Moms' Group Calls Out Kroger's Gun Policy In Unprecedented New Ad Campaign

[Curmudgeon 227]

Paranoia requires fear and often delusional thoughts. It is a mental illness and labeling people as you do by way of stereotypes is hateful and offensive, not just towards people who own firearms, but also people with the actual mental illness.

Yes, IMO open carry does increase risks to the person and the people around them and probably increases the chance of attack. Conceal carry mitigates most of those risks IF the person has the proper training (which the majority of states require).

And don't think my examples are risk free - Vaccines have some risks of dangerous side effects, life jackets have been shown to actually drown people when put on incorrectly. In terms of the emergency kit, often first aid treatment is very dangerous not only to the victim but sometimes the caregiver without the proper training.

I didn't call people who owned fire arms paranoid. I did not label anyone as such, I was careful deliberately not to do so but yet, here we are, with that accusation popping up, that isn't helpful, no more than it would be helpful to suggest that all gun owners, or those who carry guns for personal safety suffer from clinical paranoia - I don't believe it, I didn't say it. I was careful to illustrate that it is not gun ownership that is the problem, gun ownership is not a problem. What IS a problem is feeling that you are safe, or safer with a gun than you are without one in a modern society and that it is absurd to believe that it is a good idea to have more and more people carrying weapons in a modern society. That is a nonsense and it is only promoted by people who are cynical and manipulative or those who have been cynically manipulated. For the majority of people most of the time EVERYONE is safer if very few people carry guns around. The reason that is true is that guns are weapons and any discharge of a gun in a populated area is likely (not definitely, not always but likely) to result in causalities, and that's with the weapon being used properly. Why it is so outrageous to suggest that having guns in populated areas is a risk that is normally not worth taking beggars belief but there you go, it seems the idea that weapons in restaurants, churches, schools is normal to a certain section of the American public and that's sad, sad and slightly crazy when you look outside of the US and see how other modern societies cope with the dangers of criminal behavior as a risk to the general population.

I didn't even slightly suggest that safety equipment is risk free, I said, that the benefits demonstrably and easily outweigh the risks. Carrying a weapon around in populated areas, no matter who is doing the carrying greatly increases the risk that people will be shot, either deliberately or accidentally. That's not rocket science, that's a simple fact.

[lostinblue 1,989]

It's not race specific. I've seen it flow in reverse as well.

Money doesn't solve everything. Some people are just that way.

Why is it that the women that are related to this wife beater stand up for the one being beaten instead of supporting the wife beater. It would not be that a carry over from the days of the slave trade.( that's brought up on here almost every week .. The slave trade causing a bit of a problem still in society).. once beaten by the masters now they just have different masters beating them. ... This woman had her arm broken in 2 places when she was 7 or 8 months pregnant and now a few years later her jaw in 2 places. ..... Black woman folks are just hateful to her.(family members of the beater)They blame her.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Being prepared for attack by your fellow citizens by carrying a firearm is paranoia, not sure how else to frame a less than tangible risk that carrying a gun will do almost nothing to mitigate against.

Risk assessment is doing an objective test to see what the likelihood of an event occurring actually is AND (crucially) taking reasonable steps to mitigate against said event were it to take place WITHOUT (again crucially) increasing the risk that the event might happen. So, while preparing for unlikely events can be a reasonable action, if doing so means having emergency kits that have been proven to be invaluable in emergency situations, it is only reasonable if taking the action does not significantly increase the risk of harm to the person making that provision. It's hard to argue that having an emergency kit for fire, flood, accident is going to increase the risk of harm arising by carrying it around. Carrying weapons around increases the risks to everyone, and does little to nothing to reduce the risk of attack. It's nonsensical to make comparisons like this. Most people realize this. Sensible gun owners do not have guns for self defense UNLESS they are part of a security force and even then they are well aware of the increased personal risk of carrying the gun around, they do it because they have to, not because they want to.

Paranoia requires fear and often delusional thoughts. It is a mental illness and labeling people as you do by way of stereotypes is hateful and offensive, not just towards people who own firearms, but also people with the actual mental illness.

Yes, IMO open carry does increase risks to the person and the people around them and probably increases the chance of attack. Conceal carry mitigates most of those risks IF the person has the proper training (which the majority of states require).

And don't think my examples are risk free - Vaccines have some risks of dangerous side effects, life jackets have been shown to actually drown people when put on incorrectly. In terms of the emergency kit, often first aid treatment is very dangerous not only to the victim but sometimes the caregiver without the proper training.

I didn't call people who owned fire arms paranoid. I did not label anyone as such, I was careful deliberately not to do so but yet, here we are, with that accusation popping up, that isn't helpful, no more than it would be helpful to suggest that all gun owners, or those who carry guns for personal safety suffer from clinical paranoia - I don't believe it, I didn't say it. I was careful to illustrate that it is not gun ownership that is the problem, gun ownership is not a problem. What IS a problem is feeling that you are safe, or safer with a gun than you are without one in a modern society and that it is absurd to believe that it is a good idea to have more and more people carrying weapons in a modern society. That is a nonsense and it is only promoted by people who are cynical and manipulative or those who have been cynically manipulated. For the majority of people most of the time EVERYONE is safer if very few people carry guns around. The reason that is true is that guns are weapons and any discharge of a gun in a populated area is likely (not definitely, not always but likely) to result in causalities, and that's with the weapon being used properly. Why it is so outrageous to suggest that having guns in populated areas is a risk that is normally not worth taking beggars belief but there you go, it seems the idea that weapons in restaurants, churches, schools is normal to a certain section of the American public and that's sad, sad and slightly crazy when you look outside of the US and see how other modern societies cope with the dangers of criminal behavior as a risk to the general population.

I didn't even slightly suggest that safety equipment is risk free, I said, that the benefits demonstrably and easily outweigh the risks. Carrying a weapon around in populated areas, no matter who is doing the carrying greatly increases the risk that people will be shot, either deliberately or accidentally. That's not rocket science, that's a simple fact.

I think you need to spend more time reading your posts rather than attacking people.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Sousuke

[Curmudgeon 227]

Why is it that the women that are related to this wife beater stand up for the one being beaten instead of supporting the wife beater. It would not be that a carry over from the days of the slave trade.( that's brought up on here almost every week .. The slave trade causing a bit of a problem still in society).. once beaten by the masters now they just have different masters beating them. ... This woman had her arm broken in 2 places when she was 7 or 8 months pregnant and now a few years later her jaw in 2 places. ..... Black woman folks are just hateful to her.(family members of the beater)They blame her.

The questions you ask and the premise you use behind the questions are seriously misguided.

[Curmudgeon 227]

I think you need to spend more time reading your posts rather than attacking people.

I am not attacking anyone. If you read what I said, I said that being afraid of a risk that is insignificant is paranoid behavior. That is not the same, by any stretch of the imagination as calling someone paranoid. I don't know why you think that I am attacking you, or any specific person but clearly you do. Perhaps if you addressed the critical question, is it sensible to have more and more armed citizens when the US already has an extremely high percentage of people being shot and injured compared with other civilized societies? Is it sensible to advocate using a gun as means of increasing personal security when all the material that is available clearly demonstrates that the opposite is true, friends and family are by a long way more likely to be injured by a weapon in the home than it is likely to be used to combat crime? Wouldn't that be more reasonable than getting bent out of shape about things that I haven't said, although I can see you think that I have.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I am not attacking anyone. If you read what I said, I said that being afraid of a risk that is insignificant is paranoid behavior. That is not the same, by any stretch of the imagination as calling someone paranoid. I don't know why you think that I am attacking you, or any specific person but clearly you do. Perhaps if you addressed the critical question, is it sensible to have more and more armed citizens when the US already has an extremely high percentage of people being shot and injured compared with other civilized societies? Is it sensible to advocate using a gun as means of increasing personal security when all the material that is available clearly demonstrates that the opposite is true, friends and family are by a long way more likely to be injured by a weapon in the home than it is likely to be used to combat crime? Wouldn't that be more reasonable than getting bent out of shape about things that I haven't said, although I can see you think that I have.

At at least take responsibility for what you write. You actually stated "Being prepared for attack by your fellow citizens by carrying a firearm is paranoia"

I can see you are trying to back track but its not going to work.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I am not attacking anyone. If you read what I said, I said that being afraid of a risk that is insignificant is paranoid behavior. That is not the same, by any stretch of the imagination as calling someone paranoid. I don't know why you think that I am attacking you, or any specific person but clearly you do. Perhaps if you addressed the critical question, is it sensible to have more and more armed citizens when the US already has an extremely high percentage of people being shot and injured compared with other civilized societies? Is it sensible to advocate using a gun as means of increasing personal security when all the material that is available clearly demonstrates that the opposite is true, friends and family are by a long way more likely to be injured by a weapon in the home than it is likely to be used to combat crime? Wouldn't that be more reasonable than getting bent out of shape about things that I haven't said, although I can see you think that I have.

I think people should have the right to yes, especially women.

[Curmudgeon 227]

At at least take responsibility for what you write. You actually stated "Being prepared for attack by your fellow citizens by carrying a firearm is paranoia"

I can see you are trying to back track but its not going to work.

Can you really not tell the difference between saying something is paranoia and saying someone is paranoid? Whatever, if you want to be fixated on this, so be it. Moving on, do you think that carrying a gun carries with it any responsibility or do you believe that it's comparable to say, carrying a walking stick?

[Sousuke 1,214]

Can you really not tell the difference between saying something is paranoia and saying someone is paranoid? Whatever, if you want to be fixated on this, so be it. Moving on, do you think that carrying a gun carries with it any responsibility or do you believe that it's comparable to say, carrying a walking stick?

Paranoia IS the mental illness. You can call someone paranoid without necessisarly infering mental illness. You can say someone is paranoid without issue because its developed a broader meaning, but to say someone's actions are paranoia infers they are suffering from a mental illness.

No firearms have a great responsibility. Those who want to conceal carry in public should take mandatory safety courses and pass practical tests.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Sousuke

[Curmudgeon 227]

I think people should have the right to yes, especially women.

The right to have something that, potentially is going to cause more harm than good? It can be demonstrated, it has been demonstrated time and time again that you are more likely to suffer harm from the gun you own and keep in your home than you are to use that gun to foil a criminal attack, worse still as you want to bring up women, women and children are more likely to suffer harm when the live in households where a gun is kept in the home so how does it make sense to ignore that, and suggest that anyone, but apparently especially women, would be well advised to own a gun for protection? The only time that could possibly be true would be if the women was well trained in weaponry, was prepared to kill her assailant regardless of the circumstances and the assailant is unknown to the woman so she would know to be on her guard against the assailant. For the majority of people living in modern America, this just isn't likely to be the case.

[Sousuke 1,214]

The right to have something that, potentially is going to cause more harm than good? It can be demonstrated, it has been demonstrated time and time again that you are more likely to suffer harm from the gun you own and keep in your home than you are to use that gun to foil a criminal attack, worse still as you want to bring up women, women and children are more likely to suffer harm when the live in households where a gun is kept in the home so how does it make sense to ignore that, and suggest that anyone, but apparently especially women, would be well advised to own a gun for protection? The only time that could possibly be true would be if the women was well trained in weaponry, was prepared to kill her assailant regardless of the circumstances and the assailant is unknown to the woman so she would know to be on her guard against the assailant. For the majority of people living in modern America, this just isn't likely to be the case.

That is because a large quantity of gun owners in the US buy a firearm and then leave it in a closet and never use it. IMO only about 1/3 of gunowners in the US actually use their firearms on a regular basis. Without regular use and training a firearm is more of a liability.

[Curmudgeon 227]

Paranoia IS the mental illness. You can call someone paranoid without necessisarly infering mental illness. You can say someone is paranoid without issue because its developed a broader meaning, but to say someone's actions are paranoia infers they are suffering from a mental illness.

No firearms have a great responsibility. Those who want to conceal carry in public should take mandatory safety courses and pass practical tests.

OK, do you think I was inferring that the people I was referring to are suffering from a serious mental illness? I still think that's a very skewed way to look at what I posted. I am not an expert on paranoia or being paranoid. However, I thought I was being quite clear in stating that what I was referring to was the imbalance of the perceived threat with the remedy that, by all accounts, is more likely to be a danger in itself than ever be used to mitigate against a genuine threat to life or limb from criminal activity.

[Sousuke 1,214]

OK, do you think I was inferring that the people I was referring to are suffering from a serious mental illness? I still think that's a very skewed way to look at what I posted. I am not an expert on paranoia or being paranoid. However, I thought I was being quite clear in stating that what I was referring to was the imbalance of the perceived threat with the remedy that, by all accounts, is more likely to be a danger in itself than ever be used to mitigate against a genuine threat to life or limb from criminal activity.

Yes, partially because of how gun owners get attacked in threads like these. There have been many threads where posters create circular logic that because the mentally ill cannot access guns, they then infer all gun owners are mentally ill by default for wanting to own or carry them in the first place.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Sousuke

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Why is it that the women that are related to this wife beater stand up for the one being beaten instead of supporting the wife beater. It would not be that a carry over from the days of the slave trade.( that's brought up on here almost every week .. The slave trade causing a bit of a problem still in society).. once beaten by the masters now they just have different masters beating them. ... This woman had her arm broken in 2 places when she was 7 or 8 months pregnant and now a few years later her jaw in 2 places. ..... Black woman folks are just hateful to her.(family members of the beater)They blame her.

Once again, it's not race specific. I've seen wife beaters families turn on the wife when it deals with the son. It's the same dynamic if a child becomes a murderer or rapist. The parents will, in some cases, defend them because they're family. My first wife's boyfriend used to choke and hit her. He was German. My neighbor in Belgium had issues with her husband. Violent and abusive, he was Hispanic. We've had 2 cases of child and spouse abuse here that made the news, both were white. No one race has a lock on abuse.

You really need to stop with the generalizations. You didn't like it when someone compared you to a redneck. Return the favor and try to see folks as individuals.

[Curmudgeon 227]

That is because a large quantity of gun owners in the US buy a firearm and then leave it in a closet and never use it. IMO only about 1/3 of gunowners in the US actually use their firearms on a regular basis. Without regular use and training a firearm is more of a liability.

So, wouldn't it be better to suggest that owning a gun for personal protection is a huge responsibility that one should only undertake in exceptional circumstances, or if one has a overwhelming passion to handle guns (which I have absolutely zero problem with. If someone has a genuine passion for shooting, they are really not very likely to turn psycho and are very likely to be extremely responsible handling the weaponry)?