• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Why not get rid of the 'arms locker' ad?

Which points of Gregg's are valid? What exactly were Gregg's points, beyond him not liking the ad placement here?

I am always ready for a goodhearted debate on nearly any subject, but you have to narrow it down a bit first, don't you think? Gregg passes through here after about three months' worth of absence, takes a pot shot at us (pun intended), then disappears. How is that a "point"?
 
Oh, something else to add.

Somewhere in this thread someone stated that we ar "So focused on our guns". That, in my opinion is just the highest profile right that I defend. Another, that we might all have in common is the right to keep and raise corn snakes. There are those that believe it is wrong and are fighting to remove that from us also.

That is one reason I stand so fast in my own defense, where will they stop? Next I'll be told meat is illegal and I have to follow the dietary plan of the Gov. You may scoff at that but they are out there and fighting to do just those things.

Do not give up your nieghbors rights so easily, yours will surely be next!
 
Darin, ...

I'll add one more thing and step aside:

I suppose Greg's bottom line was that gun ownership can be misplaced toughness. A macho thing.
I think his point is valid-meaning it should be completely considered before accepting or discarding.
I think that in many cases he is correct, and in as many cases he is incorrect. Its like if someone says that cops are bullies.
The point is valid in that some are. However, some are the complete opposite.
In any case, I'm one of those people who try to see both sides of an argument before making up my mind.
In this case, I don't own a gun, but have used them, and respect the hell out of them.
 
Shaky,

You write above, "I suppose Greg's bottom line was that gun ownership can be misplaced toughness. A macho thing."

With that, I can agree, both that this seems to be one of his "arguments" and that this is true as a general principle. There definitely ARE people who buy guns for the purpose of making them feel tougher than they actually are, or to enhance their odd perceptions of what makes one macho.

However, I would only ask, "Do not many buy cars for the same reasons?" "Are there not many who drive erratically and irresponsibly so they can 'show off' their masculinity in some way?"

Given that there are so many, MANY more people killed each year with automobiles than with guns, and that car ownership does not even have a BASIS for specific Constitutional protection, why would anyone go after gun ownership instead of car ownership, if the real problems were those expressed by Gregg and cited by your assessment of his argumentation? That just doesn't make sense to me; does it to you?

You also wrote, "In any case, I'm one of those people who try to see both sides of an argument before making up my mind." Me too. I never like to make up my mind until I have all the facts of the situation at my disposal. However, BECAUSE I do that, when I have made up my mind, I am hard to convince otherwise. Gregg's assertions/condescentions/personal attacks certainly bear no weight as evidence that I have made a faulty decision on this issue; that's for certain.
 
I would just like to say, as someone who has been mugged (and knifed), that a gun is effectively the only way that a potential victim of crime can protect their safety, especially when confronted with multiple attackers. The gun often doesn't have to be fired, just shown.

As a European, I am a great admirer of the American right to bear arms, one which unfortunately liberals have removed in Britain, along with the right to self-defense. The result, of course, is a rocketing rate of violent crime.

As for comparisons of crime rates, I note that the majority of American crime occurs in the inner city ghettoes, and a large proportion of that is gang related. The suburbs are much safer. In Europe, by contrast, everybody lives on top of each other and unless you are rich you cannot move away from crime.

I felt far safer in San Francisco than London.


Books:
Joyce Malcolm "Guns and Crime, The English Experience"
John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top