Why I carry a Gun

[Ghost in the Machine]

PEOPLE ASK WHY? Why I Carry a Gun

My old grandpa said to me son,' there comes a time in every man's
life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually
it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin'.
I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.


I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.


I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.


I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.


I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not
on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.


I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.


I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the
ones they love.


I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.


Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an a** whoopin'.

....author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

**********************************************
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.


The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

[Captain Hilts]

1. What tripe. And I believe people should be allowed to own all the rifles they want. nt

[jody]

4. How many rifles or handguns or shotguns do you believe a person should own to exercise their natural

inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense protected by the Second Amendment to our Constitution?

[Vini_Vidivici]

78. As many................

...........as they can afford and store safely. Why not?

How many automobiles do you believe a person should be able to own? It's almost a moot point, logically speaking.

[jody]

2. Suggest you check your assertions at GunCite link below. One error can destroy your argument.

http://www.guncite.com/index.html

[Warpy]

3. As a practical matter, once your government decides on genocide

none of the little popguns people buy will save any of them. They'd be better off taking the ammo apart and making some explosive devices to slow the genocidal maniacs down a bit.

I don't carry a gun because my eyesight sucks and I'd be a menace with one. I've thought about getting a shotgun, though, just to make that noise if some idiot comes crashing through the window in the middle of the night.

I am a woman and I've spent most of my life living alone in big cities. I've faced down bad guys several times and whipping out a gun would have gotten me killed in all cases. I rely on doing something off the wall that spooks them. I do think very quickly on my feet, and that's my best weapon.

[jody]

7. Looks like peasants with firearms and IED are doing pretty well in Afghanistan and Iraq. n/t

[AllentownJake]

5. I'm pretty ambivalent on the issue, I've been rethinking it

The more profile I get through letters to the editors and the occassional local news paper article and reading the threats in the on-line discussion for those thing in the newspaper, the more I consider upgrading from the shotgun I keep in my closet.

I'm not really afraid of the government. If they want me they are going to get me one way or the other, I'm more concerned right now about the local freeper who decides to get a liberal.

[jody]

IMO the issue is defense of self more than defense of (or against) state as so clearly stated by PA

and VT in their first constitutions:

"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable/unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

[AllentownJake]

11. The times before we thought it was our destiny

to rule the world and all we wanted to do was have our own unique form of self government here.

[jody]

17. Self-government as envisioned by the founders recognized natural rights that exist before government

and not granted as privileges by some monarch claiming ecclesiastical endorsement, i.e. divine right of kings.

Many states declared such inalienable/unalienable rights completely outside the authority of government, e.g. "To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."

[Vini_Vidivici]

79. Absolutely

!

[Callisto32]

111. Pardon my ignorance.

What the heck is a "freeper?"

[MadHound]

6. "I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place." There it is

That's the mindset that sets those who are gunners apart from those who don't have guns, fear, in many cases quite unreasonable fear.

The viewpoint that the world is a scary place is a minority one in this world, otherwise a majority of people in this country would own and carry guns, which is simply not the case. Untold millions of people have lived, grown old and died without having to resort to the carrying or use of a gun. Yes, there are situations where a gun might be called for, but generally as one grows older, and hopefully wiser, you avoid such situations.

Fear, it is unreasonable fear that separates those who carry from those who don't, plain and simple.

[tangent90]

8. You are so very fortunate to live where there is no chance whatsoever of being a victim.

Does that planet have a name?

[MadHound]

13. LOL, I've been in more life or death situations than you can imagine

Never needed a gun, and I doubt that I ever will. And yes, I've had guns pointed at me on various occasions, including once by my own father. Once you've been through that sort of wringer, anything else is a breeze.

Frankly dealing with humans is a lot like dealing with dogs. There's a pack hierarchy, thus if you take out the Alpha the rest will leave you alone. If you act like an Alpha, and don't show fear, you will get respect. Fear is a natural and needed emotion, however too many people can't control it, and when the shit is hitting the fan they exude fear, allowing it to control them and letting their opponent know that they're fearful. When that happens, that person has already lost the battle because fear rather than their intellect is controlling their actions.

[Taitertots]

74. OK Chuck Norris

Back in the real world, what about all the people who are not mall ninjas.

[tanngrisnir3]

93. Ninja, please.

[HALO141]

109. blah blah blah..

So has everyone who drives to work on a crowded freeway.

Your willingness to marginalize/disparage those you do not know says a lot.

[Callisto32]

112. Forking Paths

"Never needed a gun, and I doubt that I ever will. And yes, I've had guns pointed at me on various occasions, including once by my own father. Once you've been through that sort of wringer, anything else is a breeze."



Funny how the two of us can share an experience and come out with a totally different response, eh? Though, the whole "gun pointy" thing only happened to me once before I learned to avoid it.

I've been bitten by a viper, attacked by a dog, and dang near struck by lightning as well. All of these things happened only once (these kinds of mistakes are pretty good behavior modifiers), and I am not afraid of dogs, snakes, storms or guns. I own a dog, think snakes are fascinating, and carry a gun.

My point is, some people have the same experiences, and reach different conclusions about what the best future course of action is.

As for dealing with humans being like dealing with dogs? I wish. Dogs are easy.

P.S. Fear is your friend, it keeps you alive. Rejecting it in favor of cold rationality can be dangerous and you are probably better served by a middle path where you acknowledge your fear and use reason to determine what is causing it and removing yourself from or neutralizing that cause.

[jody]

10. I promise not to use my arms to help you when you are attacked by a criminal.

[MadHound]

14. Oh, so that was you who wasn't around when I got jumped in an alley

That's OK, I didn't need you then(I put the guy in the hospital for six months) and now that I'm older and wiser, I don't need you now.

However when you are out of your house and a crook comes around to steal all your guns, I do promise that I will stop him, without resorting to a gun.

[jody]

19. So why do you deny those less physically capable than you their inalienable right to keep and bear

arms for self-defense?

[MadHound]

24. You ass u me that I'm denying something to somebody,

I'm not denying anything to anybody. If you wish to keep a gun, fine. However like the majority of Americans, including gun owners, I'm all in favor of having reasonable gun control laws.

However that doesn't mean that I won't pity you because you are allowing your life to be run by fear.

Oh, and size and sex have nothing to do with it. I've known women, including my mother and grandmother, who backed off intruders and gotten out of threatening situations without resorting to a gun. As I mentioned above, it is more about attitude and confidence in oneself than anything else. Of course my mom and grandmother were raised in rough urban areas, so self defense sans gun came naturally, even in their seventies and eighties. If you are physically disabled, OK, I can see the point, but other than that:shrug:

Too many people in this world allow fear to run their lives.

[jody]

27. Dance and spin all you want to but do you support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear

arms for self-defense as SCOTUS said in D.C. v. Heller?

A simple "yes" or "no" is all that is needed without more of your braggadocio, macho tripe.

[MadHound]

31. Again with the failure at reading comprehension

This is what I said:
"I'm not denying anything to anybody. If you wish to keep a gun, fine."

Get the picture?

And you're accusing me of macho tripe, yet it is you who is trying to hound people into an answer that you can attack.

Feeling more and more pity for you with each post you make. What a sad, fearful life you must live.

[jody]

38. Have you considered ballet? You spin rather clumsily but, in a few few decades you might learn a

few basic movements.

[MadHound]

45. Actually I took seven years of ballet when I was a kid,

Had to in order to strengthen my ankles.

But childhood pursuits aside, what, exactly do you think that I'm spinning? Oh, that's right, you just want to use mindless ad hominem attacks because you've run out of anything else that's substantive.

I can see why you carry a gun now, you simply don't have the mental acumen to do anything else to defend yourself.

[jody]

48. Have you considered asking for refunds from those ballet lessons? n/t

[MadHound]

51. No, not really. Have you decided to debate actual points of this discussion

Or simply continue to fling insults because that's all you've got left?

[jody]

61. You really do need to either ask for a refund on those lessons or retake them. n/t

[MadHound]

63. Ah, so you're going for Option B,

Continuing to fling insults and personal attacks because you have nothing substantive to back your happy ass up with.

Cool, well then if that's where you want to leave it, I'll be ignoring you now. I've got better things, like dinner, to attend to. Get back to me when you have actual real live points you want to make in this debate.

Until then:hi:

[tanngrisnir3]

41. Why post empty promises? What's the point?

[FudaFuda]

12. Being prepared is not the same as being fearful.

You admit there are cases where a gun is needed for personal defense. Also recognize that as one grows older and less physically capable, one can become a target of violence and robbery for the very fact that you are less likely to put up any resistance.

If you ever become a target of violence, then you'll know the fear of which you are speaking. If I ever become a target of violence, I will know that fear, too. But I'll have a chance of hurting the rat bastards, and escaping with my life. Good luck to you.

P.S.
Another way of looking at your wilful ignorance of the right to self-defense ... "untold millions of people have lived, grown old and died" without ever needing to file a claim on the fire insurance on their home. But we all have fire insurance. Same difference to me.

[MadHound]

16. You assume that I haven't been a target of violence, and that I'm young or younger

You know what they say about ass u me.

It is the very fact that I've faced life or death situations, that I've had guns shoved in my face, that I've had to use my wits, my brains and yes my brawn to get out of tight situations that I no longer let fear rule my actions. Rather my brain and body respond coolly, intellectually and quickly, doing what needs to be done. And I never, ever show fear, that's the worse thing you can do.

I've made it to the far side of fifty without having to resort to firearms, and I know several people who made it all their lives without a gun. I see no need to get one now.

[jody]

22. Clever statements but you can't hide your intent of denying potential victims who are law-abiding

citizens their inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

If I accept your claim to be "physically strong" that still leaves open the question of whether you are "mentally strong".

[MadHound]

26. Again, you are ass u me ing that I want your guns,

I don't. However like the majority of gun owners and Americans I am in favor of reasonable gun control laws.

Oh, and if you reread my posts for comprehension, you would see that it is indeed mental strength that I'm talking about here.

But you're not interested in that, you just see that I'm scoffing at the need for most people to have guns and you block everything else out. Once more you ass u me.

[jody]

29. Your posts clearly demonstrate your level of "mental strength". ROFLMAO n/t

[MadHound]

32. At least I carry my peace of mind with me, where it belongs, in my head

Rather than having it reside in the form of a piece of steel and powder.

I feel rather sorry for people like you who have to rely on an inanimate object to provide their sense of personal security.

[jody]

40. We've reached agreement, you, carry a piece of your mind with you in your head. n/t

[HALO141]

110. A pitty. I'm sure it gets lonely in there all by itself. n/t

[FudaFuda]

23. That's fine.

But you're the one who 'assumed' first. By assigning a generalized and accusative explanation (i.e. 'fear') to an entire class of people who choose to be prepared within the limits of the law and their legal rights, you are the one passing judgment without knowledge.

[MadHound]

33. Actually it isn't an assumption

There are a number of peer reviewed articles out there proving that very point. Go to your local library, get on the J-Stor or comparable database and you'll find quite a few making that very point.

Sorry, but I assume nothing.

[FudaFuda]

39. your 'peer reviewed articles' prove only your bias

when the author and the peers are all of one mind, nothing is proven to anyone except those also of the same opinion.

I don't have any problem acknowledging that my choice to be prepared to defend myself by carrying is based on my opinions. I believe my opinions are sound, and the law and Constitution back me up in my choice. I couldn't care less if you disagree. But if you try to tell me what's going on in my head for me, I've got an answer for ya. Keep your opinions to yourself.

[MadHound]

52. Wow, discounting scholastic peer reviewed articles because they disagree with your viewpoint

"Darn all those pointy-headed intellectual types." Yeah, I've heard that before. Sorry that the truth doesn't agree with you, but it's the truth none the less.

And what if I don't keep my opinions to myself, what'cha gonna do pardner, shoot me?

You betray your mindset of fear by your very words. Sad, really.

[benEzra]

71. Are you speaking of criminological journals, or medical journals?

Because the standard of "peer review" in gun-related medical journal articles is abysmal to put it mildly.

For example, consider Trask, Richards, Schwartzbach, and Kurtzke, "Massive orthopedic, vascular, and soft tissue wounds from military type assault weapons: a case report," J Trauma 1995 Mar 38(3):428-31. That article had one of the most egregious blunders I've ever seen in any peer-reviewed medical journal (ascribing magic wounding powers to low-energy 7.62x39mm caliber bullets, overstating their kinetic energy by 40%, and making the absurd claim that low-velocity AK rounds have greater velocity than high-velocity hunting rounds), yet those blunders weren't even NOTICED in peer review--because the article reinforced a certain editorial position, and therefore was not subjected to even cursory scrutiny. Even a cursory review of the wound-ballistics literature would have shown them their conclusions were precisely backward, but apparently no one even bothered to check. The widely-cited Kellerman et al studies on defensive gun use vs. criminal misuse (source of the ridiculous "43 times more likely" BS) are another egregious example.

There are a lot of systemic problems with most of the medical literature on guns, and peer review on this topic across the board is noticeably less rigorous than peer review on actual medical topics, with egregious procedural blunders and idiotic misunderstandings of technical issues appearing fairly regularly in the peer-reviewed medical literature. Those egregious blunders and biases are the reason Congress yanked gun funding from the CDC back in the '90's. If you can find it on the web, the transcript of the committee hearing in which the head of the CDC was confronted over the issue of "advocacy studies" on this issue is also rather enlightening.

For an overview of the disconnect between the conclusions of peer-reviewed medical researchers on guns vs. the conclusions of peer-reviewed criminologists on guns, see the following review of the literature (a few years old, but a good read):

Kates et al, "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?" (61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).)

Do a keyword search of "gun-averse dyslexia" in that article, and check the journal citations for yourself.

The thing is, peer review only works if the peers reviewing know something about the subject matter. If a paper written by an M.D. who knows nothing about guns or criminology is reviewed by other M.D.'s who know nothing about guns or criminology, egregious errors are going to go uncaught. A journal article on the pathophysiology of human immunodeficiency virus written by criminologists and reviewed by criminologists would be about as authoritative as an English 201 term paper; M.D.'s writing about criminology and gun technology are no different.

[paulsby]

85. exactly

"peer review only works if the peers reviewing know something about the subject matter."

this is a very well constructed post.

as somebody who spends a lot of time on pubmed reading (insert holy music here) peer reviewed studies, i am well aware of how bad some studies are WHEN the designers and practitioners in the study actually understand the subject.

in the case of medical journals talking about guns, i might as well be getting nutritional studies from car and driver.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Link to one then. I'd love to see it.

[MadHound]

55. Sorry, but being as most peer reviewed journals are pay for sites,

I'm not going to deal out good money to prove a point to an anonymous internet poster. However I did give you directions whereby you can do your own research on the subject. Open your mind a bit, let some light in. Or not and live in ignorance, I don't care. The truth remains rather you care to acknowledge it or not. All that you're doing by refusing to acknowledge it is showing where your own mindset is at, and trust me, it's not a good place.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. You claim facts you can't back up and then accuse others of ignorance, that's some funny shit.

For you to make blanket statements and accuse everyone who carries a firearm of being controlled by their fear is truly revealing of your ignorance and bias. I guess I'll have to ask the police officers, FBI agents and U.S. Marshals that I know what it's like to live in fear everyday. Besides why do you care what their motivation for carrying a firearm is? It doesn't affect you. Who cares if it is out of fear? There are plenty of things to be fearful of in this world. Fear is a natural response to dangerous situations. I experienced a certain amount of fear when I was in a combat zone, when I parachuted out of airplanes and when I was lead climbing hard routes in Yosemite Valley a long way out off a piece of shaky gear. I never let that fear control me, I used it to sharpen my senses and to accomplish the task at hand.

David

[benEzra]

90. A lot of the relevant portions of the literature he/she speaks of

are cited here and here, and there are some additional links here. I wish I could find a copy of the J. Trauma snowjob online, but didn't see one, just a couple of rebuttal letters; I will try to print it out the next time I have access to Medline.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. I wonder why MadHound hasn't responded?

[tanngrisnir3]

108. He's already won, just like he does against firearms, in his mind.

[paulsby]

15. the illogical "fear canard"

it is unlikely that you will be faced with a situation where your concealed firearm will be needed.

it is also unlikely that your house will catch on fire.

it is also unlikely that you will ever have to use CPR training while walking around in public (nurses, etc. obviously much more likely at their workplace).

however, many reasonable people choose to carry fire insurance, firearms, and learn CPR. (note that fire insurance is NOT required by law IF you own your home outright. of course, if the bank owns it (ie its mortgaged, they will require it)).

even though the chance that they will have to rely on any of the above are exceedingly rare.

it does not mean they FEAR their house will catch on fire, or FEAR that somebody will have an MI and need CPR.

it is that they take steps to be prepared for a rare but DEVASTATING possibility - that they will be confronted in a deadly force situation, or their house will burn to the ground, or a person close to them will drop to the ground in cardiac arrest.

none of those prepared states imply that a person is fearful, unreasonably or not.

they merely evidence that a person has taken steps to prepare themselves for unlikely, but devastating events.

no matter how prudent one is, how cautious, how aware, one MAY be presented with their house burning down, a deadly force situation, or a person near to them having a heart attack.

it is entirely REASONABLY to prepare for any of these events.

thus, the illogic of your fear canard. an oft-touted, illogical response by anti-gunners to people who carry concealed.

[MadHound]

18. Well if you're going to go by the numbers,

Apparently the vast majority of people in this country don't give into fear, nor do they see the need to have "insurance" in the form of a gun, since the vast majority of people in this country don't own a gun.

So what is the reason that a distinct minority of people carry guns? Oh, yeah, fear.

[jody]

20. Prove your assertion "distinct minority of people carry guns". n/t

[MadHound]

30. 34.5% of Americans report that they own a gun

And only 12% report that they carry a gun. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/102418/How-Americans-Protect-Themselves-From-Crime.aspx>

Even giving that number a margin of error of ten percent, that's still a distinct minority who carry guns.

[jody]

35. Anyone who cites VPC, an avowed gun-ban organization, is suspect as are you. There are perhaps 80+

million gun-owners in the U.S. and each of those law-abiding citizens protects perhaps 2-3 other people.

That's why every credible poll reports 65-70% of the respondents supporting RKBA.

That's why Obama said "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

[MadHound]

42. Hey, at least I'm giving you a source

And I notice that you didn't quibble with the Gallup source I used, the one that states only 12 percent of people actually carry guns. Hmmm.

But you're throwing out that 80 million gun owning figure without any source, why's that? Oh, yeah, because it's an overhyped number used by the gunners to try and show they're in the majority, or at least a strong minority.

Oh, a little quote from that Gallup source: "Republicans and Southerners are among the most likely groups to say they own a gun for protection against crime." That says a lot about gun owners right there having something in common with 'Pugs, fear, unreasonable fear.

Well, if you don't like VPC (why I don't know), here's another source, one that pegs gun ownership at thirty percent.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/Gun-Ownership-Use-America.aspx>

Oh, and I applaud Obama's statement, it's one that I agree with.

[jody]

47. I'm so very sorry, I over estimated your ability. Link below to DU thread re 80+ million.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=187130

[MadHound]

57. So let's do some math here

Roughly 80 million gun owners in the US, divided by the US population, equals roughly thirty seven percent of the population owns guns, a figure that is within the margin of error of the other sources I gave(though I would discount the DLC for any true numbers). So again, the vast majority of people in this country don't own a gun, and with the figure for those who carry sitting at 12%(see my previous source), that means an overwhelming number of Americans don't carry guns, and thus don't live in fear.

Hey, thanks for confirming my numbers :thumbsup:

[paulsby]

86. man, take an analytical reasoning class

puhleeze

"that means an overwhelming number of Americans don't carry guns, and thus don't live in fear."

you are correct that the majority of americans , heck a strong majority do not carry guns.

that has exactly zero correlation to which people live and don't live in fear.

[madville]

92. 12% of the population carries a firearm, 53% isn't allowed to carry

87,000,000 Underage - 29% of the population

We will deduct 29% from the below numbers because they are underage.

10,000,000 Illegal Immigrants
13,000,000 Population of Illinois
37,000,000 Population of California
5,500,000 Population of Wisconsin
5,500,000 Population of Maryland
8,500,000 Population of New Jersey
500,000 Population of Washington DC
6,500,000 Population of Massachusetts
8,000,000 Population of NYC
6,000,000 Felons who have lost their gun rights
1,000,000 Guilty of Misdemeanor Domestic Violence
-----------
101,500,000 - 29% =

72,000,000 + 87,000,000 = 159,000,000

So 159,000,000 cannot even consider carrying a firearm with them because it is against the law or almost impossible to get a permit where they are at. So your 12% of 300,000,000 is 36,000,000 who carry out of a possible 141,000,000 who possibly could. That is more like 26% of eligible people carry a firearm, not 12%.

[Ghost in the Machine]

69. Pssssttt.....

"But you're throwing out that 80 million gun owning figure without any source, why's that? Oh, yeah, because it's an overhyped number used by the gunners to try and show they're in the majority, or at least a strong minority."

:rofl:


Ummmm... you cited the number of reported gun owners as 34.5%, didn't you? In a population of 300 million, how many would that be? Do you *really* need a source... or a calculator??


just sayin'...

[paulsby]

21. whether or not they "see the need"

and note that the "need" canard is another one used by anti-gunners.

i don't NEED to carry concealed. i CHOOSE to carry concealed.

whether or not THEY see the need, the reality is that those who choose to carry guns are not doing so out of fear, ANY MORE than those that choose to learn CPR.

most people do NOT choose to learn CPR. most choose not to carry concealed.

it's a matter of an individual choice to protect oneself or others from an unlikely but devastating event.

congrats on pulling out another popular canard, the "need canard" in defending your illogical "fear canard"

if you pull out the "penis substitute" canard, you will have completed the holy trio of illogical anti-gunners.

we're rootin' for ya!

[MadHound]

34. So then you choose to give in to your fear of the unknown

You choose to be scared and think the worst of your fellow human being.
You choose to live a sad, fearful little life.
I choose to feel pity for people like you.

Oh, and the peer reviewed studies that I've seen on this issue(which you can access at your local university library) they pretty much agree with me, people who carry guns do so because they are motivated by fear.

Thankfully the vast majority of Americans don't live their lives in fear.

[tanngrisnir3]

44. You seem to have succumbed to a self-induced faux Chuck Norris syndrome

It's occluding your ability to think rationally, and seems to manifest itself in the delusion that you can accurately and reliable attribute motive to others who you don't know and will never meet.

The only pity here that I can see is that your sense of self is so tightly and almost pathologically wrapped up in thinking that you have insight into other people that you are unable to entertain any notion that falls outside of your own, self-created parameters of how you imagine people and things to be.

You have my condolences.

[MadHound]

58. Ah, so I'm making up all those articles I mentioned?

Go down to your local university library and prove me wrong. Until then all you're spewing is insulting bullshit because you don't have facts to back your happy ass up with.

But that's OK, I understand, opening yourself up to different points of view and rational fact based thought is a scary thing.

[tanngrisnir3]

59. No, I wasn't addressing the studies, so there are no facts from them...

that would be pertinent in this case..

I was addressing your copious and immediately evident pathologies that are preventing you from engaging in rational discourse or entertaining the notion that not everyone in the world values or considers relevant what you are claiming about yourself and your projections.

What's scary is that you actually think someone might.

Good luck with that.

[MadHound]

62. Ah, so you don't want knowledge that might contradict your current mindset

Therefore it is irrelevant to you. However you have assumed that since it isn't relevant to you, nobody else on this board, or in the world at large would wish to hear about it. Talk about hubris dude. Hate to tell you this, but your preferences, your opinions are not necessarily reflective of those of the rest of this board or the public at large.

Secondly, in regards to these "pathologies" that you're talking about, can you name them? And how, exactly did you diagnose them? Are you a certified psychiatrist/psychologist? Or are you simply pulling a Santorum on us.

So really now, it seems as those this whole post of yours is nothing more than an exercise in projection on your part.

Good luck with that.

[tanngrisnir3]

64. Sorry, this isn't about that; it has nothing to do with what you've cited

However you have assumed that since it isn't relevant to you, nobody else on this board, or in the world at large would wish to hear about it. Talk about hubris dude.

No, I have not assumed that, as I have addressed you and you only on this subthread. No amount of dodging or smokescreens on your part will change that.

Hate to tell you this, but your preferences, your opinions are not necessarily reflective of those of the rest of this board or the public at large.

Another dodge; I have never claimed that they were reflective of anything other than my own opinion.

Secondly, in regards to these "pathologies" that you're talking about, can you name them?

Oh, gladly. You exhibit a pathological level of Narcissism.

And how, exactly did you diagnose them? Are you a certified psychiatrist/psychologist? Or are you simply pulling a Santorum on us.

Newp, but I do have a lot of professional experience dealing with people just like you.

So really now, it seems as those this whole post of yours is nothing more than an exercise in projection on your part.

Good luck with that.

No, not in the least. It's an exercise of explaining to you how your own your shortcomings on a psychological level are preventing you from engaging in any meaningful dialog.

You're welcome.

[MadHound]

65. Ah, so rather than discussing the topic of this thread

You would rather, in some fit of outrage on your part, try and "diagnose" some supposed malady that I have, which is really a cheap disguise for the fact that all you really want to do is hurl personal insults. Hmm, talk about narcissistic:eyes:

Well, since you don't want to engage on the topic at hand, and since I have little tolerance for assholes who would rather hurl insults instead, I will bid good evening and move on. So yes, you can get your little childish last word in so that the whole world can see that you are morally void and intellectually bankrupt.

Get back to me when you want to discuss something substantive, like the original topic of this thread.

[tanngrisnir3]

66. No, no outrage in the least. Sorry that makes you so uncomfy.

The topic, the matter at hand, was derailed by you and you alone, so for you to talk about not wanting to engage in it, I really must question your motives.

Not that you haven't flagrantly had them out on parade this entire thread.

[MadHound]

56. whoops, answered wrong post

[Furyataurus]

95. I carry

so please tell me what it is I'm afraid of? Because I sure don't know what it is.

[Vini_Vidivici]

101. That seems to be......................

.........a very ignorant statement, that it's fear that motivates some of us to choose to have available the tools of self defense. The post you were replying to put it well. It simply is not a "fear" issue.

Do you FEAR getting a flat tire? No? Then why is there a spare tire in your vehicle? So simple.

As you, Madhound, seem to be one who chooses NOT to take responsibility for your own defense, I hope for your own sake you're never in a situation where you have to fight for your life.........with nothing. Hopefully your reliance on fate, rather than your own self, for defense, will work out for you.

As for the rest of us, well, we CHOOSE not to be sheep. I shall not rely on fate or chance, blindly hoping I'm never confronted by a criminal bent on causing me harm. I shall not live in the false hope that I might be able to "reason" with human scum.

I, as many others, do live in the hope, or rather desire, that we will never have to excercise the option of lethal force. That is not desirable. Avoidance is ALWAYS the best defense, and that is what we strive for.

However, avoidance simply is not always an option. Yes, that time HAS come for me personally twice in the last few years. No, shots were not necessary. Yes, both times that individual, that criminal, ran away from me. I stopped them in their tracks............I guess they didn't want to be shot. Deterrence is a beautiful thing.

So, others can choose not to have that option. I have no problem with that. I do however have a problem with those that seem to think we should ALL be forced, by rule of law, to also be "sheep". That is tragic indeed.

[tularetom]

25. You seem very determined to tell everyone that it is not fear that motivates you to carry a handgun

I think you doth protest too much.

Appears to me you believe you will be thought unmanly if you admit to fear.

If you want to carry a gun feel free. It is your right.

Just don't try to justify it by equating it to fire insurance.

And quit bragging about it. Most people here do not give a rat's ass.

[paulsby]

28. it is a valid analogy

risk analysts refer to such events as "low frequency/high risk"

personally, i do not know ANYBODY whose house has burned down. i DO know people who have used deadly force (not referring to on the job cops, but people in civilian life).

both are exceedingly rare, but devastating, if not prepared.

the point isn't about feelings, or "fear". it's about a dispassionate look at the cost/benefits and a conscious decision.

i also CHOSE to learn CPR , even prior to having a career where it was required.

i also carry a survival kit in my car, to include glucose in case i run into somebody with a diabetic emergency.

i choose to have several months of food storage and water in my house. it is unlikely i will NEED them, but again it's a choice i make.

and fire insurance is a perfect analogy.

if you owned a house outright (no mortgage) would you choose fire insurance?

i would. it is VERY VERY unlikely i would need it. and it's a monthly cost.

but it's a CLASSIC low frequency/high risk event, that would be devastating if it occurred.

i have never once walked out my door (whether carrying concealed or not) FEARING i would be faced with a deadly force situation.

i simply make a choice to be prepared *if* that exceedingly unlikely event happens.

you are engaging in the classic anti-gunner canard, the "fear canard".

[tularetom]

37. You can call it insurance or whatever you want

and accuse me of engaging in the "classic anti gunner canard, the fear canard".

There have been two times in my life when I felt it was necessary to have a gun nearby. I worked as a repossessor for a year or so while I was in college. I carried the gun because I was afraid some asshole might object to me repossessing his refrigerator and try to harm me. You can call it insurance if you want.

I also owned a bar for about five years. I kept a gun under the bar.

In neither case did I ever have to use the gun.

I have a home that I own outright. I have homeowner's insurance (not fire insurance) because I am afraid if something happened I would not have the financial resources to deal with it.

I am not an "anti gunner" whatever the fuck that is. I own literally dozens of firearms. I'm a collector of antique guns and an occasional hunter.

I also live in a remote area where the cops are unable to provide a prompt response. So I'm prepared. Or afraid. Whatever.

But I'm not so friggin scared of life that I feel like I have to walk around with a 9mm stuck in my belt.

[benEzra]

70. Neither am I. But I choose to on occasion.

But I'm not so friggin scared of life that I feel like I have to walk around with a 9mm stuck in my belt.

Neither am I; I am not "scared of life" at all, actually. But I did go through the hoops necessary to obtain an NC CHL, and I do choose to carry a small 9mm when it is legal and practical to do so.

You choose not to; I have no problem whatsoever with that. It's a free country.

[paulsby]

84. bravo

based on his "logic" (to use a term loosely and give it great license), people who

support reproductive choice are clearly sex addicts wanting to schtup everything in sight, abort all pregnancies, etc.

people who support the right to a fair trial, are just blind supporters of murderers and rapists.

people who support free speech, are just enablers of hate speech, etc.

the reality is that i do not choose to carry out of fear. nor do you.

i do not choose to have emergency rations out of fear.

i didn't choose to learn CPR out of fear.

i don't wear a seatbelt out of fear.

heck, i guess by his logic, those of us who take antioxidants are AFRAID OF CANCER.

[paulsby]

83. again, you go from one to another

"There have been two times in my life when I felt it was necessary to have a gun nearby. "

now, you have reverted to the "need" canard.

i don't carry a gun because i NEED to (at least not off duty). i no more NEED to carry a firearm, than i need to have fire insurance (or at least did on the house i paid off before i sold it), or NEED to know CPR, or NEED to carry a survival kit.

it's a CHOICE.

"But I'm not so friggin scared of life that I feel like I have to walk around with a 9mm stuck in my belt. "

wow. now, you are back to the "fear/scared" canard.

like i said, bring in the penis comments and you have the unholy illogical trio. congrats.

fwiw, if i was SCARED i would have quit my career long ago. i've already BEEN shot at. i have already seen three of my friends shot in ONE frigging incident. i have seen a person's head get blown off a few feet from me, and i have been in shootouts myself.

but i am not SCARED. i am prepared, and I am willing to accept the risk of my career.

similarly, when i choose to carry concealed, i am not "scared". i am not in "fear". i am making a conscious choice.

i am also not in fear of a collision. but i wear my seatbelt.

stop with the illogic and address this issue rationally.

tia

[tularetom]

91. You can rationalize it any way you choose to

What's "rationally"? I'm assuming you are some sort of public servant and you have a job where carrying a gun is part of the job.

You should probably quit. Not only are you afraid, you are even afraid to admit you are afraid.

[pipoman]

87. Do police carry guns out of fear?

I do believe there are some people who arm themselves based on fear. The majority of people I know who keep a defensive weapon in their home or choose to carry one do so as a response to the world around them. As I said in an earlier thread, repossessors who are afraid are in the wrong line of work as are police officers who are afraid. Fear may ultimately be a result of a defensive action, a repossession or police action is by definition an offensive action and should be accompanied by caution but never fear.

[paulsby]

98. bingo

i've carried a gun as a cop.

i have never once stepped out my door to go to work, and been in "fear" or afraid.

when my best friend, another cop, was shot in the head and killed, i was not in "fear". i was fucking pissed off, but not in fear.

i have been in fear before, like when presented with a specific threat, but not generally - like when going to work.

this anti-gunner is just using the "fear canard"

there are three main ones i have discovered used by anti-gunners
1) the "fear canard" (if you carry a gun, you are fearful/scared. why? the chance of you being a victim is very small. so, you have an irrational fear. ). this is easily debunked.

2) the "need canard". (why do you NEED a gun? you don't NEED a gun, therefore you shouldn't carry one). we don't justify our civil rights by a requirement to justify a NEED. furthermore, i readily admit, i don't NEED to carry a gun. i CHOOSE to

3) the "penis references". nuff said.

[Vini_Vidivici]

102. I don't think it's an attempt to not be thought of as "unmanly", but.........

..........rather an attempt to inject logic into the discussion.

I have to say, that is a wonderful thing for those of you that choose not to be armed, that you would not seek to deny that right to the rest of us. We appreciate that, seriously.

[Thirtieschild]

36. It's awfully easy to generalize.

Out here at the back of beyond, we are safer with a gun than we are without one. Too many rabid skunks and foxes and, last summer, a man-eating mountain lion on the road. Before the lion ate an innocent man, several people had fired over his head to warn him off.

[MadHound]

49. First of all, I'm not generalizing

Like I've told others on this thread, you can go down to your local university library, look in a database like J-Stor and find dozens of peer reviewed articles that prove my point.

Secondly, this original debate was about carrying a gun, not owning one. However since you brought it up, I live out in the back of beyond, and while I recognize that a gun is a useful tool on rare occasions, using it to scare wild animals, including mountain lions, really isn't necessary. It's a reaction born out of fear. Sure, protect your livestock, etc. But really now, mountain lions generally run at the mere sight of a human. Whoop it up a bit and you don't have to bring out the shootin' iron. Same goes with most critters.

[Furyataurus]

94. Tell that

to all the people who have been attacked and/or killed by mt. lions.

[Tim01]

67. Reality not fear.

http://www.kval.com/news/19808124.html

I wonder how many pets and people were saved by this guy with his handgun?
People who think there is nothing to fear are not facing reality.


Story Published: Jun 11, 2008 at 6:12 PM PST
By KVAL Web Staff
Video
EUGENE, Ore. - A man who shot and killed a vicious dog on a neighborhood street will not face charges because he acted in self-defense.

Neighbors say the man followed in a car after seeing two dogs, a pit bull and a doberman, stalking the neighborhood and attack a cat. He got out of the car when he saw the dogs attack another cat. The pit bull turned on the man, at which point he fired two shots and killed the dog.

The cat was taken to a veterinarian, but its injuries were too severe and had to be put down.

An animal countrol officer from Lane County Animal Services responded to the scene, said Tom Howard, LCAS supervisor.

The Lane County Sheriff's Office handled the call.

Both dogs were licensed. The owner of the second dog came and took his dog when contacted by LCAS, Howard said.

[DeadEyeDyck]

80. I carry a gun for the same reason I wear a seat belt...

I don't expect to get into a car accident and fortunately I can say that it has never happened to me. I have had one situation where I had to point a gun at a gentleman's forehead. At this point, I am wait for that wreck, just to make all things even.

[imdjh]

89. "unreasonable fear"

Are hurricanes an "unreasonable fear"? How about major snow storms? Both of these weather conditions have produced the need for citizens to protect themselves and their property because the police were unable to respond during the emergency.

[BuyingThyme]

9. I don't even carry a watch or a wallet.

I draw a line at keys.

[DainBramaged]

46. Even on Du, the ode to the phallus is alive and well

Too bad we celebrate machines of death and not the gift of life.


If your life is focused on guns, get a new life.

[jody]

50. Sigmund Freud said " A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity " n/t

[DainBramaged]

53. I think you need to look in the mirror

"Click"

Goodbye Jody, I really didn't realize that not only do we have nothing to discuss, your defense of guns offends me.

[jody]

60. "look in the mirror" and you will be even more offended. n/t

[Taitertots]

76. Even defending guns offends you...

You should refer to post #50

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taitertots]

96. Only the people terrified of guns

are the people declaring them phallic.

Maybe a little less penis envy and a little more common sense would do you good.

[tanngrisnir3]

97. You don't seem to address this issue with much mental acuity or clarity

Guns are guns, not sexual organs.

One does not masturbate a gun.

[DainBramaged]

105. You obviously missed the point too

"Click" go play with your pistol.

[tanngrisnir3]

107. No, it's just that your 'point', as it were, was trite and irrelevant.

The only thing being played with here is you.

[Vini_Vidivici]

104. Wow, can't argue with logic like that, huh.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Burma Jones]

54. Oh Well

The first part rails against what I suppose some folks believe is the "Liberal Elite" opinion of Gun Owners. Yeah, some folks think that way, I'm sorry you have to give them so much credence, they think less of people they consider cruder than they regardless of whether they're armed, so, it would be squirrel eating or coon hunting or something else if it weren't the guns.

Here's a link to Snopes about the Aussie stuff: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Of course, Native Americans had Guns, we Euro-Americans just had more of them......


Responsible Gun Ownership is a good thing........I like to shoot, I like to eat what I've shot.

I do live in a place where the random homicide rate is close to zero, and my county has about a million residents. Nearly all homicides here are family related, vengeance, or drug deals gone sour. I am far more troubled about bad/drunk drivers than armed thugs.

I'm just wondering who is trying to take Ghost in the Machine's Guns away.......

[Taitertots]

68. We all should just have Madhound with us

Since he is such a badass that he beats huge groups of people up and stares down anyone pointing a gun at him even his father. It is perfectly clear that Chuck Norris... I mean Madhound can beat anyones ass and if you have a gun he just round house kicks it out of your hands.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. MadHound is the Dr. Manhattan of the human psyche here at DU

Not only can he discern the thoughts of people around him (and so avoid evildoers), he knows what
gun owners really believe in their heart of hearts.

I hope he only uses his power to 'know what evil lurks in the heart of man' for good...

[Taitertots]

75. What if his power gets in the wrong hands

Guns can't stop him, no man can stop him, what are we to do.

We would be doomed. Doooooommmmmedddd!!!

[yay]

72. Holy shit, this thread kinda exploded

just a couple hours and this thread get's 72(3) posts... amazing.

Also seems like a bunch of stupid trivial arguments mostly.

[Vini_Vidivici]

77. Good on you for being prepared!

It is the American way. We have a GOD-GIVEN, natural right of self-defense. One of the great things about this country is that this right is recognized. Thankfully, as citizens of the greatest Nation on Earth, we are not condemned to live as sheep.

Why carry a firearm? Same reason for carrying a firs-aid kit, a fire extinguisher, a spare tire, a solid knife, a reliable flashlight, wearing good shoes or boots, having a good rain jacket along, no matter what..........it's common sense, it's preparedness.

[imdjh]

88. I don't need a reason to carry a gun, it is my right to do so.

I also don't need a reason to refuse to "show my papers" or allow my person or property to be searched. The best way to preserve your rights is to assert them, simply to maintain your claim to them.

PS- I've never actually gotten around to buying a gun, but every time I read threads where people oppose my right to do so, I get closer to going out and getting one. So I might do it today.

[paulsby]

99. well put

anti-gunners frequently pull out the "need canard" asking us why we NEED to carry a gun.

i don't NEED to.

i CHOOSE to. nobody is required to demonstrate a need to justify a civil right.

that holds for speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and for carrying a gun.

[Vini_Vidivici]

103. Absolutely.........

.........there is no NEED to justify what is a Natural Right.