Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 skyth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?

Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?

But does guns make that less likely? Why then US has far bigger chance of getting killed than countries with less guns...If guns make country safer why is US one of the unsafest 1st world countries?

Hint: Guns don't create safety. More like reverse.

By people using illegal firearms, in an illegal manner. Not sure why this has to keep getting explained...

The criminal use of firearms is what drives that number so high. All these laws do is level of the playing field for the law abiding citizens.

Why don't we get rid of all the laws about rape? After all, only criminals engaging in illegal manner do it...Why not level the playing field for the law abiding citizens?

Probably because there's no such thing as defensive rape?

 skyth wrote:

And that is basically the argument and really shows why people who feel the need to carry look like idiots.

Well, I'm sure concealed carry permit holders everywhere are devastated by your opinion of them.

A house fire's unlikely, yet we still have fire extinguishers and rope ladders for our third floor. Some guy on a plastic doll forum thinks that's ridiculous? Oh, well. Ain't his house.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.

Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.

And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.

And I found 2 news stories from deaths in 2016 at UT. Out of 50k students enrolled. That is 0.004%. Feeling the need to carry a gun to 'combat' a chance that small of anything happening to you...It's basically being a coward. living in fear is no way to live. Really shows how silly the people that feel the need to carry are...

Again who are you to tell someone else what they can and can't do, should or should not do? Can you provide you CV on tactical and defensive criminality? How about personal defense training? Where are you an instructor at? For how many years? How many students have you taught? What studies and research have you done concerning women, the aged, and the inform? What exactly are your qualifications, let alone authority to provide advice and counsel to anyone on this issue?

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.

Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.

And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.

And I found 2 news stories from deaths in 2016 at UT. Out of 50k students enrolled. That is 0.004%. Feeling the need to carry a gun to 'combat' a chance that small of anything happening to you...It's basically being a coward. living in fear is no way to live. Really shows how silly the people that feel the need to carry are...

Again who are you to tell someone else what they can and can't do, should or should not do? Can you provide you CV on tactical and defensive criminality? How about personal defense training? Where are you an instructor at? For how many years? How many students have you taught? What studies and research have you done concerning women, the aged, and the inform? What exactly are your qualifications, let alone authority to provide advice and counsel to anyone on this issue?

If you would read, I'm not saying they can't. Just that it really shows how silly they are. They are living in fear for no good reason.

So you always carry a week's worth of food and water and clothes with you every where you go?

Like a grizzled wiener dog, my belly has carefully stored more than enough calories for a week.
I've not seen where starvation leaps out and attacks me. I do have money in case I get hungry, so am prepared in case I have to eat...wait for it wait for it...at any time!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, right? Always carry a flashlight with you?

My cellphone has a light on it so...yes.

Really, this is Sheldon Cooper levels of silliness about needing to be prepared for something that is extremely unlikely.

I have flood insurance but I've never been flooded. I have a fire extinguisher for the house but I've never even seen a house fire in person. I must just be silly.

If you would read, I'm not saying they can't. Just that it really shows how silly they are. They are living in fear for no good reason.

Your assumption that it is out of fear, reveals interesting things about yourself.

 Frazzled wrote:

So you always carry a week's worth of food and water and clothes with you every where you go?

Like a grizzled wiener dog, my belly has carefully stored more than enough calories for a week.
I've not seen where starvation leaps out and attacks me. I do have money in case I get hungry, so am prepared in case I have to eat...wait for it wait for it...at any time!

And an attacker leaping out and attacking you will prevent a gun from being effective as well.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, right? Always carry a flashlight with you?

My cellphone has a light on it so...yes.

And that kills the battery quickly...

If you would read, I'm not saying they can't. Just that it really shows how silly they are. They are living in fear for no good reason.

Your assumption that it is out of fear, reveals interesting things about yourself.

Actually, I'm just using the arguments of the pro pecker enhancer side. They 'need' guns because a bad guy might try to get them. This is an argument based on fear. Since the chance of needing it and having it actually be useful in a situation is extremely small, it is not a rational argument as well. Just shows how silly the people are.

Actually, I'm just using the arguments of the pro pecker enhancer side. They 'need' guns because a bad guy might try to get them. This is an argument based on fear. Since the chance of needing it and having it actually be useful in a situation is extremely small, it is not a rational argument as well. Just shows how silly the people are.

No you are using your own arguments. Using your logic everyone who uses insurance, gets a flu or other vaccine, wears a seatbelt, locks doors, or doesn't play in traffic are not being rational and just living in fear.

Its the opposite.

Speaking of not being rational...

Insurance in most cases is mandated. Remember the 'huge' uproar about making healthy people buy health insurance? Plus you WILL get sick...

Same with seatbelts(plus the facr that car accidents are many orders of magnitude more likely than being in a position where having a gun will help)

You WILL be exposed to the Flu.

Locking doors is a minor thing you don't have to go out of your way to do plus thefts again are orders of nagnitude more likely than being in the position where having a gun will help.

These are bad examples and represent reasonable precautions. 'Needing' to carry a gun with you is not one of those and represents an irrational fear.

Flood insurance is not mandated. Home insurance is not mandated. Fire insurance is not mandated.
For most people the flu is a minor thing.
We have to get out of the pool or away from trees if there is thunder heard, but your chances of getting hit by lightning are well the chance of being hit by lightning.

I guess we're all just acting irrationally. I am glad through your intensive knowledge of what is a major or minor threat and are here to tel us when people are being silly. I mean you are the expert...oh wait why is that again?

I think I may have to add someone to my ignore list after years.

Well hey, you've already issued death threats against me because I stand up to your garbage arguments so hey...Like the fact that those insurances are actually mandated by mortgage providers...

And feeling the need to carry a gun on you is akin to feeling the need to wear a flotation device while swimming in your pool when you already know how to swim.

 skyth wrote:
Well hey, you've already issued death threats against me because I stand up to your garbage arguments so hey...Like the fact that those insurances are actually mandated by mortgage providers...

I don't have a mortgage.

And feeling the need to carry a gun on you is akin to feeling the need to wear a flotation device while swimming in your pool when you already know how to swim.

Inappropriate analogy. That would be appropriate if the firearm was merely an additional protection to something I had or knew. Your analogy would only work if I were arguing one should carry a knife in addition to a firearm, as the firearm effectively makes the knife redundant.

Unless you're arguing that they don't need a firearm because their breath is already a weapon or something.

I guess to tie this to the topic, does this mean you're arguing its just silly for them to have Ds and march with them because its redundant as well?

No, it's an entirely appropriate analogy. You just don't like it because it's true. You already have means of dealing with things where a firearm would 'help'. You have legs and feet to run away with which is generally more successful.

And, yes...I consider carrying the dildos to be a bit silly as well. Though I consider it less silly than carrying a firearm because it is intended as political speech and really highlights how silly it is to 'need' to carry a gun.

What's that statistic that feminists keep quoting? 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted in their college experience? With stats like that I'm surprised feminists, as a whole, don't support campus carry.

(Note, the 1 in 5 statistic is actually complete garbage. However feminists claim it to be true so they should also admit women have a reasonable fear for their lives).

In the end, who really cares how useful an item is? Mormans wear magic underwear, women all over campus are handed out free rape whistles and pepper spray, and certain groups are wearing body cameras in case of police brutality. Let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anyone else.

 skyth wrote:
No, it's an entirely appropriate analogy. You just don't like it because it's true. You already have means of dealing with things where a firearm would 'help'. You have legs and feet to run away with which is generally more successful.

And, yes...I consider carrying the dildos to be a bit silly as well. Though I consider it less silly than carrying a firearm because it is intended as political speech and really highlights how silly it is to 'need' to carry a gun.

No, you're analogy is not true. Being in a life or death situation, where you would need to carry a firearm, you don't have other means to deal with it. If you have to kill someone to save yours, or someone elses life, please explain to me what other means an every day person would have to handle that situation.

I'll be waiting.

I'd also like to see where Frazzled threatened your life, cause I did a review of recent posts, and didn't see jack squat like that.

 skyth wrote:
No, it's an entirely appropriate analogy. You just don't like it because it's true. You already have means of dealing with things where a firearm would 'help'. You have legs and feet to run away with which is generally more successful.

.

I've never outrun a bullet before. In addition, in many situations you have no option to run. Running would be my first choice, but I might not be given the chance. Look at what happens at school shootings. Most of the time people get caught by surprise. The shooter is roaming the halls and the only way out of the classroom is to enter the hall. In cases like that ( Columbine, Sandy hook, Virginia Tech, Paduka, etc.) you turn that classroom into a bunker and make yourself an undesirable target. A firearm would go a long way with that.

In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide. If you are a sudden life or death situation, you don't have time to pull your gun and if you try you make yourself a target. Barring that, you have time to evade and hide. An 'average' person would likely freeze up trying to figure out what to do especially if given more choices.

The chance of being in the situation is extremely small. The chance of a gun helping is smaller still.

Feeling the 'need' to carry a gun with you in the normal course of life is irrational fear based behavior. The same as feeling the need to wear a flotation device while swimming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The threat to shoot me was in another thread probably about a month ago. He receivef a mod warning for it and the post was scrubbed. Someone else referenced it more recently.

 skyth wrote:
In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide.

Well, that solves it. Gun control is asinine and those who advocate for it are cowards scared of those FAR remote chances that they will ever be in danger from a gun.

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide.

Well, that solves it. Gun control is asinine and those who advocate for it are cowards scared of those FAR remote chances that they will ever be in danger from a gun.

Straw man. That is not the argument here.

It might not be the argument you made, but it is the topic of this thread.

 skyth wrote:
No, it's an entirely appropriate analogy. You just don't like it because it's true. You already have means of dealing with things where a firearm would 'help'. You have legs and feet to run away with which is generally more successful.[/quote}

What if that person is handicapped? What if that person is old? What if that person is your average female who doesn't run as fast as your average male? What if that person is facing more than one person? I see you have failed to think outside your box of white male fit early 20 year old male.

And, yes...I consider carrying the dildos to be a bit silly as well. Though I consider it less silly than carrying a firearm because it is intended as political speech and really highlights how silly it is to 'need' to carry a gun.

So you're actually supportive of CHLers and OTCers then. Many persons who carry do so because they have the right to do so and are intentionally expressing that right because they can.

 skyth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide.

Well, that solves it. Gun control is asinine and those who advocate for it are cowards scared of those FAR remote chances that they will ever be in danger from a gun.

Straw man. That is not the argument here.

It is EXACTLY the argument you are using for 'not needing a gun'. And it works both ways.

I'd also like to see where Frazzled threatened your life, cause I did a review of recent posts, and didn't see jack squat like that.

He likes cats. Cat lovers are the enemy of my people and will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

And also, I'd like to point out that the 'it's really rare' argument keeps on getting spouted by the anti-gun control crowd. Funny how they don't like the argument being turned against them.

Let's just assume skyth is right and carrying a weapon is completely unnecessary. So what? it's not harming anyone. Why ban it?

 skyth wrote:

Feeling the 'need' to carry a gun with you in the normal course of life is irrational fear based behavior. The same as feeling the need to wear a flotation device while swimming.

Using safety equipment in general could be described as "fear based behavior." Wearing your seatbelt while driving, wearing a life preserver while on a boat, keeping a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, so on and so forth. It could also be described as prudent.

Your repeated attempts to denigrate people who take steps to improve their safety are very inappropriate, ignoring the fact that there are over a million violent crimes committed in the US each year. If you don't want to carry a gun, then don't, but don't insult people who do. It falls under the category of "stop doing what I don't like!" and is childish.

 skyth wrote:
In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide. If you are a sudden life or death situation, you don't have time to pull your gun and if you try you make yourself a target. Barring that, you have time to evade and hide. An 'average' person would likely freeze up trying to figure out what to do especially if given more choices.

You're one of those people who believes sub 1.5 second draw & shoot times are a myth, aren't you?

Relapse wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
So, in your opinion, it is necessary to allow concealed carry in campus? The very places where people gather to study, and have nothing to do with protecting your home by the way, and where you absolutely don't need to bring more means for violence inside?

And you don't understand some young people don't feel exactly safe while knowing one of their comrades next to them may be carrying a hidden weapon and use it whenever he wants, just because he snaps or something?

Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.

And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?

If you think the intent is helping "western heroes ready to kill the crazy ones with their holy guns", well to me, that just makes easier the job of criminals and would be murderers to do their job. Because they will shoot first and use surprise to their full advantage.

You really don't see where is the danger in that? To me, it's quite understandable these students and teachers would protest. Calling it "stupidity" is, IMHO, the true mark of irresponsibility.

There are people who don't feel safe with opposite sex in their bathroom or locker room either. Should we bar them from going into those places even if they say they identify as the opposite sex?
Your position seems a lot like that. People exericising their rights make others uncomfortable, so we should abridge those rights.

I found myself thinking the same thing as I read this thread. It hasn't explicitly been said here, but I really feel like many people who would be against guns because of fear are also people who would call fear of rape in bathrooms ridiculous. "This law makes the criminal's job easier" is the argument in both cases, but people only believe that argument in one case or the other, generally. Anecdotally, I have a friend who fits this perfectly. She was so gung-ho for telling people off for believing laws allowing people to use whatever restroom they want would result in rape, and yet refuses to accept that concealed carry permit holders are among the safest people to own firearms, because of fear.

Legislate by facts and science, not feelings. If you believe someone's preparations to be silly, that's fine, so long as the actual law is actually based on science instead of fear.

I'll be honest, I used to think we should get rid of guns entirely, but like someone else noted, the cat's out of the bag on that one. Now, if studies show that concealed carry permit holders are less likely to commit a violent act with those guns than a cop, then damn, let's do it.

As an aside, isn't "fearing firearms if they're visible" a reason we don't have open carry?

Seaward wrote:

 skyth wrote:
In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide. If you are a sudden life or death situation, you don't have time to pull your gun and if you try you make yourself a target. Barring that, you have time to evade and hide. An 'average' person would likely freeze up trying to figure out what to do especially if given more choices.

You're one of those people who believes sub 1.5 second draw & shoot times are a myth, aren't you?

Not me. I done seen it more gooder.

I alway found it funny that universities that espouse the virtue of the first amendment. The fourth, The Fifth, The 6th and pretty much th rest of the bill of rights. They will always says how the SECOND amendment is less important. I always felt that was hypocritical, especially because if they accept GOVT money, they are agents of the govt in my eye. So they should have not business deciding which right to enforce.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I alway found it funny that universities that espouse the virtue of the first amendment. The fourth, The Fifth, The 6th and pretty much th rest of the bill of rights. They will always says how the SECOND amendment is less important. I always felt that was hypocritical, especially because if they accept GOVT money, they are agents of the govt in my eye. So they should have not business deciding which right to enforce.

I once debated a teacher in high school about this very subject. When I compared the 1st Amendment to the 2nd she scoffed at me. She stated that the 1st was obviously more important because they listed it first. So, I then brought up that the 2nd was listed before the 3rd-10th Amendments. That must mean, by her logic, that the 2nd is more important than those. Her reply? Sending me to the office. Luckily the Principal was a pretty cool guy and had a talk to her about punishing students that out-debated her.