major changes. Today, I believe the Federal Flight Deck Officer program is more of a safety concern than an asset. But I also believe that there are still bad guys out there trying to find a way to take down another airliner, and that armed pilots are the most effective and cheapest way to protect us all from another 9/11. IMO, for the best, least biased information about arming airline pilots, I recommend http://www.secure-skies.org/index.asp
Additionally, regarding the effects of governments restricting gun rights, I would second the recommendation to pick up John Ross's book, Unintended Consequences. I haven't looked, but I doubt you can find it on Amazon or in a brick & mortar bookstore. I bought my copy a few years ago at a gun show and I re-read it about once a year. My local library used to have a couple of copies, but I think that is fairly unusual. BTW, I am honored to post in the same thread as the author. I treasure this book, and will pass it down to my children.
Finally, as many others have done, I extend an offer to come shooting sometime. PM me if you're in the east part of the Phoenix area and interested.
I don't know if you're still out there, and I'm relatively new here myself and picked up this thread late. The eloquence of this group is still impressing me. I hope you're having the same impression.
Most of the others here have made my major points, but I'll add a couple...
I'm one of the few Arizonans who has renewed my CCW twice. I had to think long and hard about getting it at all. Fundamentally, I don't believe I ought to have to apply to the government to carry the means to defend myself and my loved ones, but the rest of AZ does, so I went with the majority. The reason I carry is about control. When the Bad Guy (BG) sticks a weapon in your face, he has a number of choices. He can take your wallet and watch; He can take these and go on to rape you (men get raped, too) or your loved ones; or he can rob you, rape you, and then kill you. In all of this, an unarmed victim has very little control over the outcome. However by me jumping through the hoops to carry my gun legally, I now have some element of control over the outcome of a very rare, but potentially very dangerous situation. I prefer to retain that control.
You have acknowledged your change in position about the dangers of a bullet hole in an airliner. I'll tell you that I am a Captain at a major national airline. A .45 inch hole in my plane would hardly be noticable. [BTW, I believe the Federal Air Marshals do not carry frangible ammunition. They're more concerned with one-shot kills done with hollow-point ammuntion, than damage from errant shots] Even if the hole enlarged, the situation might be something I'd concern myself about, but I wouldn't envision a catostrophic decompression. The masks would drop out of the ceiling, I'd descend to land somewhere short of my destination, but in all but the most extreme circumstance, everyone would sleep in clean sheets that night. Hollywood has done a great disservice to your first impression of what might happen. I'll also let you know of a little secret. In Congressional testimony regarding the 9/11 attacks, Boeing representatives said that they were aware of 11 cases of passenger planes being hit by gunfire. That these airplanes didn't fall out of the sky, or blow up, or whatever some scriptwriter has envisoned ought to mean something.
As an airline pilot, I would love to carry a gun at work. However, the government has that program so screwed up that I won't consider it until there are major changes. Today, I believe the Federal Flight Deck Officer program is more of a safety concern than an asset. But I also believe that there are still bad guys out there trying to find a way to take down another airliner, and that armed pilots are the most effective and cheapest way to protect us all from another 9/11. IMO, for the best, least biased information about arming airline pilots, I recommend http://www.secure-skies.org/index.asp
Additionally, regarding the effects of governments restricting gun rights, I would second the recommendation to pick up John Ross's book, Unintended Consequences. I haven't looked, but I doubt you can find it on Amazon or in a brick & mortar bookstore. I bought my copy a few years ago at a gun show and I re-read it about once a year. My local library used to have a couple of copies, but I think that is fairly unusual. BTW, I am honored to post in the same thread as the author. I treasure this book, and will pass it down to my children.
Finally, as many others have done, I extend an offer to come shooting sometime. PM me if you're in the east part of the Phoenix area and interested.
CasualShooter
Member
I ordered a copy from Amazon.com on July 2, 2003. They offered free (but slow) delivery. I'm looking to receive in in the next couple days.
When I ordered it, I believe I saw something about a sequel by John Ross which was either out or soon to be out. Anybody know anything about this?
TearsOfRage
Member
Actually, Barnes and Noble does carry it.... at least in New Hampshire.
Sometimes I take a copy out of the fiction section and leave it in the current events section.
I am also eagerly awaiting a sequel.
ReadyontheRight
Member
I got mine through Amazon.
John -- Great book.
Welcome James, if there is a James.... I’m starting to wonder if this wasn’t a set up....
Im late to the party. Hope theres some foam at the bottom of the keg....
It seems that many of you value your own lives and the lives of your loved ones enough to go through the 'hassle' of carrying protection. It’s a huge responsibility assumed by free adults willing to take ownership of their own actions and lives.
What I hear often from hard-core anti gunners is that there is no circumstance in existence that justifies killing another person. Including the defense of their own life or the life of a loved one. No amount of logic, diplomacy, or debate will spin these folks around. Its just not something they are willing to do... ever.... for any reason.
Now this is where it gets twisted. A. You wont kill B. The fact that you wont kill does not lessen your zest for life. You don’t want to be killed. Disarming EVERYBODY makes everybody equal right? Exactly. I wont have a gun and you wont have a gun and well all live very peaceably. Never once does the defense of one rights against government enter into the picture because 'who could ever imagine having to revolt in this day and age...? We are a civilized society...'
Well, you all know how this story ends....
Anyhow,
Diesle
P.S. Good Thread
Im late to the party. Hope theres some foam at the bottom of the keg....
It seems that many of you value your own lives and the lives of your loved ones enough to go through the 'hassle' of carrying protection. It’s a huge responsibility assumed by free adults willing to take ownership of their own actions and lives.
What I hear often from hard-core anti gunners is that there is no circumstance in existence that justifies killing another person. Including the defense of their own life or the life of a loved one. No amount of logic, diplomacy, or debate will spin these folks around. Its just not something they are willing to do... ever.... for any reason.
Now this is where it gets twisted. A. You wont kill B. The fact that you wont kill does not lessen your zest for life. You don’t want to be killed. Disarming EVERYBODY makes everybody equal right? Exactly. I wont have a gun and you wont have a gun and well all live very peaceably. Never once does the defense of one rights against government enter into the picture because 'who could ever imagine having to revolt in this day and age...? We are a civilized society...'
Well, you all know how this story ends....
Anyhow,
Diesle
P.S. Good Thread
glocksman
Member
There really is a James. I found out about this thread from one that James started over at the Democratic Underground Forums. It was commented on about how courteous people were over here to him.
I used to post at the DU forums, but I got banned for calling the
Widow Grunow 'greedy and moneygrubbing' in a thread about her suit.
At least I think that's what it was about. They won't tell me why I was banned.
Anyway, James is real.
And if you (James) see this, tell Jody and the rest of the pro-RKBA'ers that I said 'Hello' from tombstone land.
JohnBT
Member
Anybody know if he took me up on my offer to buy him a keyboard with a shift key? The offer included a range trip and lunch, too.
You don't expect me to read each and every page do you?
John
You don't expect me to read each and every page do you?
John
Silver Bullet
Member
He addressed it in one of his follow up messages.
You don't expect me to go back and look up the page number, do you?
You don't expect me to go back and look up the page number, do you?
skippie
Member
Welcome to THR....
I won't even try to top the great stuff on this tread but will say that I am glad to tip my hat to ya James, most people would not bother to get ant facts from the "other " side.
If you are ever in my neck of the woods, give a yell and we can go shooting...
I won't even try to top the great stuff on this tread but will say that I am glad to tip my hat to ya James, most people would not bother to get ant facts from the "other " side.
If you are ever in my neck of the woods, give a yell and we can go shooting...
Welcome James,
I doubt I can add anything else to what everyone else has said. The length of this thread just shows you how desperately we want people to listen to understand our side of the story instead of the typical reaction we see everywhere else. But instead of us talking your ear off how about posing some questions or challenges against our side? We are more than ready to answer anything you'd like.
I hope you stay whether you change your mind or not. Its kinda interesting having an Anti amongst us.
Now back up a little everyone. Let the man have some breathing room.:banghead:
I doubt I can add anything else to what everyone else has said. The length of this thread just shows you how desperately we want people to listen to understand our side of the story instead of the typical reaction we see everywhere else. But instead of us talking your ear off how about posing some questions or challenges against our side? We are more than ready to answer anything you'd like.
I hope you stay whether you change your mind or not. Its kinda interesting having an Anti amongst us.
Now back up a little everyone. Let the man have some breathing room.:banghead:
JohnBT
Member
Silver Bullet - Thanks. I'll go back and find it - as soon as I get back from the range. JT
JT45King
Member
Without bothering to wade through 6 pages of posts, I'm going to throw in my $.02 worth and address a few points from your opening post.
Exactly, and what's wrong with killing things? It's how almost all living creatures survive. If killing is immoral, the exisitence of 99.9% of all life is immoral. Killing is immoral only when someone initiates the use of force against another. Killing in self defense is perfectly moral, as is killing for food.
Says who? They may not be the most effective hunting weapons, but they can be used for hunting if necessary, just as an Olympic grade .22 short target pistol can be used for self-defense, if necessary. The fact that a particular gun might not be the very best design for a purpose doesn't change the fact that it can serve the purpose. Besides, see my first point.
Paranoia is an ureasoning fear of the unlikely or impossible. The government of the US HAS done all the following:
Burned citizens alive
Exposed citizens to lethal levels of radiation without their knowledge
Infected citizens with VD without their knowledge
Condoned through non-interference the lynchings of its citizens of color
Given aid to tyranical right wing gov'ts in other parts of the world
These things aren't even the tip of the iceberg; they are the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Are we paranoid, or merely being appropriately cautious?
Consider also the FACT that genocides perpertrated by GOVERNMENTS during the 20th century accounted for 10's of millions of deaths, not to mention the wars they started. Yes, GOVERNMENTS start wars; they may be fought by people, but they are started by GOVERNMENT.
George Washington said it best: Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. If we wish to remain the master of government, and not have it be OUR master, then we, the people, must cherish and embrace the RIGHT to be able to defend ourselves against it by being at least as well armed as the government apparatus.
The best way to make sure that "it can't happen here" is to assume that it CAN indeed happen, and be prepared to prevent it by any means possible, including the use of lethal force. As soon as the people begin to become complacent and think "it can't happen here," they begin paving the way to make sure it DOES happen here. A corruption-proof government cannot be designed; it's a flat impossibility.
Not much of anything. The James Bond film Goldfinger has inadvertently perpetrated a huge misconception about depressurization. A modern airliner can survive some pretty serious damage. Several years ago, an airliner in flight had about 1/3 of the cabin blow out due to metal fatigue, IIRC, and it was able to land safely. Some people not wearing seat belts were killed because they were blown out by the wind, and some others died because they were in the part of the fuselage that blew out, but the point is that the plane made it back to the ground safely. If an airliner can survive that type thing, it stands to reason it can surely withstand a few less-than half an inch holes in the fuselage.
The right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than an extension of the basic right to life. My life and the fruits of my labor are mine to do with as I please. Because my life is MINE, I DO have the right to choose to be able to defend it. To believe otherwise means that one believes that some degree of slavery is acceptable. I find this abhorrent to the extreme. There is no such thing as an acceptable amount or degree of slavery, period. Anyone who disputes this is automatically an enemy of liberty, freedom, and justice. Such beliefs are beyond even extreme contempt. That's the ONE thing I think there should be zero tolerance for.
Exactly, and what's wrong with killing things? It's how almost all living creatures survive. If killing is immoral, the exisitence of 99.9% of all life is immoral. Killing is immoral only when someone initiates the use of force against another. Killing in self defense is perfectly moral, as is killing for food.
Says who? They may not be the most effective hunting weapons, but they can be used for hunting if necessary, just as an Olympic grade .22 short target pistol can be used for self-defense, if necessary. The fact that a particular gun might not be the very best design for a purpose doesn't change the fact that it can serve the purpose. Besides, see my first point.
Paranoia is an ureasoning fear of the unlikely or impossible. The government of the US HAS done all the following:
Burned citizens alive
Exposed citizens to lethal levels of radiation without their knowledge
Infected citizens with VD without their knowledge
Condoned through non-interference the lynchings of its citizens of color
Given aid to tyranical right wing gov'ts in other parts of the world
These things aren't even the tip of the iceberg; they are the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Are we paranoid, or merely being appropriately cautious?
Consider also the FACT that genocides perpertrated by GOVERNMENTS during the 20th century accounted for 10's of millions of deaths, not to mention the wars they started. Yes, GOVERNMENTS start wars; they may be fought by people, but they are started by GOVERNMENT.
George Washington said it best: Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. If we wish to remain the master of government, and not have it be OUR master, then we, the people, must cherish and embrace the RIGHT to be able to defend ourselves against it by being at least as well armed as the government apparatus.
The best way to make sure that "it can't happen here" is to assume that it CAN indeed happen, and be prepared to prevent it by any means possible, including the use of lethal force. As soon as the people begin to become complacent and think "it can't happen here," they begin paving the way to make sure it DOES happen here. A corruption-proof government cannot be designed; it's a flat impossibility.
Not much of anything. The James Bond film Goldfinger has inadvertently perpetrated a huge misconception about depressurization. A modern airliner can survive some pretty serious damage. Several years ago, an airliner in flight had about 1/3 of the cabin blow out due to metal fatigue, IIRC, and it was able to land safely. Some people not wearing seat belts were killed because they were blown out by the wind, and some others died because they were in the part of the fuselage that blew out, but the point is that the plane made it back to the ground safely. If an airliner can survive that type thing, it stands to reason it can surely withstand a few less-than half an inch holes in the fuselage.
The right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than an extension of the basic right to life. My life and the fruits of my labor are mine to do with as I please. Because my life is MINE, I DO have the right to choose to be able to defend it. To believe otherwise means that one believes that some degree of slavery is acceptable. I find this abhorrent to the extreme. There is no such thing as an acceptable amount or degree of slavery, period. Anyone who disputes this is automatically an enemy of liberty, freedom, and justice. Such beliefs are beyond even extreme contempt. That's the ONE thing I think there should be zero tolerance for.
To me, there is no need involved. I am an American.
The whole principle behind our country is that people get to live their lives as they choose as long as they don't harm anyone. That means if I want to own a gun for a lawful purpose, no one has any business telling me that I can't.
Likewise, I respect your choice to not have anything to do with guns. You have the right to make the choice that suits you best.
The whole principle behind our country is that people get to live their lives as they choose as long as they don't harm anyone. That means if I want to own a gun for a lawful purpose, no one has any business telling me that I can't.
Likewise, I respect your choice to not have anything to do with guns. You have the right to make the choice that suits you best.
CasualShooter
Member
You made some good points; But, you really should read the previous posts. Ya don't know what yer missin'!
Tango7
Member
Welcome, James. I do hope you return, and observe the works you inspired!
BRAVO! What a ton of posts!
And all of them well thought, and well presented. I know I've only posted a little bit here, but I am impresed by the depth of the commentary. I will add but a minor flourish to a fluid masterpiece.
I was going to reiterate that the stastics presented as "facts" by most anti's (MMM/VPC/HCI) are "adjusted" stats that include as "preventable (hand)gun deaths":
Suicides
criminals killed by citizens/LEO in commision of crimes on citizens
criminals killed by criminals in commision of crimes on each other
accidental shootings (wrong place, wrong time, mistaken identity -i.e. hanging with those listed in above categories)
shooting accidents ("unloaded" guns, kids finding "hidden" guns, etc.)
They also have included "children" up to the age of 24. While it is true that everybody is somebody's child, the use of the term "child" carries a certain mental image, and emotional response ... one that the anti's use to their advantage, in the Psyop that is gun control.
As far as the choice to defend yourself...everybody has limits, and everybody faces different situations.
Some people would not raise a finger to defend themselves, so great is their belief in non-violence.
Others would use whatever means necessary. as long as they could physically function.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
The decision is yours, and yours alone.
You may find fun with firearms for target shooting and "plinking", but choose to never use them against someone.
That is your choice.
I changed from the "theoretical" use for self defense to "probable" use several years back, and have never regretted the decision. It has made me more aware, and more appreciative, of what I have been given, and my responsibility to safeguard those things.
I wish you luck in determining your course, as only you can.
BTW, If you wish to visit a range in the Northern suburbs of Chicago, please contact me!
BRAVO! What a ton of posts!
And all of them well thought, and well presented. I know I've only posted a little bit here, but I am impresed by the depth of the commentary. I will add but a minor flourish to a fluid masterpiece.
I was going to reiterate that the stastics presented as "facts" by most anti's (MMM/VPC/HCI) are "adjusted" stats that include as "preventable (hand)gun deaths":
Suicides
criminals killed by citizens/LEO in commision of crimes on citizens
criminals killed by criminals in commision of crimes on each other
accidental shootings (wrong place, wrong time, mistaken identity -i.e. hanging with those listed in above categories)
shooting accidents ("unloaded" guns, kids finding "hidden" guns, etc.)
They also have included "children" up to the age of 24. While it is true that everybody is somebody's child, the use of the term "child" carries a certain mental image, and emotional response ... one that the anti's use to their advantage, in the Psyop that is gun control.
As far as the choice to defend yourself...everybody has limits, and everybody faces different situations.
Some people would not raise a finger to defend themselves, so great is their belief in non-violence.
Others would use whatever means necessary. as long as they could physically function.
Others are somewhere inbetween.
The decision is yours, and yours alone.
You may find fun with firearms for target shooting and "plinking", but choose to never use them against someone.
That is your choice.
I changed from the "theoretical" use for self defense to "probable" use several years back, and have never regretted the decision. It has made me more aware, and more appreciative, of what I have been given, and my responsibility to safeguard those things.
I wish you luck in determining your course, as only you can.
BTW, If you wish to visit a range in the Northern suburbs of Chicago, please contact me!
PileDriver
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2003
- Messages
- 45
say that again after some scumbag breaks into your house and rapes your wife and daughter
the second amendment says i can
never happened before has it?
what was proven on 9.11? that a few cowards can crash a plane armed with only boxcutters? or that a few unarmed citizens can put up a fight that resulted in a crash despite their efforts?
a terrorist with two rounds in the head is a much less effective terrorist. as far as holes in the plane, it would take much more than a bullet hole or two to cause any problems.
i would submit to you this: how many terrorists would try and hijack planes if we were allowed to carry our weapons on board?
answer: how many israeli planes are hijacked? how many guards at an el al terminal do you think walk around with expensive bats? the people at lax are thanking god that those israeli guards were armed.
sexist? or do all gun owners have pot bellies, mutton chops and spit tobacco?
you have every right to be anti gun and defenseless if you so choose. what you don't have is the right to dictate that everyone else has to abide your choices for themselves.
- Status
