So what are we telling the anti-gun folks, really?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Old Dog said:
And I'd offer this remark as a splendid example of the hubris most of us in the gun culture are overly endowed with.

And then I would say that you need to get out more. I've witnessed first-hand the debate among the anti-gun faction in my state, and they're using every single resource they can access for "information" that supports their positions.

If you characterize those in the anti-gun movement as "madness" and not governed by "rational thought process" then you are deluding yourself. I almost hate to admit it, but there are most assuredly those on the other side capable of rational thought and possessed of high intelligence and yes, even critical thinking skills. I thank you for your "thoughts" on the topic, but I wasn't seeking out those using their clever wordsmithing skills in an attempt to invalidate my entire post.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

And attempting to demonize those who advocate for certain firearm regulatory measures gunowners might oppose is also a failed tactic – it reflects poorly on gunowners and undermines constructive debate.

As to your thread premise, and as others have correctly noted, it’s more a matter of those who carry smaller handguns seeking a more comfortable carry, rather than responding to the wishes of those hostile to the carrying of concealed firearms.
 
Old Dog said:
And I'd offer this remark as a splendid example of the hubris most of us in the gun culture are overly endowed with.

And then I would say that you need to get out more. I've witnessed first-hand the debate among the anti-gun faction in my state, and they're using every single resource they can access for "information" that supports their positions.

If you characterize those in the anti-gun movement as "madness" and not governed by "rational thought process" then you are deluding yourself. I almost hate to admit it, but there are most assuredly those on the other side capable of rational thought and possessed of high intelligence and yes, even critical thinking skills. I thank you for your "thoughts" on the topic, but I wasn't seeking out those using their clever wordsmithing skills in an attempt to invalidate my entire post.
Click to expand...

For what it’s worth, I know and have met some highly intelligent people in my time. And, there have been quite a few instances where people with engineering degrees and PhDs are as dumb as a brick when it comes down to simple problem solving skills. I appreciate your post but would like to point out that just because you are highly educated, doesn’t make one intelligent. Please don’t confuse the two. Universities are businesses at the end of the day, all who will gladly take your money and give you a piece of paper whether you are deserving of it or not.
 
Last edited:
I typically carry pistols/revolvers with 5-8 rounds and a couple of reloads for my EDC. But for home defense it is 16-18 rounds, backed up by a carbine with 30+.

When I take a road trip I try, where possible, to carry that same as I keep at home.

If I knew that trouble was to come calling I would want to not only have my own carbine with 30+, but a couple of buddies with the same.
 
Justin said:
Believe as you will, and if you want to carry water for the grabbers, go ahead.

I've gotten out plenty, to include interfacing with anti-rights advocates in real life. And yes, they will, in some instances mine pro-gun sources and trot out fudds to support their positions in order to generate the perception of consensus, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with them trying to find a "reasonable" number for enforcing an arbitrary limitation.

Believe them to be rational at your own peril. I've had more than one anti-rights advocate tell me, to my face, I should be thrown in prison for owning what amounts to a plastic box with a spring in it. I've seen them outright lie and misrepresent their own motivations and end goals as well as the motivations of the average pro-gun person. Heck, five minutes of perusing the twitter accounts of the various head honchos of the anti-rights side should disabuse you of any notion that they're motivated by finding some sort of rational balance in regards to gun rights. Their policies and proposals are not driven by sanity or rationality in regards to the 2nd amendment or gun ownership in general, and are governed only insofar as what the electorate will tolerate at any given moment.
Click to expand...
Eh, carrying water for the grabbers? Not sure how you came up with that.

And we have just as many nutjobs and irrational folks on our side, and sadly many of those are unable to present as "normal people," which is an ability more of those on the other side understand. I've been involved in politics, both on local and state levels, for many years, as well as having been on many committees, councils and boards dealing with community issues.

There is a term for believing that those who do not agree with one are therefore irrational. Should that cause one to refuse to participate in normal social or political discourse, or always avoid attempting to reason with those with whom one does not agree ... one will end up on the losing side more often than not.

Anyway, as I noted before ... hubris. Word of the day.
 
Hmmm............

I don't think we can assume that everyone who carries a gun is comfortable carrying openly or printing. Some people are in living and working situations where it isn't acceptable to someone or will draw unwanted attention. I don't blame those people for carrying a small gun.

I don't think we can assume anti-gunners are manipulative and ignorant without acknowledging that there are plenty of gun owners that are the same. There are nuts on both sides of the debate.

I carry a small gun when I think it is inappropriate to have a gun openly displayed on my hip, and it's better to carry a small gun than leave my gun at home. However, I wish it was more socially acceptable to open carry a full sized gun with lots of ammo all the time. So compromise shouldn't be confused with desire.

The logic in this thread would drive a person to the conclusion that people who hunt with a bolt action rifle are telling ant-gun folks and "assault rifle" banners that we do not need semiauto rifles or 30+ round magazines. I don't believe that message necessarily follows, though I'm sure some people would come to that conclusion.

The fact that nearly all of us who choose to carry a gun will never need to use a gun is often pointed out on THR, and also the commonly repeated stat that most conflicts that involve a firearm where a gun is fired are resolved with 2-3 shots is brought up on this forum. Capacity debates bring it out every time. The logic of this thread would also dictate that we prohibit those posts, as we are telling anti-gunners that we don't need a lot of ammo to survive a violent encounter.

I think a simpler message to portray for gun owners is that we believe in hoping for the best, but planning for the worst, and different situations demand different tools.
 
I don't know what YOU guys are telling the anti's by carrying low capacity small guns.

I switched from a 7rd subcompact to one that holds 12, and 15rd reloads.

So I guess I'm the minority that's going the other direction.
 
I’ve made the point that one carries a smaller gun for convenience and one accepts you have a single opponent gun for most scenarios.
I do think the probability argument for not having higher capacity guns can be convincing to some as they see the damage done in some rampages with them. Joe Biden has made this point as have others explicitly.
Most annoying to me is the common is 5 is enough poster who calls those who carry more or want an AR a commando Rambo nut.
I do think the OP post has logic to it. Just saying that those outside of the choir are nuts is useless.
 
10 rounds of .45acp for me, with a spare (or 2) extra magazine. Sonetimes it's just the 10 rounds. And if the XD is likely to print I carry the XDS with a spare magazine.

I understand the OP's point. But like others have said the real goal is to disarm us completely. Even if the antis want to restrict us with a "generous" limit of 20 rounds in a CCW pistol we should vehemently oppose it and not compromise on the issue, even
if there weren't any 20 round pistols in existence (yes, I know there's several models that are).
 
Many gun folks have made it a message that the higher capacity guns are for dangerous nuts. Easy to find. They are the ones that have a limit message that supports bans. Is this intended- yes.
 
ATLDave said:
I'm amazed - particularly over the past 3-4 years - how often I will find myself in a discussion with a good friend or respected colleague who is ordinarily a highly-intellectually curious person who suddenly becomes affirmatively averse to even hearing knowledge about firearms.
Click to expand...
This is a product of political polarization, tribalism, and, I'm afraid, of the choice of the NRA's leadership to become totally identified with the political Right. The gun issue has transcended the guns themselves and has become shorthand for a whole constellation of other issues. People that would otherwise be friendly to guns are turned off by the official spokesmen of the "gun world" crusading against "socialism," the counteracting of climate change, universal healthcare, etc. It doesn't help that so many in the gun world insist on calling liberals "liberals," "commies," and worse. In many cases, we are alienating our natural allies.

This forum is pretty good about avoiding divisive politics. On other gun boards, however, the vitriol is palpable. Statements about "hating commies" are more common than actual gun discussions. It's very disturbing, for example, that Augusto Pinochet, dictator of Chile, is being hailed as a hero for throwing leftists out of helicopters. The people that write this are not joking.
 
NIGHTLORD40K said:
It is what it is. No one is going to start carrying a P226 IWB because they are worried about what the Antis think.
Click to expand...

I'd be more concerned that, more than likely, over half the guys responding in this very thread
haven't joined the NRA. Less than 5% of all gun owners have. It's about the cost of two cheap
boxes of ammo.

Consider becoming an ambassador to the sport. Take a noob shooting. The antis can babble till
they are blue in the face, no verbal argument will change the mind of someone who has felt the
personal sense of satisfaction and empowerment shooting brings.
 
AlexanderA said:
This is a product of political polarization, tribalism, and, I'm afraid, of the choice of the NRA's leadership to become totally identified with the political Right. The gun issue has transcended the guns themselves and has become shorthand for a whole constellation of other issues. People that would otherwise be friendly to guns are turned off by the official spokesmen of the "gun world" crusading against "socialism," the counteracting of climate change, universal healthcare, etc. It doesn't help that so many in the gun world insist on calling liberals "liberals," "commies," and worse. In many cases, we are alienating our natural allies.

This forum is pretty good about avoiding divisive politics. On other gun boards, however, the vitriol is palpable. Statements about "hating commies" are more common than actual gun discussions. It's very disturbing, for example, that Augusto Pinochet, dictator of Chile, is being hailed as a hero for throwing leftists out of helicopters. The people that write this are not joking.
Click to expand...

I hear you on this, but you’d be absolutely crazy to think there isn’t people on the other side that would call you the same name or wish the same fate on you simply because you have different opinions, beliefs, principles than they do. That runs both ways and I don’t think we alienate people anymore than they do. Until everyone is willing to have an open debate and work together the polarization will only get worse.

Frankly, from my experience, a large number of crazy lefties do not have any desire to want to work with you, learn from you or hear your facts. They don’t care. They want their way. Its either their way or the highway. If you think the majority of them will compromise you’d be mistaken. Whereas it seems like the conservatives and libertarians are the opposite. They have already conceded a lot and tried to work with these people and get nothing in return. Many of them have taken the stance of enough is enough and because of that will purposely move to carry a so called high capacity gun, if for no other reason than to protest the nonsense.
 
Dibbs said:
I'd be more concerned that, more than likely, over half the guys responding in this very thread
haven't joined the NRA. Less than 5% of all gun owners have. It's about the cost of two cheap boxes of ammo.
Click to expand...
I'm a Life Member of the NRA, but if I had to make the decision today, I would not join, due to the general political slant of the organization. In fact, I am outraged every month reading LaPierre's political editorials in the American Rifleman, most of which only tangentially have anything to do with guns. If this keeps up I may be forced to resign my membership. The NRA needs to return to being a gun organization, and not a far-right political organization. It has gotten to the point where its role as an arm of the Republican party is more important than its role as an advocate for gun rights.
 
Carry guns have become more popular as concealed carry has become more common. That however doesn't have anything to do with the fact that just as many if not more people continue to own "high capacity" guns for home defense, potential carry guns if the need were to arise, along with many other legal purposes.

The whole premise of the arguement is non sense. The rights of all Americans aren't determined by people who shopping for concealed carry guns.
 
It will be a cold day in heck when I let an anti-gunner dictate what I will carry. I will carry what is best for the situation.

I find it despicable that anyone - either pro or anti - would try to make a political game out of a serious decision such as what tools you will use to protect your life.
 
AlexanderA said:
This is a product of political polarization, tribalism, and, I'm afraid, of the choice of the NRA's leadership to become totally identified with the political Right. The gun issue has transcended the guns themselves and has become shorthand for a whole constellation of other issues. People that would otherwise be friendly to guns are turned off by the official spokesmen of the "gun world" crusading against "socialism," the counteracting of climate change, universal healthcare, etc. It doesn't help that so many in the gun world insist on calling liberals "liberals," "commies," and worse. In many cases, we are alienating our natural allies.

This forum is pretty good about avoiding divisive politics. On other gun boards, however, the vitriol is palpable. Statements about "hating commies" are more common than actual gun discussions. It's very disturbing, for example, that Augusto Pinochet, dictator of Chile, is being hailed as a hero for throwing leftists out of helicopters. The people that write this are not joking.
Click to expand...

While I agree we've become polarized, the left is just as guilty if not more so than the right.
As far as"hating 'commies,'" I do hate them. Communism has killed millions of innocents, imprisoned a great many and has oppressed all it has touched. There are, however, very few actual communists in America.
The head of the N. R. A. has as much right to propogandize against socialists as he does against antigun matters; politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez openly proclaim that they ARE "democratic socialists."

While we need to dial down the heat of the rhetoric, both sides must do it, or neither side will. As well, we can't soft-soap the truth in doing so.
 
Tommygunn said:
There are, however, very few actual communists in America.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That is why calling liberal Democrats "commies" is not helpful. Just because someone advocates "Medicare for All," that does not make him a totalitarian.

My point is that someone can advocate "Medicare for All," free public college tuition, and action against global warming, and still be in favor of gun rights. LaPierre and the official NRA don't seem to recognize that possibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Dealing with & Educating Anti-gun folks
Replies
23
Views
1K
ripcurlksm
R
N
  • Locked
Bad images we create
2 3
Replies
67
Views
2K
Justin
Justin
W
  • Locked
Anti gun folk in Australia
Replies
21
Views
1K
Aaron12
A
N
  • Locked
Is it really us, or who we're told we are?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
SoCalShooter
S
C
  • Locked
Non-expensive 9mm
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
lechiffre
L
Back
Top