PDA

View Full Version : Realization hit about people who are anti-gun


Catheaven
03-03-2010, 3:04 PM
I have to vent. I belong to another forum which involves crafting. There is a thread going on there in one of the groups titled At Starbucks, Gun Owners Push Right To Bear Arms

I made the mistake of posting and expressing my views and got bombarded by this one woman. My first post was just stating I loved the statement: It's people who kill people not guns.

Well that just got me involved in quite the nasty discussion. I'll post a little of what went on.

Nasty woman's post:
So, should private citizens be able to own any sort of weapon, munition, or incindiary device, including things like fully functional tanks, land mines, surface to air rocket launchers, and jet fighters, then?

I mean, if it really is true that ď________ donít kill people, people kill people.Ē It should not matter one bit what we fill into that blank.

I asked you to address this rebuttal to your statement previously in this thread but you have yet to do so.

My post:

In regards to the statement you are waiting for me to answer on in all honesty I have not gone that far as to think if a private citizen owned the type of devices you speak of. Iíd like to see a private citizen to be able to acquire an item like that without the government or some type of agency finding out. All weapons (tanks, guns, jetfighters etc), ordinary everyday items bottom line( in my eyes) is that it still takes a private citizen (person) to push the button or drive the tank to make these weapons react just like it still takes a person to shove a pen through someone, smashing someone over the head with a baseball bat etc. This is why i believe in this statement. . Iím open to reading an article or any type of literature which may show a different view as long as itís presented in a way to me that is open, polite, and not making me feel wrong as to what my belief is.

Nasty woman:
In regards to the statement you are waiting for me to answer on in all honesty I have not gone that far as to think if a private citizen owned the type of devices you speak of. Iíd like to see a private citizen to be able to acquire an item like that without the government or some type of agency finding out.

Really?

You honestly think it would be perfectly OK for private citizens to own fully functional military munitions, tanks with canons, flame throwers, jet fighters with missiles, land mines, surface to air rocket launchers, cluster bombs and daisy cutters, mortar rounds, anti-tank rifles, and all kinds of military ordnance?

Iíll give you props for being consistent but I have to say that this kind of world sounds like a really, really terrible place to live.

All weapons (tanks, guns, jetfighters etc), ordinary everyday items bottom line( in my eyes) is that it still takes a private citizen (person) to push the button or drive the tank to make these weapons react just like it still takes a person to shove a pen through someone, smashing someone over the head with a baseball bat etc. This is why i believe in this statement.

The point I am making is that all weapons are not the same.

Some are exponentially more deadly than others, and that is why we disallow people from owning the sorts of things that are specifically designed to kill lots of people very efficiently from a distance, like, you know, bombs.

I donít know about you, but I think my chances of surviving an attack from someone wielding a ballpoint pen is quite a lot higher than an attack from someone with a flame thrower.

Do you seriously expect anybody to take seriously the idea that a ballpoint pen is just as deadly as a flame thrower?
End posts

Anyways I'm actually pretty appalled and some of the opinions of these women and the way they express themselves. I'd say on that thread there are 98% anti and 2% pro so it made for quite the miserable forum posting. Her tone just didn't set well with me. This is only a taste of what she's posting. She's going after the other gals who are pro gun even worse. I guess I shouldn't be amazed at this type of response.
Sorry so long :o

Colt-45
03-03-2010, 3:40 PM
pro-gun women after her!!:63::61:

Give her a piece of you mind.

POLICESTATE
03-03-2010, 3:44 PM
Tell that ***** to turn in all her steak knives, butter knives, SCISSORS, her cars, any tools, pencils too (thanks to The Joker for showing us that disappearing pencil trick in Batman Dark Knight), and anything else that anyone could conceivably use as a weapon, and she should probably seriously consider getting a locking device for her hands since those can kill people too if they have a mind to do it.

I have no patience for the lazy-minded, they are half the reason this country is the way it is these days.

DRH
03-03-2010, 5:11 PM
As of 2006, there were over 391,000 machine gun listed in the NFA registry that are in private hands. Since 1934 only one NFA registered machine gun has been involved in a crime. Countless tanks, grenade launchers and flame throwers are also legally owned by private citizens with the proper tax stamp from Uncle Sam. You do not hear about these weapons being used to harm people because they are owned by collectors who are good people that would not even think about using them as a weapon against another person. Those that would use a weapon illegally are not concerned about laws that pertain to weapons being legal. Ask her how she would go about removing the illegal weapons from those that do not follow the rule of law and would not think twice about killing someone? (Hint, saying pretty please is not going to work)

Catheaven
03-03-2010, 7:25 PM
That's exactly what i told her to but she's dead set about flame throwers, tanks, and just not grasping the concept that it's the person behind the "weapon" that is causing that "weapon" to react.

O she's still bashing another poor lady over there.

I just honestly didn't realize how ignorant some people can be. I'm new to the world of guns but I'm educating myself.

I'm not being biased but the majority of women over there are just so snarky and rude. In my eyes that says a lot about those that are so anti-gun.

OneApart
03-03-2010, 7:32 PM
It's not would we, it's if we could....

heyjak
03-03-2010, 7:35 PM
Easy answer to all of this: "You can't argue common sense issues with morons"

Cokebottle
03-03-2010, 7:39 PM
Do you seriously expect anybody to take seriously the idea that a ballpoint pen is just as deadly as a flame thrower?

"Would you be any less dead from a ballpoint pen through the aorta?"

Catheaven
03-03-2010, 7:48 PM
Just to show the attitude radiating from this woman here's another post. Note the italics are what she's responding to from another poster who is pro gun

That is the intentional taking of a life, by children and young adults deemed responsible enough to drive and for the 18-19 year olds, old enough to vote and legally be considered an adult. I have a hard time seeing how that data supports your claim that firearms safety education doesn’t work.

First, why are you ignoring the data on accidental deaths? You know - the most relevant data? Simply ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.

Second, the additional data on homicides, etc. shows that the accidental deaths by guns are also part of a larger trend - that all gun related deaths, accidental and otherwise have been declining.

Is that group of 4-7 year olds even a large enough or broad enough sampling of the population to be considered “statistically significant?”

Yes, the study does show a statistically significant change in verbal behavior, and supervised behavior (the full report is available as a pdf). It also shows no difference in unsupervised behavior. You are free to suspect that some other group of kids would show different results, but that’s just your speculation. What research that does exist does not support that speculation.

The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn’t to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children.

Right. The NRA wants parents to believe that Eddie Eagle is an effective program that promotes the protection and safety of children by teaching them to not handle guns that they find. The studies I’ve found which directly test the effectiveness of that desired outcome does not support the claim that Eddie Eagle is, in fact, effective.

I mean, I don’t understand why you posted this quote from the NRA about Eddie Eagle. Are you trying to say that the NRA doesn’t promote the idea that the program is effective?

Firearms related deaths are down. Access to firearms in general has not gone down. Firearms safety education must play a role in this trend.

Why? Why “must” it? Just assuming you’re right isn’t an argument. In contrast, I have gone to the data. The data that does exist contradicts your statement or at the very least doesn’t support it. I am happy to look at any data that actually supports your assertion. I’d be thrilled, actually, if good data showed that such programs worked exceedingly well.

Firearms sales actually increased significantly during that same period, while firearms related deaths continued to trend downward.

Provide your data please. If we’re going to be serious about analyzing trends in guns deaths, gun sales, gun restrictions, etc., you’ve got to hold up your end on the numbers, too.

Every new firearm sold in America comes with an owners manual with a ton of safety warnings

Oh yeah. Warnings in instruction manuals. EVERYONE reads those! LOL. Really, I have no idea what point you’re making.

Huge numbers of guns are NOT sold new, and don’t come with those warnings, anyway. Not that I think that makes a bit of difference either way.

Can you tell now, without looking, what the written warnings are for your lawn mower? Your exercise equipment? Your car? Have you read all of those, shared them with your children, etc? Or do you rely on common sense, and don’t really know for sure what’s in the manuals?

diginit
03-03-2010, 7:52 PM
Got Rocks? Sticks? Tell the dumb B that there are directions on how to make a $10 zip gun that shoots glass, nails, or anything else you want to put in it available online. All in 1 trip to Home Depo. I'd rather be shot with a bullet than a pipe full of glass! WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST THIS CRIMINAL ONSLAUGHT! Send to her to this post and she may get a clue. But she has to have a brain in order to understand. CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. Ask her if she knows how easy it is for a criminal to make a bomb from items from the grocery store. and that all the recent shootings where 10 or so people were killed ALL happened in NO GUN ZONES where the assailant knew they would have NO opposition. DUH.

TheMan
03-03-2010, 8:01 PM
flamethrowers are agricultural equipment, and can be bought/sold unlicensed, without any paperwork. It's been this way forever. Ask her how many drive by barbequings this has resulted in?

daveinwoodland
03-03-2010, 8:02 PM
Ask her if she believes that the fork, knife and spoon are then responsible for a person's weight?

Catheaven
03-03-2010, 8:38 PM
Ahh I love calguns.

Thanks everyone for making me feel better and to stick by my beliefs.

ttt712
03-03-2010, 8:40 PM
flamethrowers are agricultural equipment, and can be bought/sold unlicensed, without any paperwork. It's been this way forever. Ask her how many drive by barbequings this has resulted in?


Here you go! $268 let the drive by BBQ'ing begin!!!

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Dragon-BP-2512-SVC/dp/B000NI7PQG/ref=sr_1_1/182-3634808-7820954?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1267681079&sr=1-1

LOL!

daveinwoodland
03-03-2010, 8:52 PM
Ahh I love calguns.

Thanks everyone for making me feel better and to stick by my beliefs.
We'll always have your back. You can count on that.

mosinnagantm9130
03-03-2010, 8:59 PM
I lol'd at the part about "fighter jets"

You should tell her to go to the Reno air races. Pretty sure that the F-86 that is there occasionally ( privately owned, I may add ) qualifies as a "fighter jet".

I also notice she makes no mention of bomber aircraft, so I guess I could own a B-52 and it would be cool with her....

masameet
03-03-2010, 9:40 PM
catheaven, so are you saying you want to learn how to argue better online?

The gal who you say is nasty doesn't seem to come across as a nasty person to me. She just seems to be someone who can argue because she is convinced that weapons of destruction are bad.

Besides, beyond me, it appears only guys have responded in this Ladies forum thread. Honestly I wish that threads addressed to ladies would mostly be answered by us females.

Josh3239
03-03-2010, 9:52 PM
If you ask me, we shouldn't even be playing that game. This is a method the anti-gunners use to cloud the issue. That issue is gun rights. When they can lop gun-rights in with land mines, jet fighters, nukes or whatever sound evil you already sound like a crazy person. DO NOT PLAY THAT GAME. You say that the issue is gun rights, nothing else.

But since you already started playing the game anyways you mind as well have some fun with her. Here is a list of other things that should be banned because it has killed people; bathtubs, hospitals, vending machines, knives, pools, motor vehicles, walk in freezers, scuba diving, latex, tall buildings, billiard balls, windows, ladders, pepper spray, etc, etc

It's people who kill people not guns.

Well that just got me involved in quite the nasty discussion. I'll post a little of what went on.

Nasty woman's post:
So, should private citizens be able to own any sort of weapon, munition, or incindiary device, including things like fully functional tanks, land mines, surface to air rocket launchers, and jet fighters, then?

I mean, if it really is true that ď________ donít kill people, people kill people.Ē It should not matter one bit what we fill into that blank.

Catheaven
03-03-2010, 11:21 PM
Masameet-
I can't argue the points/facts well enough yet as I am just now learning and educating myself which is why I am not confident enough yet to be able to quote statistics and cases etc. I am learning though :)

I've just posted snippets of some of her points. There are many other posts she's put out where the tone is just degrading to those differ in her opinion. I will give her props that she can argue her case well. I even touched on that with her but she doesn't acknowledge. As with any touchy subject you aren't going to change someones mind if that is what they truly believe.

I posted here in the ladies forum only b/c I am new and felt a bit more comfortable putting this thread here rather than the general gun discussion thread.

Catheaven
03-03-2010, 11:23 PM
If you ask me, we shouldn't even be playing that game. This is a method the anti-gunners use to cloud the issue. That issue is gun rights. When they can lop gun-rights in with land mines, jet fighters, nukes or whatever sound evil you already sound like a crazy person. DO NOT PLAY THAT GAME. You say that the issue is gun rights, nothing else.



Ahh I didn't realize that about that statement. Now I can see why she threw that statement in there about all the other stuff. Thank you for educating me:)

masameet
03-04-2010, 12:04 AM
Well, maybe what you're doing is focusing too much on her tone rather than on her points. Besides, to me anyway she seems to go off on tangents and indulge a tad too much on hyperbole. So maybe instead of reacting to what you think she is implying (like "I'm smarter than you! Ha-ha-ha"), respond only to some of her points that you can rebut. She seems to be relying on information that she does not support with actual facts/statistics. So her replies come off as attacks, and that bothers you. And most likely she is Googling her answers. Which obviously you can do too. It only take a few seconds to plunk in some words and get thousands of hits. Then it takes some time to read and digest the info and come up with an adequate response. Really, I truly think it is a mistake to answer point-by-point. Because then you're playing a defensive game to her attacking. Like some people say, Choose your battles. In online debating, I think that also means choosing what you want to say and arming yourself with enough information to be effectively convincing.

And because you are a female, brainwashed an early age to be nice, decide how much being nice online you have to be. For sure, in real life you have a voice, so why can't you have one online too? Present logical arguments, sprinkle liberally some of your personality into the mix, and have fun saying what you want to say. If need be, find somebody(ies) on Calguns whose style of rhetoric you admire, analyze what makes their writing convincing, and adopt a similar tone that still meets your standard of appropriate niceness.

And honestly I don't know much about RKBA, etc. Plus I'm still learning how to shoot. So I read what other Calgunners have posted (really, separating the good stuff from the FUD is a constant effort here lol) and try to let that info gel in my brain. Have to admit not much of that stuff has settled deep into my gray matter yet. lol

Plus serious stuff happens in real life, not on the internet. Being a female I know how easy it is for us to take things personally -- when we really shouldn't.

diginit
03-04-2010, 6:43 PM
You may want to bring up the fact that violent crimes have risen 400% in England since they banned guns and 450% in Austrailia since the ban. Canada is most likely going to repeal their ban since most citizens refused to comply with the law. It has been proven to be a 2 million dollar overature for their government and did not solve one single issue on violent crime. It only made criminals of honest citizens that felt the need to defend themselves against the true criminal element.

gravedigger
03-04-2010, 6:59 PM
You fell into her trap! I can't type a long response on this iPhone but I will respond later tonight. You need to prevent brain dead liberals from taking you down the Road to Absurdity.

yacqueli
03-09-2010, 12:11 AM
Stuff like this is so infuriating to me. A lot of the time I just remove myself from the issue because if I don't, I will just take something some random anti-gun woman said online personally and get even more angry. Props to you for sticking up for yourself, and now you have tips to better your arguments and how to keep the topic narrowed instead of broad. Good luck!

five.five-six
03-09-2010, 12:44 AM
or you could bring up that in tel-ave last year there were 3 gun involved murders, and everyone has a gun, it's about the same sized city as chicago

Mike's Custom
03-09-2010, 1:25 AM
The only thing I can say is, you do not check your Constitutional Rights at the door when you enter public property. Any store open to the public, all public, is bound by the Constitution. A store, or public park or any other place that is open to the general public can not restrict anyone for their political views, religion, ethnic back ground or because they are open carrying or legally concealed carrying firearm. It is a Constitutional right.

Yeah yeah yeah, the Supreme Court will decide if it applies to states but we all knoiw the Consitution applies to the Citizens of These United States of America.

AJAX22
03-09-2010, 4:21 AM
You honestly think it would be perfectly OK for private citizens to own fully functional military munitions, tanks with canons, flame throwers, jet fighters with missiles, land mines, surface to air rocket launchers, cluster bombs and daisy cutters, mortar rounds, anti-tank rifles, and all kinds of military ordnance?

Tanks are fully legal to own, and with a $200 tax stamp you can get them with a live cannon.

Fighter Jets are similarly legal.... and there are no prohibitions against owning bombs/daisy cutters ordnance etc... you simply need to pay a $200 tax stamp on each one.

Flame throwers are considered agricultural appliances and are not regulated what so ever (outside of CA)...

For 250K I can get you a T72 with all the trimmings. for $200K I can get you a T66A2.

And no, I don't see a problem with people owning whatever the heck they want.... there are LOTS of things in this world with the potential to be abused (*cough* 911 *cough*) but that doesn't mean I feel that restricting the freedoms of those who are not inclined to do harm is the answer.

Nukes are a strange subset of ordinance.... as they are the modern mechanism by which our society conveys sovereignty upon a nation state...

essentially once you have one, you are no longer a subject, you are a sovereign... and that gets into some heavy philosophical issues.

Cokebottle
03-09-2010, 5:24 PM
Fighter Jets are similarly legal.
Yes and no.
A private citizen (even a museum) cannot have a fighter that is on the currently active roster unless it is rendered not airworthy (spars are cut so a takeoff attempt will rip the wings off).
There may be exceptions for trainers such as the T38 and T45.

Grassninja
03-09-2010, 6:17 PM
You stated: "It's people who kill people not guns. "

She retorts with: 'I mean, if it really is true that “________ don’t kill people, people kill people.” It should not matter one bit what we fill into that blank.'

Yet she also goes on to say: "The point I am making is that all weapons are not the same."

Given that the above is true, she invalidates her own argument. She cannot argue that it should not matter which weapon fills in the blank if she later goes on to say all weapons are not the same. Her logic is flawed, and her argument sucks.

Tell her to try again. ;)

AJAX22
03-09-2010, 6:49 PM
Yes and no.
A private citizen (even a museum) cannot have a fighter that is on the currently active roster unless it is rendered not airworthy (spars are cut so a takeoff attempt will rip the wings off).
There may be exceptions for trainers such as the T38 and T45.

There are ways around that if you're well financed.

Let me know if you're looking to fund that sort of project ;) It can be made to happen.

PzKfW
03-09-2010, 6:53 PM
If I may suggest one possible, reasonable argument:

Scenario 1)
A large man surprises and attacks you one night as you walk alone to your car. You are armed with a knife, and now you must use your knife to avoid getting raped and/or killed.

Scenario 2)
A large man surprises and attacks you one night as you walk alone to your car. You are armed with a handgun, and now you must use your gun to avoid getting raped and/or killed.

Ask her which scenario she'd rather be in. Then ask her which situation she would rather have her daughter be in. A gun is an equalizer, no more deadly than a knife, sometimes less. But with a gun, a woman can defend herself from a man...

Cokebottle
03-09-2010, 7:13 PM
There are ways around that if you're well financed.

Let me know if you're looking to fund that sort of project ;) It can be made to happen.
<drooling>

I'd love to have an F/A-18 parked out at Chino :43:

SixPointEight
03-09-2010, 7:19 PM
Yes and no.
A private citizen (even a museum) cannot have a fighter that is on the currently active roster unless it is rendered not airworthy (spars are cut so a takeoff attempt will rip the wings off).
There may be exceptions for trainers such as the T38 and T45.

Well, what if it's been decommissioned, is it legal to own fully functional? That would be awesome!

Cokebottle
03-09-2010, 7:36 PM
Well, what if it's been decommissioned, is it legal to own fully functional? That would be awesome!
If it is no longer on the active duty roster (and wasn't crippled during the time it was mothballed), the size of your checkbook is the limit.
So ya... any of the "century series" and older fighters would be available, F4, A4... have they completely decommissioned the Tomcat yet? :)


But I don't think you're going to find any B58's in flyable condition ;)

Brasspolisher
03-09-2010, 8:46 PM
have they completely decommissioned the Tomcat yet? :)

But I don't think you're going to find any B58's in flyable condition ;)


Tomcat's a special case, since we sold some to the Shah of Iran. DoD banned sales of parts when the House passed legislation in '07 (not sure if it ever came up for Senate vote, but the policy makes the legislation moot).

If you don't mind flying a different brand, try here: http://www.prideaircraft.com/flanker.htm They have two SU-27s for sale (no price listed on the site but an article in Pacific Flyer says $5MM each)

B58 would be fun, but you'd have to maintain a set-aside fund for broken windows in the neighborhood of each takeoff! ;-)

Apologies for threadjack...

SixPointEight
03-09-2010, 9:13 PM
If it is no longer on the active duty roster (and wasn't crippled during the time it was mothballed), the size of your checkbook is the limit.
So ya... any of the "century series" and older fighters would be available, F4, A4... have they completely decommissioned the Tomcat yet? :)


But I don't think you're going to find any B58's in flyable condition ;)

That's fine, I'm pretty fond of the F-4s. Though, an SU-27 would be pretty awesome

PzKfW
03-09-2010, 9:44 PM
oh come on guys, this is her thread

hnoppenberger
03-09-2010, 10:23 PM
all the more reason we should keep everything out of the eye sight of the sheep. ignorance is their bliss.

groats
03-26-2010, 8:55 AM
The only thing that will work is to turn their argument back on them.

"I hope all you're saying is that if YOU had a gun, YOU would kill someone.
If so, I'm sorry you are so unable to control your emotions.

If you're talking about ME, that is an outrageous insult.
If you're talking about everyone who owns a gun, then you are stereotyping.

Do you also think all black people are lazy and on welfare?
Women are inferior to men?
I'll bet you do."

GP3
03-26-2010, 8:59 AM
The shoulder thing that goes up.

Sicarius
03-26-2010, 3:22 PM
The shoulder thing that goes up.

lol. Classic.

More times than not. A person doesn't trust another person to own a firearm because they don't trust themselves with one.... Just my observation.
Kevin