I'm carrying a gun - Am I looking for trouble?

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course not. Only you do.

Obviously I am not the only person in the world who has a free university education, that's ridiculous. ridiculous and not relevant even if it were true.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Should Post photos of people who took your advice?

People buy hurricane and flood insurance though the odds are low.

excellent post . Millions of people go thru life and never use their homeowners policy. Why have it

[Peikko 1,575]

excellent post . Millions of people go thru life and never use their homeowners policy. Why have it

It's not excellent, it's fatuous. I can't work out if you guys genuinely do not see why a comparison between someone carrying a gun around solely because they are afraid of getting into a situation where the use of firearms would be not only useful but essential and things like house insurance and seat belts is absurd or if you say these things because you haven't really thought about what you are actually saying, or you sincerely believe it.

[RGinWA 816]

I got my NOA2 today so I could care less about this poll.

LOL

[LoveExile 27]

I'm from Montana, so I grew up in a culture where gun ownership is normal. However, even I see that for every one instance where someone has used a gun to defend themselves, there are at least 100 cases where someone (or someone's child) has killed themselves or someone else accidentally (or, God forbid, on purpose at a school) with a gun. Even if a small minority got some limited benefit from their gun once in their lives, I don't think the right to own that gun is worth the hundreds of innocent lives that are lost when people exercise it. This isn't the Wild West. We don't need militias anymore.

Edited August 2, 2013 by LoveExile

[B_J 2,752]

I got my NOA2 today so I could care less about this poll.

LOL

Wow, that was quick. Good luck on the rest of the journey..

[RGinWA 816]

Wow, that was quick. Good luck on the rest of the journey..

Thanks...

It was quick.

My VJ projected date was 9-12-2013. So I was surprised when I received the text message and then checked online.

76 days is pretty good.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

 

I got my NOA2 today so I could care less about this poll.

LOL

 

Huge congratulations! :-)

[Neonred 3,562]

I don't think the right to own that gun is worth the hundreds of innocent lives that are lost when people exercise it. This isn't the Wild West. We don't need militias anymore.

OK, so you are for taking peoples guns away, right?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I got my NOA2 today so I could care less about this poll.

LOL

Yabba dabba doo. my man. It moves fast now. Give NVC about 8 working days and start bugging the hell out of them for your MNL. Once you get that you can schedule . Good chance she can be here by late Sept.

I can remember.. WOW so excited. I think waiting those last days were the worse.

P.S. sorry guys to talk about immigration in here

Guns, GZ, , Obama, -There better

[LoveExile 27]

OK, so you are for taking peoples guns away, right?

I don't necessarily believe that it has to be all or nothing. I do believe that SOME people should have the right to own SOME types of firearms, but I don't think EVERYONE should have the right to ANY type of firearm.

That being said, if it was an "all or nothing" choice...if I had the choice between keeping the right to bear arms (knowing that 100 innocent people would die for every 1 innocent person saved by a gun), and tossing out the right to bear arms (knowing that 100 innocent people would live for every 1 innocent person that dies that could have been saved by a gun), I would choose the latter.

It's simple math. More people die from civilly owned guns than are saved by them.

[SMR 368]

I don't necessarily believe that it has to be all or nothing. I do believe that SOME people should have the right to own SOME types of firearms, but I don't think EVERYONE should have the right to ANY type of firearm.

That being said, if it was an "all or nothing" choice...if I had the choice between keeping the right to bear arms (knowing that 100 innocent people would die for every 1 innocent person saved by a gun), and tossing out the right to bear arms (knowing that 100 innocent people would live for every 1 innocent person that dies that could have been saved by a gun), I would choose the latter.

It's simple math. More people die from civilly owned guns than are saved by them.

Using made up statistics to support your point is sort of silly. I, too, know of people who were killed by accidental gunshots. I also know of people that were saved by guns. That's anecdotal. Cite sources if you want to claim that guns kill 100 times the people that they save.

[LoveExile 27]

Using made up statistics to support your point is sort of silly. I, too, know of people who were killed by accidental gunshots. I also know of people that were saved by guns. That's anecdotal. Cite sources if you want to claim that guns kill 100 times the people that they save.

I freely admit that my numbers were made up for illustrative purposes (in all likelihood the ratio is higher than 100:1), but I think any reasonably logical person would agree that civilly owned guns kill innocent people more often than they save people. Even if guns killed 2 innocent people for every 1 saved, my math would still work out.

I am aware of the argument that people can (and do) kill innocent people in other ways than using guns, however the tools they use (cars, knives, hands, pillows, spatulas, etc.) have non-killing purposes. Gun-owners will claim that their gun is not intended to "kill people," but to serve as a deterrent and/or to save the gun-owner (and his/her loved ones, friends, etc.) from physical harm. This is where the logic fall flat.

Guns kill innocent people more often than they save them (which is the argued purpose), but cars do not kill people more often than they serve their intended purpose (to get people from one place to another). Likewise knives are not used to kill people more often than they are used to cut things. Pillows provide cranial comfort more often than they are used to smother someone.

In any other instance, if a tool killed innocent people more often than it served its intended purpose, it would be severely restricted or banned entirely. Why should this principle not apply to firearms?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Using made up statistics to support your point is sort of silly. I, too, know of people who were killed by accidental gunshots. I also know of people that were saved by guns. That's anecdotal. Cite sources if you want to claim that guns kill 100 times the people that they save.

The chance that your personal firearm will be used to harm you, or someone else close to you, before the chance to help you, is quite well documented and well known. Neither has a high level of probability but owning a gun increases the risk of a negative outcome not safety.

You can buy the gun hype all you want or just admit reality and that owning a gun is more important to you.

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

I don't necessarily believe that it has to be all or nothing. I do believe that SOME people should have the right to own SOME types of firearms, but I don't think EVERYONE should have the right to ANY type of firearm.

that's already the case. not everyone can own a machine gun.