So when you say things like this remember that there are people on your side of the argument that you wouldn't want anywhere near anything you care about.

There are people on all sides of every argument with whom I don't want to be associated, but that has absolutely no effect on my opinion. Do you base your opinions on the facts, or on the people who have similar opinions?

 

Because your premise is "what if" Not what happened.

The Paris attacks are what happens to a defenseless people.
Gun laws are how they get that way.

 

But I'm somewhat sure that after any such incidents sales of firearms have gone up.

• Self-protection is part of the reason. But a bigger factor, say gun dealers, is fear of something else: politicians – specifically, their ability to enact restrictions on gun ownership and acquisition of ammunition.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...-mass-shootings-It-s-not-what-you-might-think

Alan Korwin, author of nine books on gun laws, including "Gun Laws of America," says gun owners are worried that the president, as a lame duck, will clamp down as never before on gun ownership.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gun-sales-booming-doomsday-obama-zombies/story?id=16073797

The DOD’s strategy for dealing with a zombie uprising, outlined in “CONOP 8888,” is for all intents and purposes a training manual for the government in how to put down a citizen uprising or at least an uprising of individuals “infected” with dangerous ideas about freedom.

http://www.rutherford.org/publicati...ead_the_american_police_state_takes_aim_short

 

The Paris attacks are what happens to a defenseless people.
Gun laws are how they get that way.

I am sorry, are you saying there has been no terrorist acts (or mass shootings) on US soil?

At least then claim that you feel safer as a gun owner. Do
not pretend that the country as a whole is.

 

The Paris attacks are what happens to a defenseless people.
Gun laws are how they get that way.

Not so sure since in every place of long lasting conflicts there are plenty of guns on both sides.

 

• Self-protection is part of the reason. But a bigger factor, say gun dealers, is fear of something else: politicians – specifically, their ability to enact restrictions on gun ownership and acquisition of ammunition.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...-mass-shootings-It-s-not-what-you-might-think

Alan Korwin, author of nine books on gun laws, including "Gun Laws of America," says gun owners are worried that the president, as a lame duck, will clamp down as never before on gun ownership.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gun-sales-booming-doomsday-obama-zombies/story?id=16073797

Thanks #12. I thought as much. But to iterate I did start with "how should we disarm" (our enemies) but it got somewhat lost in translation and those that are pro-guns took it as a personal attack even though it was not my intention.

And now we are here

 

I am sorry, are you saying there has been no terrorist acts (or mass shootings) on US soil?

Please don't be intentionally disingenuous. There have been attacks on American soil, and we all know that. We also know the employees of our government will arrive soon after we have been killed.

 

I am sorry, are you saying there has been no terrorist acts (or mass shootings) on US soil?

I am sorry, are you saying that the unfortunate passengers aboard the four airliners on 9/11 were not defenseless?

 

The very fact that what happened in Paris is being used to discuss gun control in the US is sad to me. I did not see anyone posting a message on here saying that guns must be taken away from US citizens. The thread is lost now.

 

There are people on all sides of every argument with whom I don't want to be associated, but that has absolutely no effect on my opinion. Do you base your opinions on the facts, or on the people who have similar opinions?

I try to base my opinion on facts as much as I can and my self preservation but those who have come to the same conclusion as I may have some other motives and sometimes I don't want to give them the power like yourself. But remember choose your friends/allies wisely.

 

The very fact that what happened in Paris is being used to discuss gun control in the US is sad to me. I did not see anyone posting a message on here saying that guns must be taken away from US citizens. The thread is lost now.

I hear ya but all is not lost

 

The very fact that what happened in Paris is being used to discuss gun control in the US is sad to me. I did not see anyone posting a message on here saying that guns must be taken away from US citizens. The thread is lost now.

I don't see this discussion as US-centric. I'd like to see more liberal (classic sense) gun laws throughout the West.

That the discussion is not going the way you want it to, does not make it lost.

That some would rather emote than propose and/or take action is not reason enough for me to shut up.

 

Not so sure since in every place of long lasting conflicts there are plenty of guns on both sides.

I'm really afraid to run my mouth very much because I'm mostly incompetent in Mid-east politics. (That's why I mostly post quotations and Links.) Having said that, I have the impression that the places that have been in conflict for decades, or even centuries, are comprised mostly of Religious fanatics trying to turn back the clock several hundred years, get even with the Christians for The Crusades, and simply fight among themselves for power and wealth. On a personal level, I wish they would just stay at home and kill each other, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

The Western Powers involved themselves in Mid-east politics mostly because of greed. In comparison to that, all the rhetoric and excuses seem to be merely rhetoric and excuses. Now the indigenous people turn their frustration outwards. They are angry, wealthy, mobile, and still think it's about Religion.

The fire has been lit. Will the governments that disarmed their citizens prevent the coming storm, or will they bring body bags after waiting 2 hours to enter the concert hall? I think we just saw the answer to that in Paris.

 

I did start with "how should we disarm" (our enemies) but it got somewhat lost in translation and those that are pro-guns took it as a personal attack even though it was not my intention.

If you're counting me among those who took your post as a personal attack, count me out. I don't even know what you're talking about. I didn't reply anything to that post.

The very fact that what happened in Paris is being used to discuss gun control in the US is sad to me. I did not see anyone posting a message on here saying that guns must be taken away from US citizens. The thread is lost now.

Yeah we did go into 'Murica mode there for a minute; sorry about that. The point I was trying to make before that tangent was that leaders of nations have a duty to ensure the safety of their citizens; a duty which can only be fulfilled by allowing the citizens the freedom to ensure their own safety. Most countries are failing miserably in that regard, with the most recent gruesome example being France. <last jab> And some of us in the USA want to follow France's lead. </last jab>

But we can carry on the discussion from any other angle, whatever you'd like to say, we can listen. I'd like to hear how, going forward, France and other European countries hope to protect their people against a force they cannot see or predict. Will they draft half their respective countries into the military (and give them guns) so that they can stand on every street corner, protecting the other half of the country?

 

I don't see this discussion as US-centric. I'd like to see more liberal (classic sense) gun laws throughout the West.

That the discussion is not going the way you want it to, does not make it lost.

That some would rather emote than propose and/or take action is not reason enough for me to shut up.

Is it really so hard to get a hand on a firearm in your city as you make it sound?

You make it sound so hard that I almost feel for you.

 

If you're counting me among those who took your post as a personal attack, count me out. I don't even know what you're talking about. I didn't reply anything to that post.

I never said you were one of them. Just responded to what you said yourself.

I think that you might be on purpose mixing posts together for your own agenda.

 

Sorry for the sarcastic responses. But what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

 

get even with the Christians for The Crusades, and simply fight among themselves for power and wealth

Actually, it's more about their relentless hatred for Israel and the Jews... it's in their scripture, after all

 

Is it really so hard to get a hand on a firearm in your city as you make it sound?

My city (state, actually)? Why no.

I just plop down cash on the counter at the local gun store and take home a weapon of my choice. Maybe two.

But in my state, we still have a semblance of freedom, unlike much of the West.

 

There are two ways I can make you do something that you do not normally do.
- #1 - I can talk with you, reason with you, and share good data that supports my position. You listen and look at my data and consider it, you think about it. Then you decide. If I have done a good job then statistically you will agree and no more energy need be expended.

- #2 - I can manipulate you with emotions and public opinion. If I can get you angry, fearful or feeling inadequate, your rational processes will be suppressed and you will do things that you would not normally do. I have the perfect way you keep you spun up until I can get you in the voting booth, the television. I can hit you every half hour with pictures of carnage and a narrative that says," If you don't think this is awful then you are a bad person".

When you have good data you normally use method #1. It is the most efficient. If you do not have good data then you use method #2. (Supporting data is not required, just horrific pictures.)

The anti-gunners use method #2 because the data from the past 25 years have shown a steady decrease in gun related crimes while gun ownership has steadily increased.

Bottom line:
Why do pro-gun people get really spun up by the anti-gun people?? Because the pro-gun people use method #1 (real data) to show that you are safer when law abiding citizens own guns, while the anti-gun people use method #2 to get you off balance and opportunistically effect elections and voting.

The horrible and highly televised mass shootings we have had in the U.S., have had no impact on the steadily decreasing gun related crime statistics.