Ot would we all be safer if everyone were armed?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 14, 2011 - 7:20am

Submitted by XBoxBoy on January 14, 2011 - 7:36am.

Archie Bunker said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

Submitted by harvey on January 14, 2011 - 8:24am.

Not much finesse in this troll.

But we'll probably get some takers.

Submitted by jpinpb on January 14, 2011 - 8:30am.

This should have been a poll. I used to think we'd be safe if NO one had guns. But that is naive. So I say, yes, everyone should have a gun. Only real way to protect yourself.

Or you can use a vacuum cleaner. I heard on the news some intruder got beat w/a vacuum cleaner. The lady was lucky. Actually, the guy was lucky, b/c in my house he probably wouldn't have survived to get arrested.

Submitted by sdduuuude on January 14, 2011 - 8:42am.

I have always said if you watned to create a really safe airline, it would be a requirement for everyone on the plane have a gun and know how to use it.

Submitted by sdrealtor on January 14, 2011 - 8:49am.

Sounds like a great idea. Then I'd just be certain to take the bus everytime.

Submitted by moneymaker on January 14, 2011 - 9:06am.

I think everyone that buys their first gun should be required to take a safety course. Kinda like riding a motorcycle, it can be dangerous without proper training. I'll bet most people don't know that using lead bullets can cause damage to a fully automatic weapon if not cleaned regularly. I suspect that in the near future guns will be heavily regulated or outlawed all together. P.S> I don't own any automatic weapons, but evidently it is now legal to buy them, just not in CA.

Submitted by Hobie on January 14, 2011 - 9:06am.

In public or your own property? In public, personal tasers would be better as I'm concerned with everyday folks shooting a pistol and not being able to hit their target. Within your home, your choice of lead.

Submitted by evolusd on January 14, 2011 - 9:33am.

If CA approved concealed carry permits or I moved to TX or AZ, I would carry without hesitation. Of course, stringent training and testing should be required and you should have to be squeaky clean to get the permit. Sure crazies will get through the cracks, but they'll find a black market to obtain guns anyway. Outlawing firearms just doesn't work - just look at the drug war as a comparison.

Criminals will always have guns - I just want a level playing field.

Submitted by jstoesz on January 14, 2011 - 9:39am.

I would like more people to own a gun, I think we would all be safer. But me personally, I am such an optimist (nothing bad will ever happen, and I am invincible besides) that I keep putting off the purchase. There are just too many cool things to buy for a few hundred bucks.

Submitted by desmond on January 14, 2011 - 10:01am.

jstoesz wrote:
I would like more people to own a gun, I think we would all be safer. But me personally, I am such an optimist (nothing bad will ever happen, and I am invincible besides) that I keep putting off the purchase. There are just too many cool things to buy for a few hundred bucks.

Ammunition for a handgun is what is getting expensive, February 1st, 2011, you will have to have a "face to face" transaction, and give a thumbprint (AB962) to buy handgun ammo in California. Thus out of state online retailers are in a battle to keep selling in CA. http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index....

Submitted by Djshakes on January 14, 2011 - 10:07am.

I can't watch the vid because it is blocked at work but I am an avid believer that gun laws only inhibit good citizens. In CA you have to pass a hand gun safety test and if you have a felony you can't own a gun. THIS IS GOOD! They also require a 10 hold period from purchase date to pickup for every gun you buy. This is a cooling off period. Sort of retarded if you already own a gun/guns. They also restrict what types of guns can be sold. Fully automatic...I can understand that. However, a majority of guns are not on the CA roster and can't be sold in CA. These guns are no different then similar guns on the roster. The reason is that a company has to pay the state of CA a fee to get each model they sell on the roster. It is basically a way for the state to extort money from these companies. It has nothing to do with safety. Because of this, a lot of companies basically give CA the bird and don't even ship here. They don't want to deal with our multitude of laws. Criminals will circumvent all these laws and it only hinders law abiding citizens.

Cities like Chicago do not allow guns in the city and they are some of the highest crime areas. Chicago has the most police officers in the country killed by gun fire. 1 in 89 residents become a victim of violent crimes.

It is the age old argument that guns don't kill people, people do. Blaming guns is like blaming alcohol for drunk driving. This country loves trying to take the responsibility away from the individual and placing it on something/someone else.

If you were a criminal would you rather rob a house in D.C., Chicago, CA (strict gun laws on citizens) or TX?

Submitted by NotCranky on January 14, 2011 - 10:06am.

Of the people I have observed to own guns for any purpose, I would rather at least 50% of them did not. I imagine the ratio is similar for the people who have guns but I don't know it.
Not sure I see how civilians owning guns is a sure defense against the government. They have bigger guns and perhaps half the armed civilians or more will take their side. We will always either have a government military or a military government anyway.I do agree though, that if guns are made illegal, then only the worst bastards will have them, the government and criminals.

Submitted by Djshakes on January 14, 2011 - 10:09am.

Rustico wrote:
Of the people I have observed to own guns for any purpose, I would rather at least 50% of them did not. I imagine the ratio is similar for the people who have guns but I don't know it.
Not sure I see how civilians owning guns is a sure defense against the government. They have bigger guns and perhaps half the armed civilians or more will take their side. We will always either have a government military or a military government anyway.I do agree though, that if guns are made illegal, then only the worst bastards will have them, the government and criminals.

I don't buy guns to fight against the government. Anyone with that mentality is retarded. Most people I know that own guns have them to protect their home. Sure, if we were attacked like the movie "red dawn" you might want to have a gun...but lets get realistic. That is what our military is for.

Submitted by blahblahblah on January 14, 2011 - 10:10am.

I think firearms should be illegal here just like in Mexico. Then we will be able to enjoy the same high levels of safety that the Mexican people have.

Submitted by NotCranky on January 14, 2011 - 10:15am.

Djshakes wrote:
Rustico wrote:
Of the people I have observed to own guns for any purpose, I would rather at least 50% of them did not. I imagine the ratio is similar for the people who have guns but I don't know it.
Not sure I see how civilians owning guns is a sure defense against the government. They have bigger guns and perhaps half the armed civilians or more will take their side. We will always either have a government military or a military government anyway.I do agree though, that if guns are made illegal, then only the worst bastards will have them, the government and criminals.

I don't buy guns to fight against the government. Anyone with that mentality is retarded.


I agree if you can't tell, but you hear it all time. I am not sure but I think it is floating around on a few pigg threads.

Submitted by Coronita on January 14, 2011 - 10:17am.

CONCHO wrote:
I think firearms should be illegal here just like in Mexico. Then we will be able to enjoy the same high levels of safety that the Mexican people have.

LOL.

Submitted by bubba99 on January 14, 2011 - 10:29am.

All of my coworkers, and many of my friends carry guns most of the time. My observations are that it really does not make them or society any safer. In fact it only makes a gun available to the first criminal who is strong enough to take it away.

Law enforcement officers (LEOs)are way too slow to shoot making them vulnerable to having their guns and lives taken. Non-LEOs are generally too slow and unskilled to be effective. And rarely do they take into account "whats behind the target". Making their using a gun dangerous to bystanders.

Many bad guys have spent years in prison studying how to disarm citizens, lifting weights and to attack with such speed that even the best trained armed people are at risk.

21 feet is the magic distance. A skilled criminal within 21 feet, can probably kill an armed person before he/she can draw and fire.

Submitted by jstoesz on January 14, 2011 - 10:39am.

That’s why people should only have shotguns…If the loser is dumb enough to mess with you, you don’t have to be very good at aiming. And as Cheney has proven, it is less than lethal at further distances…
So lets break out the gun racks and put a shotgun in every home and car!

Submitted by Djshakes on January 14, 2011 - 12:01pm.

bubba99 wrote:
All of my coworkers, and many of my friends carry guns most of the time. My observations are that it really does not make them or society any safer. In fact it only makes a gun available to the first criminal who is strong enough to take it away.

Law enforcement officers (LEOs)are way too slow to shoot making them vulnerable to having their guns and lives taken. Non-LEOs are generally too slow and unskilled to be effective. And rarely do they take into account "whats behind the target". Making their using a gun dangerous to bystanders.

Many bad guys have spent years in prison studying how to disarm citizens, lifting weights and to attack with such speed that even the best trained armed people are at risk.

21 feet is the magic distance. A skilled criminal within 21 feet, can probably kill an armed person before he/she can draw and fire.

Armed robber is taking hostages and making threats. I would rather take my chances that a bystander shoots them instead of waiting for my time in the execution line.

You underestimate gun owners that respect and fire their weapons regularly. I guarantee half of them shoot better than some fat donut eating cop...or worse yet, some mall cop.

Submitted by faterikcartman on January 14, 2011 - 12:44pm.

When the police and military ditch their guns then I'll consider the concept that they don't work for self defence.

Those who refuse to live by the sword are doomed to die at the hands of those that do.

If you refuse to take personal responsibility for the defence of yourself and your family you become the subject of someone else. In feudal times it was forbidden for serfs to bear weapons. And the ruling class stripped the excess production from them.

Beware creeping incrementalism. There is, and has been, a gradual chipping away at individual freedom. Each movement relatively small and couched in the language of "reasonableness". So that too few connect the dots and grasp the bigger picture.

There is a movement out there that wants to strip arms from the hands of the people. But not everyone. At the same time, from the same group, there are cries for increased armed security of politicians. Cries for the police to become even better armed. And this same cadre also cries that the "rich" don't need any more than anyone else. That their excess production should be stripped from them at the point of a gun and given into the hands of the ruling class to spend as they will.

Is your freedom worth the hand outs this ruling class will give you, stolen from the hands of your fellow citizens?

I'm reminded here and will mention the mandatory health insurance coverage mandated by Obamacare. Remember the debates about how they would justify the coercion? The latest word is that it would be a tax and enforcement of its collection would be in the hands of the IRS.

What happens when you refuse to pay your taxes? As I alluded to above, armed IRS agents will raid you. You will be tried. There is a likelihood you will be imprisoned. If you resist you will be shot. This is not hyperbole. This is fact which anyone here can verify.

So you may abort and murder your unborn child. No question -- it's your body, your choice. You may engage in unprotected anal sex with strangers helping to spread what we are told is a world-wide pandemic killing millions. That is your right to control your own body and your own choices and no one may stop you.

Yet the same group that champions these positions is now telling you that even if you are in perfect health and wish to gamble on health insurance because you need YOUR money to spend on other priorities of your choosing you may not argue it is your body and your choice, rather, you will pay or we will have you arrested and imprisoned for tax evasion and if you resist you will be shot.

On a daily basis I'm stunned that hardly anyone thinks things through. They spend their days rejecting anything one group says as propaganda, but blindly accepting anything the other group says as if the words came from God, to the prophets, and out the mouth of Keith Olbermann.

So they go on their merry way watching television until disaster is upon them. Whereupon they scratch their heads in disbelief wondering how things got to this point. And then petition the very same people who got them in trouble to bail them out.

So back to Archie Bunker. In 1938 Hitler passed a gun control act. The state had military type firearms to be sure. The Jews? Well, not so much. In 1968 the USA passed a gun control law that was strikingly similar. Today there are motivated people that would strip guns from everyone, not just the Jews.

It is at this point that people start to scoff. They tell themselves this can never happen here. That these are the words of the paranoid and malcontent. I submit that the naysayers are ignorant of the history of man and the fall of nations. I suspect they are completely unaware of the gun control measures that precipitated tyrannical regimes including Hitler's as mentioned above.

It is all too easy to fall for the soothing platitudes and "reasonable" measures when times are relatively good and the state seemingly benign. But the power you abdicate now, and authority you grant the state now, will set the stage for how things proceed when times are bad and the government malignant.

When you fellow man or the state wishes you ill and you've abdicated both your right and ability to defend yourself and your family you are dependent on the arms of others. And has another has said, for evil to win all that is necessary is for the good to do nothing. As history as shown, with enough gun control, even if the good are willing, they will fail if you take away their ability.

Submitted by Djshakes on January 14, 2011 - 12:51pm.

Djshakes wrote:

I don't buy guns to fight against the government. Anyone with that mentality is retarded.

I retract this after reading the last post, which was great. It is hard for anyone to make cries of "conspiracy nut" after ready fatericcartmen's post. To some, everyone that thinks that way is a conspiracy nut...until it happens.

Case and point. My buddy lives in Santa Monica surrounded by libs. A couple of his neighbors found out he had some guns and scoffed at him. Then the riots broke out and I believe Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton or someone said something to the regards of "The three B's are next". Meaning Brentwood, Beverly hills and another city in the area. This scared people. He told me those same snobby libs that scoffed at him now approached him fearful of the situation and said "You have guns, right?" FU was his response.

Submitted by all on January 14, 2011 - 12:51pm.

As you are leaving a bar where you had a few too many a guy with a gun in his hand approaches you and asks for your wallet. You saw French Connection and you like Gene Hackman, so you carry a gun attached to your ankle. What do you do?

I think easy access to guns makes us *feel* safer. In reality, it makes it easier for crazy people to shoot at congress people in Tuscon or kids around Carlsbad schools.

Submitted by NotCranky on January 14, 2011 - 1:05pm.

Djshakes wrote:
Djshakes wrote:

I don't buy guns to fight against the government. Anyone with that mentality is retarded.

I retract this after reading the last post, which was great. It is hard for anyone to make cries of "conspiracy nut" after ready fatericcartmen's post. To some, everyone that thinks that way is a conspiracy nut...until it happens.

Case and point. My buddy lives in Santa Monica surrounded by libs. A couple of his neighbors found out he had some guns and scoffed at him. Then the riots broke out and I believe Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton or someone said something to the regards of "The three B's are next". Meaning Brentwood, Beverly hills and another city in the area. This scared people. He told me those same snobby libs that scoffed at him now approached him fearful of the situation and said "You have guns, right?" FU was his response.


I think his post had some good points, but how is shooting a rioter the same as fighting the government with civilian legal guns?
As to your "you can die for all I care,because you were skeptical" buddy...what a piece of work.

Submitted by Djshakes on January 14, 2011 - 1:03pm.

captcha wrote:
As you are leaving a bar where you had a few too many a guy with a gun in his hand approaches you and asks for your wallet. You saw French Connection and you like Gene Hackman, so you carry a gun attached to your ankle. What do you do?

I think easy access to guns makes us *feel* safer. In reality, it makes it easier for crazy people to shoot at congress people in Tuscon or kids around Carlsbad schools.

TOTALLY! Because criminals obey guns laws just like all the other laws they are breaking.

We better restrict 99% of the population for the sake of the 1% that could be crazy.

To answer your other question, you give them the wallet. What moron is going to bend down and try to grab a gun with one pointing at him. I know you probably get your political view points from Hollywood but most people live in reality when it comes to situation like this. Do you also think that when someone gets punched it sounds like the movies? "Booom, crack, POW!"

Submitted by Djshakes on January 14, 2011 - 1:06pm.

Rustico wrote:
Djshakes wrote:
Djshakes wrote:

I don't buy guns to fight against the government. Anyone with that mentality is retarded.

I retract this after reading the last post, which was great. It is hard for anyone to make cries of "conspiracy nut" after ready fatericcartmen's post. To some, everyone that thinks that way is a conspiracy nut...until it happens.

Case and point. My buddy lives in Santa Monica surrounded by libs. A couple of his neighbors found out he had some guns and scoffed at him. Then the riots broke out and I believe Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton or someone said something to the regards of "The three B's are next". Meaning Brentwood, Beverly hills and another city in the area. This scared people. He told me those same snobby libs that scoffed at him now approached him fearful of the situation and said "You have guns, right?" FU was his response.


I think his post had some good points, but how is shooting a rioter the same as fighting the government with civilian legal guns?

It doesn't. I was emphasizing the point of people acting like toads in boiling water.

Submitted by Arraya on January 14, 2011 - 1:09pm.

faterikcartman wrote:

Those who refuse to live by the sword are doomed to die at the hands of those that do.

Jesus could not have said it better. Oh wait....Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Submitted by briansd1 on January 14, 2011 - 1:14pm.

How about asking if we would be safer if nobody was armed?

Yes, we would be safer, IMO.

Submitted by evolusd on January 14, 2011 - 1:55pm.

briansd1 wrote:
How about asking if we would be safer if nobody was armed?

Yes, we would be safer, IMO.

Sure, but is that realistic? Would we be better off without drugs in our society..you bet. But look how well outlawing drugs has worked.

Submitted by blahblahblah on January 14, 2011 - 1:59pm.

briansd1 wrote:
How about asking if we would be safer if nobody was armed?

Yes, we would be safer, IMO.

I agree 100% Brian. Fortunately we can go to Mexico to experience life in a place where firearms are illegal. I am so frightened from this horror in Tucson that I am fleeing to the safety of Tijuana. Guns are illegal there so I won't have to worry about a crazed psychotic shooting me at the Safeway. The next time I will post it will be en Español. Vaya con Dios, Amigos!

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on January 14, 2011 - 2:24pm.

CONCHO wrote:
briansd1 wrote:
How about asking if we would be safer if nobody was armed?

Yes, we would be safer, IMO.

I agree 100% Brian. Fortunately we can go to Mexico to experience life in a place where firearms are illegal. I am so frightened from this horror in Tucson that I am fleeing to the safety of Tijuana. Guns are illegal there so I won't have to worry about a crazed psychotic shooting me at the Safeway. The next time I will post it will be en Español. Vaya con Dios, Amigos!

How about instead of fighting over whether guns should be legal or illegal we should ask ourselves

(1) Why is it so hard to track guns and Ammo?
(2) Why is there no electronic national gun database to track guns used in crimes?
(3) Why do we need to keep semi-automatic weapons freely accessible? what rational purpose does an AK-47 serve in our society? (and please don't tell me BS about private militias - govt. has tanks for yout puny AK-47s.)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.