CDZ Do those who push gun control think there are no actual threats?

2aguy

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2014
111,977
52,256
2,290
This is a study by a german group that found....amazingly.....that the primary driver of gun ownership is fear....of criminals.....and that in order to push gun control and disarming gun owners, there will need to be a way to erase this fear of criminals from the gun owner's mind.......

Now the question......do left wing, anti-gunners think there is no such thing as violent criminal attack? Or governments that murder their own people? And this, coming from a German......do they teach German history in German schools?

So.....as one response to the article pointed out.....is buying a fire extinguisher, car insurance, home insurance teaching kids stop, drop and roll....are they acts of fear, or acts of intelligence...?

New Study: Handgun Owners Are Motivated By Fear - The Truth About Guns

“New research finds the strongest motivation to buy handguns is the vague but deeply held perception that we live in a dangerous world,” psmag.com reports. Huh. Who’d a guessed it?

Ah, but the troika of academics behind Is It a Dangerous World Out There?: The Motivational Bases of American Gun Ownership reckon that handgun buyers are motivated by “two distinct impulses.”

Which would be “the specific perceived threat of assault, and a diffuse threat of a dangerous world.” So it’s the difference between that guy might try to kill me vs. someone might try to kill me. Guess which one’s the stronger of the two?

A research team led by University of Groningen psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe [not shown] reports that second, vague notion of potential peril is the stronger of the two—and the one most resistant to rethinking.

Wait. Who said that handgun owners need to stop thinking they live in a dangerous world? Why would they want to do that? Oh right.

Someone who doesn’t want Americans to keep and bear handguns! ‘Cause if they “rethought” their world view, seeing the world for the unicorn pooping rainbows place that it really is, they’d stop buying and carrying handguns and the world would be safer!

Yeah, not buying it.

“This [resistance] could make it difficult to conduct persuasion campaigns aimed at dissuading handgun owners of the need to own a gun (or support limitations on gun ownership),” they write. That’s because “a broader system of beliefs about the nature of the social world, and what people are like, is extremely difficult to influence.”

Not to go all Godwin’s Law, but perhaps Goebbels‘ ghost would like to opine on how anti-gunners could “influence” gun owners’ “broader system of beliefs about the nature of the social world” to convince handgun owners to surrender their firearms or make it exceedingly difficult for a civilian to own one?

No matter how you look at it, this particular piece of academic anti-gun animus is a special blend of stupid and scary. Which is why the Huffington Post was on it like Scott Diseck on anything female. Their story New Study Says Fear of Crime, Danger Drives American Handgun Ownership is helpfully sub-headed Handgun owners are more fearful of crime, even when it is unlikely.

“While the primary goal of the research is to serve as a building block for further study, Stroebe does think there’s some practical application. ‘If we want to help people conquer their fears, we have to recognize that a sense of threat can have multiple layers and each layer may have to be addressed separately,’ he said.”
 
Oh, I would have shot something last week had I had my gun with me. Turned out for the best I did not, but I would if it happened again.

You nailed the hand gun reason.

I'm back to to thinking all guns need their ballistics logged and owner information split between the NRA, the ACLU and some group against the Patriot Act and DHS where the government has to get a warrent to obtain it.
 
Oh, I would have shot something last week had I had my gun with me. Turned out for the best I did not, but I would if it happened again.

You nailed the hand gun reason.

I'm back to to thinking all guns need their ballistics logged and owner information split between the NRA, the ACLU and some group against the Patriot Act and DHS where the government has to get a warrent to obtain it.


That is exactly the thinking the Germans used in the 1920s......they needed to register guns and their owners for public safety.....and the German government assured the people that the information would be kept safe....then the nazis came to power in the 30s and used those records to round up the guns of their political enemies and the Jews.....

The government should not have access to those records.....neither should the ACLU, one of the biggest anti-gun rights groups out there, and even the NRA...no one needs to know who owns your gun.......we already have laws that state you cannot use a gun to commit an actual crime...so if you use a gun to commit a crime, you can already be arrested for it....

Keeping records of gun owners....is simply setting up future banning and confiscation...no matter who has the records.

Check out the Book....Gun Control in the 3rd Reich....

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GL9OBY0/?tag=ff0d01-20
 
Oh, I would have shot something last week had I had my gun with me. Turned out for the best I did not, but I would if it happened again.

You nailed the hand gun reason.

I'm back to to thinking all guns need their ballistics logged and owner information split between the NRA, the ACLU and some group against the Patriot Act and DHS where the government has to get a warrent to obtain it.


I am curious....what would logging the ballistics do? Since guns used in crime are acquired illegally....and have a street life of about 9 years before they are found by police....how would knowing who the original owner is solve a crime.....used by a criminal who isn't the original owner?
 
Now the question......do left wing, anti-gunners think there is no such thing as violent criminal attack? Or governments that murder their own people? And this, coming from a German......do they teach German history in German schools?

Okay, the thing is, we've been over this.

yes, there are violent criminals. But the chances of having the presence of mind to fend off an attack are slim. That crook went out with the intent to commit a crime that day. The gunowner didn't. Unless he's a George Zimmerman type who is just a tragedy looking for a place to happen. .

And governments will always have more guns, more tanks, more planes. In fact, 40% of gun sales in this country are to government agencies.
 
Now the question......do left wing, anti-gunners think there is no such thing as violent criminal attack? Or governments that murder their own people? And this, coming from a German......do they teach German history in German schools?

Okay, the thing is, we've been over this.

yes, there are violent criminals. But the chances of having the presence of mind to fend off an attack are slim. That crook went out with the intent to commit a crime that day. The gunowner didn't. Unless he's a George Zimmerman type who is just a tragedy looking for a place to happen. .

And governments will always have more guns, more tanks, more planes. In fact, 40% of gun sales in this country are to government agencies.

Yes...we have been over this, and each time we go over this you are wrong.

Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year, according to bill clinton and barak obama, to stop violent criminal attack. So you are just wrong...consdering the actual incidents the owners who use their guns to stop the attacks usually have little to no training and are not Navy Seals or Delta Force level pistol users.
 
Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year, according to bill clinton and barak obama, to stop violent criminal attack. So you are just wrong...consdering the actual incidents the owners who use their guns to stop the attacks usually have little to no training and are not Navy Seals or Delta Force level pistol users.

Except every time we ask ou to list cases, it's usually off duty police or military.

Oh, the FBI says that the number is closer to 47K, which sounds far more plausible.
 
While there may be threats to your safety when in public perhaps if you stayed out of republican areas there would be less crime for you to worry about. As for this government taking all the firearms in the public domain think again.
 
Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year, according to bill clinton and barak obama, to stop violent criminal attack. So you are just wrong...consdering the actual incidents the owners who use their guns to stop the attacks usually have little to no training and are not Navy Seals or Delta Force level pistol users.

Except every time we ask ou to list cases, it's usually off duty police or military.

Oh, the FBI says that the number is closer to 47K, which sounds far more plausible.


And you just lied......the FBI counts bodies...they don't do actual research. I list the studies over and over and even list the studies that do not include police and military......and then you come here and lie.....as a typical left wing, anti gunner....
 
While there may be threats to your safety when in public perhaps if you stayed out of republican areas there would be less crime for you to worry about. As for this government taking all the firearms in the public domain think again.


The heaviest crime areas are not, in fact, Republican.....they are democrat controlled cities.....with democrat controlled areas of those cities having the highest murder and crime rates....

Please do some research, then post....
 
Do we have to assume there is a constant and imminent threat to want guns for all? And if we do assume that such a threat exists, does that, or does that not effect our thinking on when and where gunplay is appropriate?

Personally, I do not feel threatened. Consequently I do not think a gun is a safe, appropriate or viable action to take. Perhaps your circumstances are different. I hope not. For to think your life hangs on such a slender thread must be emotionally exhausting. To live with such paranoia must push away every other consideration.
 
Oh, I would have shot something last week had I had my gun with me. Turned out for the best I did not, but I would if it happened again.

You nailed the hand gun reason.

I'm back to to thinking all guns need their ballistics logged and owner information split between the NRA, the ACLU and some group against the Patriot Act and DHS where the government has to get a warrent to obtain it.


I am curious....what would logging the ballistics do? Since guns used in crime are acquired illegally....and have a street life of about 9 years before they are found by police....how would knowing who the original owner is solve a crime.....used by a criminal who isn't the original owner?

Because it would tell us who sold it illegally.

We can do this two ways. We can fight the power of big government and repeal all the Patriot Act type oversteps like a bunch of hippies or we can protect our rights.

I see no movement in the Tea Coalition or whoever voted to protect our rights so...

Lets try to do this right instead of giving up on the grounds my shotgun or my buddy's AK are going to make a difference against the National Guard. (Speaking of balistics lol)
 
Oh, I would have shot something last week had I had my gun with me. Turned out for the best I did not, but I would if it happened again.

You nailed the hand gun reason.

I'm back to to thinking all guns need their ballistics logged and owner information split between the NRA, the ACLU and some group against the Patriot Act and DHS where the government has to get a warrent to obtain it.


I am curious....what would logging the ballistics do? Since guns used in crime are acquired illegally....and have a street life of about 9 years before they are found by police....how would knowing who the original owner is solve a crime.....used by a criminal who isn't the original owner?

Because it would tell us who sold it illegally.

We can do this two ways. We can fight the power of big government and repeal all the Patriot Act type oversteps like a bunch of hippies or we can protect our rights.

I see no movement in the Tea Coalition or whoever voted to protect our rights so...

Lets try to do this right instead of giving up on the grounds my shotgun or my buddy's AK are going to make a difference against the National Guard. (Speaking of balistics lol)


Actually, no, it doesn't. The people who straw buy report the gun stolen. Or the gun is actually stolen. So either way the gun has no connection to the original owner when it is used in a crime and eventually found...9 years later...which is the average life on the street of an illegal gun.......
 
Do we have to assume there is a constant and imminent threat to want guns for all? And if we do assume that such a threat exists, does that, or does that not effect our thinking on when and where gunplay is appropriate?

Personally, I do not feel threatened. Consequently I do not think a gun is a safe, appropriate or viable action to take. Perhaps your circumstances are different. I hope not. For to think your life hangs on such a slender thread must be emotionally exhausting. To live with such paranoia must push away every other consideration.

And neither do gun owners who choose to carry a gun for self defense. There is no paranoia, the same way there is no paranoia when they buckle their seat belt, put on their helmet for the motorcycle, or put in an alarm system for the home.....there is an understanding, without any more emotion than carrying a cell phone, that some people are the victim of violent crimes....and those victims never know when or where it will happen. The gun is of no more concern than the cell phone, or the wallet for the gun owner........

You guys are the ones who actually obsess about guns.......and live in fear of guns that you never see, or know are being carried right under your noses....
 
Oh, I would have shot something last week had I had my gun with me. Turned out for the best I did not, but I would if it happened again.

You nailed the hand gun reason.

I'm back to to thinking all guns need their ballistics logged and owner information split between the NRA, the ACLU and some group against the Patriot Act and DHS where the government has to get a warrent to obtain it.


I am curious....what would logging the ballistics do? Since guns used in crime are acquired illegally....and have a street life of about 9 years before they are found by police....how would knowing who the original owner is solve a crime.....used by a criminal who isn't the original owner?

Because it would tell us who sold it illegally.

We can do this two ways. We can fight the power of big government and repeal all the Patriot Act type oversteps like a bunch of hippies or we can protect our rights.

I see no movement in the Tea Coalition or whoever voted to protect our rights so...

Lets try to do this right instead of giving up on the grounds my shotgun or my buddy's AK are going to make a difference against the National Guard. (Speaking of balistics lol)


Actually, no, it doesn't. The people who straw buy report the gun stolen. Or the gun is actually stolen. So either way the gun has no connection to the original owner when it is used in a crime and eventually found...9 years later...which is the average life on the street of an illegal gun.......

You are of the mind to give up too easily. Just because people drive with suspended licenses doesn't mean we don't enforce laws.

Wait for my punishments for straw-buying or fake theft victims lol.

Law enforcement frequently works in slow methodical ways. It is totally possible to rob a railcar sitting in a siding as it moves between LATC and Anapra and get away with it. Its more difficult to do it a few times and not get caught as the times and places are narrowed down.

I do understand your dislike of registering firearms. The good news is I suspect I'll have your support on anti - big brother threads I have coming up I suppose..
 
Oh, I would have shot something last week had I had my gun with me. Turned out for the best I did not, but I would if it happened again.

You nailed the hand gun reason.

I'm back to to thinking all guns need their ballistics logged and owner information split between the NRA, the ACLU and some group against the Patriot Act and DHS where the government has to get a warrent to obtain it.
First of all the ballistics change over a period of time and rounds of ammo being shot out of the gun. They tried this in NJ and I don't think it has worked out for them. Pat act is also a joke from the day the Progressives hatched it. Just another layer of gov pencils pushers. They do gather info and data on US citizens and store it for future use to be determined at a later date.
 
Do we have to assume there is a constant and imminent threat to want guns for all? And if we do assume that such a threat exists, does that, or does that not effect our thinking on when and where gunplay is appropriate?

Personally, I do not feel threatened. Consequently I do not think a gun is a safe, appropriate or viable action to take. Perhaps your circumstances are different. I hope not. For to think your life hangs on such a slender thread must be emotionally exhausting. To live with such paranoia must push away every other consideration.

And neither do gun owners who choose to carry a gun for self defense. There is no paranoia, the same way there is no paranoia when they buckle their seat belt, put on their helmet for the motorcycle, or put in an alarm system for the home.....there is an understanding, without any more emotion than carrying a cell phone, that some people are the victim of violent crimes....and those victims never know when or where it will happen. The gun is of no more concern than the cell phone, or the wallet for the gun owner........

You guys are the ones who actually obsess about guns.......and live in fear of guns that you never see, or know are being carried right under your noses....
Seat belts, motorcycle helmets and alarm systems are designed exclusively to kill people. Handguns are. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets and alarm systems are wise precautionary things. Carrying a gun is extreme and caters to that paranoia. Or, more unfortunately, carrying a gun reinforces the Dirty Harry complex. The Hero Gunslinger complex. What my sainted father called "small man's syndrome".
 
Do we have to assume there is a constant and imminent threat to want guns for all? And if we do assume that such a threat exists, does that, or does that not effect our thinking on when and where gunplay is appropriate?

Personally, I do not feel threatened. Consequently I do not think a gun is a safe, appropriate or viable action to take. Perhaps your circumstances are different. I hope not. For to think your life hangs on such a slender thread must be emotionally exhausting. To live with such paranoia must push away every other consideration.

And neither do gun owners who choose to carry a gun for self defense. There is no paranoia, the same way there is no paranoia when they buckle their seat belt, put on their helmet for the motorcycle, or put in an alarm system for the home.....there is an understanding, without any more emotion than carrying a cell phone, that some people are the victim of violent crimes....and those victims never know when or where it will happen. The gun is of no more concern than the cell phone, or the wallet for the gun owner........

You guys are the ones who actually obsess about guns.......and live in fear of guns that you never see, or know are being carried right under your noses....
Seat belts, motorcycle helmets and alarm systems are designed exclusively to kill people. Handguns are. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets and alarm systems are wise precautionary things. Carrying a gun is extreme and caters to that paranoia. Or, more unfortunately, carrying a gun reinforces the Dirty Harry complex. The Hero Gunslinger complex. What my sainted father called "small man's syndrome".
It must be amazing to have the power to peer into others minds and tell them what their motivations really are...

Agoreros.jpg


Just because you are of the mind that to carry is 'extreme' and paranoid is irrelevant to the thousands that do so and see it no differently than putting on their seatbelt.
 
Do we have to assume there is a constant and imminent threat to want guns for all? And if we do assume that such a threat exists, does that, or does that not effect our thinking on when and where gunplay is appropriate?

Personally, I do not feel threatened. Consequently I do not think a gun is a safe, appropriate or viable action to take. Perhaps your circumstances are different. I hope not. For to think your life hangs on such a slender thread must be emotionally exhausting. To live with such paranoia must push away every other consideration.

And neither do gun owners who choose to carry a gun for self defense. There is no paranoia, the same way there is no paranoia when they buckle their seat belt, put on their helmet for the motorcycle, or put in an alarm system for the home.....there is an understanding, without any more emotion than carrying a cell phone, that some people are the victim of violent crimes....and those victims never know when or where it will happen. The gun is of no more concern than the cell phone, or the wallet for the gun owner........

You guys are the ones who actually obsess about guns.......and live in fear of guns that you never see, or know are being carried right under your noses....
Seat belts, motorcycle helmets and alarm systems are designed exclusively to kill people. Handguns are. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets and alarm systems are wise precautionary things. Carrying a gun is extreme and caters to that paranoia. Or, more unfortunately, carrying a gun reinforces the Dirty Harry complex. The Hero Gunslinger complex. What my sainted father called "small man's syndrome".


A gun doesn't kill anyone unless it is used......and again.....it is no different than a seat belt, or helmet or fire extinguisher......and for normal, law abiding people it is a tool that saves lives. And as to the gunslinger complex....Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack, according to bill clinton and barak obama.....how many people do these gun slingers actually kill in self defense.....around 235 a year according to the FBI...

1,500,000 v 235

Americans use guns responsibly...amazingly so considering there are over 400 million guns in private hands and over 15.7 million people actually carrying guns.......

And exactly how wrong are you on calling American's who carry guns gunlingers? If you were right, there would be more gun crime, gun murder and violence....the exact opposite is true...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%


Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
==
 

Forum List

Back
Top