Why do you need to carry a gun?

[Ray From Cleveland]

What a great reason for putting people n danger where you tote.

Just because YOU are irresponsible, untrustworthy, and deranged, don't project that onto everyone else.

First of all, you certainly can not guarantee that every toter is trustworthy, responsible & not deranged. I mean there is something not right about the urge to have your loaded firearm with you 24/7/365.

Second, accidents happen.
Of course, you are PERFECT but others can have misfires, leave their guns where they shouldn't, have guns taken from them, and if a temper tantrum , stsart shooting.

There is a risk. If you think there is not, then you are too God damn stupid to carry a loaded weapon.

You can't guarantee anything about anyone. And life is risk

If you want a risk free life you are going to be disappointed

Why do you think it is OK for you to pose a link to a family eating dinner at the next table.

Why do YOU think it is okay for you to demand that millions of women be defenseless because your junkless pussy self is afraid of guns and gun owners?

Because he's a leftist, that's why. They all believe they hold the sole power to tell everybody else how to live their lives.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So toters can be idiots & pose risks.

So can motorists, so can internet users, so can Catholic priests, so can police, so can teachers, so can........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

That's about the stupidest analogy I've ever read. That's like asking who is more likely to get hit by a bus, the person crossing the street or the person in the bus?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have some bad news for ya, and that is people are around you with guns all the time.

You remind me of an elderly lady I was talking to at the grocery store while waiting in a long line a few years back. Somehow the subject of concealed carry came up with the lady and her daughter behind me, I and another customer were contributing the the chat.

It wasn't real serious and everybody was very nice, but the elderly lady said that citizens with guns scare her. I told her that there are people with guns--probably in the grocery store right now, and she would never know! She doubted my claim saying she could recognize a person who was armed fifty feet away.

So I smiled and asked "Am I a person who is armed?" She laughed and said "No you are not. You're too nice!" Then I opened my jacket. In the colder months, I use a shoulder holster. She just formed an O with her mouth as if she was going to scream, but laughed quickly afterwards.

She asked "Why are you carrying that thing?" I said "In case a bad guy comes in this store carrying the same thing. God forbid it happen, but if it did, you'll be glad your behind me in this line."

I think it gave her something to think about.

A bad guy behind you with a machine gun...will give you a heads up. You are delusional.and yet you cant beat the stats, countries with less guns and restrictions on them have less deaths, crimes by guns. I even i knew that as a kid overseas watching the news about gun violence in the US...35 years later I live here and it is still epidemic.

Because you are so brainwashed. You actually believe an inanimate object acts on it's own.

Not at all, dope.

One thing is certain though. One must possess a gun in order to use a gun. The possession of a gun increases the risk to everyone in the household becoming a victim of gun violence dramatically.

Spare us the lecture about "responsible" gun owners. The fact that there are irresponsible owners at all is a problem.

So where do you stop? Swimming pools kill people, knives kill people, blunt objects kill people, cars kill tens of thousands every year.

You are catching on slowly. Yes, one must possess a gun to use a gun, and that’s exactly the message we want to send to bad guys.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

A swimming pool is in one's yard, keep your gun in your yard.

A knife does not kill people iof you mishandle it. We use cars for a reason & people who drive them are tested & can lose their licenses. You had a fit when there was a attempt to pass a law taking guns from people with PFAs against them.

Most toters were never trained or tested & it is legal to tote under the influence.

It's legal to carry under the influence? Where? Not here in Ohio, I can tell you that. And we are one of the most liberal states when it comes to CCW's. In fact you are not allowed one sip of alcohol if you carry a gun; not even one American beer.

And just what is PFA? Spell it out for me. Now if you're talking about DumBama's law that stopped people on Social Security from owning a gun if they couldn't pay their own bills, I want to know how many senior citizens who couldn't perform that task were involved in gun crimes?

 

[RealDave]

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

That's about the stupidest analogy I've ever read. That's like asking who is more likely to get hit by a bus, the person crossing the street or the person in the bus?

My statement is the truth. You know it. The idea you toters argue that just proves how ignorant you people really are.

So we are at risk of getting run over by a bus so we shouldn't care if you yeahoos add to the risk? Really?

Buses perform a needed service. You toting a gun does not.

 

[RealDave]

A bad guy behind you with a machine gun...will give you a heads up. You are delusional.and yet you cant beat the stats, countries with less guns and restrictions on them have less deaths, crimes by guns. I even i knew that as a kid overseas watching the news about gun violence in the US...35 years later I live here and it is still epidemic.

Because you are so brainwashed. You actually believe an inanimate object acts on it's own.

Not at all, dope.

One thing is certain though. One must possess a gun in order to use a gun. The possession of a gun increases the risk to everyone in the household becoming a victim of gun violence dramatically.

Spare us the lecture about "responsible" gun owners. The fact that there are irresponsible owners at all is a problem.

So where do you stop? Swimming pools kill people, knives kill people, blunt objects kill people, cars kill tens of thousands every year.

You are catching on slowly. Yes, one must possess a gun to use a gun, and that’s exactly the message we want to send to bad guys.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

A swimming pool is in one's yard, keep your gun in your yard.

A knife does not kill people iof you mishandle it. We use cars for a reason & people who drive them are tested & can lose their licenses. You had a fit when there was a attempt to pass a law taking guns from people with PFAs against them.

Most toters were never trained or tested & it is legal to tote under the influence.

It's legal to carry under the influence? Where? Not here in Ohio, I can tell you that. And we are one of the most liberal states when it comes to CCW's. In fact you are not allowed one sip of alcohol if you carry a gun; not even one American beer.

And just what is PFA? Spell it out for me. Now if you're talking about DumBama's law that stopped people on Social Security from owning a gun if they couldn't pay their own bills, I want to know how many senior citizens who couldn't perform that task were involved in gun crimes?

TUIs? Lets see some cases.

 

[RealDave]

Why do you think it is OK for you to pose a link to a family eating dinner at the next table.

I pose zero threat to any of my neighbors.

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

More to the point:

I am anywhere at all while armed. You are anywhere at all while unarmed. Which one of us is at a higher risk of becoming a crime statistic?

And then the most important point:

Your hypothetical and my hypothetical. Which one is actually more likely to be real and relevant?

I bet the risk is worse on you because you would try to defend yourself & get shot.

I have never been in any situation where I was the victim of any crime that being armed would have prevented. The risk that you would harm yourself, like shoot yourself in the foot, is likely higher that that gun saving you from any crime.

How nice for you.......please...tell the 1.1 million Americans who aren't you, who actually had to use their legal guns to save lives how wrong they were because they didn't need the gun to stop the rape, robbery, murder or kidnapping they were experiencing....it was all just their imagination...

I doubt your stats. Do they include law enforcement, over what time span?

 

[Blues Man]

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

That's about the stupidest analogy I've ever read. That's like asking who is more likely to get hit by a bus, the person crossing the street or the person in the bus?

My statement is the truth. You know it. The idea you toters argue that just proves how ignorant you people really are.

So we are at risk of getting run over by a bus so we shouldn't care if you yeahoos add to the risk? Really?

Buses perform a needed service. You toting a gun does not.

How many times have you been put at risk by a person carrying a concealed weapon?

 

[RealDave]

Why do you think it is OK for you to pose a link to a family eating dinner at the next table.

I pose zero threat to any of my neighbors.

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

More to the point:

I am anywhere at all while armed. You are anywhere at all while unarmed. Which one of us is at a higher risk of becoming a crime statistic?

And then the most important point:

Your hypothetical and my hypothetical. Which one is actually more likely to be real and relevant?

I bet the risk is worse on you because you would try to defend yourself & get shot.

I have never been in any situation where I was the victim of any crime that being armed would have prevented. The risk that you would harm yourself, like shoot yourself in the foot, is likely higher that that gun saving you from any crime.

And yet over a million times a year, armed civilians use their guns to protect themselves without firing a shot. Merely demonstrating they are armed often defuses the situation.

Great. Don't carry loaded guns. Remove the risk & does the same job.

 

[Blues Man]

I pose zero threat to any of my neighbors.

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

More to the point:

I am anywhere at all while armed. You are anywhere at all while unarmed. Which one of us is at a higher risk of becoming a crime statistic?

And then the most important point:

Your hypothetical and my hypothetical. Which one is actually more likely to be real and relevant?

I bet the risk is worse on you because you would try to defend yourself & get shot.

I have never been in any situation where I was the victim of any crime that being armed would have prevented. The risk that you would harm yourself, like shoot yourself in the foot, is likely higher that that gun saving you from any crime.

And yet over a million times a year, armed civilians use their guns to protect themselves without firing a shot. Merely demonstrating they are armed often defuses the situation.

Great. Don't carry loaded guns. Remove the risk & does the same job.

That's like telling people their car will do the same job if the gas tank is empty

 

[RealDave]

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

That's about the stupidest analogy I've ever read. That's like asking who is more likely to get hit by a bus, the person crossing the street or the person in the bus?

My statement is the truth. You know it. The idea you toters argue that just proves how ignorant you people really are.

So we are at risk of getting run over by a bus so we shouldn't care if you yeahoos add to the risk? Really?

Buses perform a needed service. You toting a gun does not.

How many times have you been put at risk by a person carrying a concealed weapon?

Every time one is near me or my family. My house has been shot by brilliant gun toters shooting target. I have heard ricochets going over my head. I read stories about guns being left in public restrooms, Stories of women shooting themselves when reaching into their purses, People dropping their guns, etc etc etc' I have been shot in a hunting situation.

The idea you can't admit it is just proof how irresponsible you people are about this. If you think there is no risk, then you shouldn't be toting.

 

[miketx]

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

That's about the stupidest analogy I've ever read. That's like asking who is more likely to get hit by a bus, the person crossing the street or the person in the bus?

My statement is the truth. You know it. The idea you toters argue that just proves how ignorant you people really are.

So we are at risk of getting run over by a bus so we shouldn't care if you yeahoos add to the risk? Really?

Buses perform a needed service. You toting a gun does not.

How many times have you been put at risk by a person carrying a concealed weapon?

Every time one is near me or my family. My house has been shot by brilliant gun toters shooting target. I have heard ricochets going over my head. I read stories about guns being left in public restrooms, Stories of women shooting themselves when reaching into their purses, People dropping their guns, etc etc etc' I have been shot in a hunting situation.

The idea you can't admit it is just proof how irresponsible you people are about this. If you think there is no risk, then you shouldn't be toting.

My God you are full of shit.

 

[RealDave]

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

More to the point:

I am anywhere at all while armed. You are anywhere at all while unarmed. Which one of us is at a higher risk of becoming a crime statistic?

And then the most important point:

Your hypothetical and my hypothetical. Which one is actually more likely to be real and relevant?

I bet the risk is worse on you because you would try to defend yourself & get shot.

I have never been in any situation where I was the victim of any crime that being armed would have prevented. The risk that you would harm yourself, like shoot yourself in the foot, is likely higher that that gun saving you from any crime.

And yet over a million times a year, armed civilians use their guns to protect themselves without firing a shot. Merely demonstrating they are armed often defuses the situation.

Great. Don't carry loaded guns. Remove the risk & does the same job.

That's like telling people their car will do the same job if the gas tank is empty

I was responding to this post. "And yet over a million times a year, armed civilians use their guns to protect themselves without firing a shot. Merely demonstrating they are armed often defuses the situation."

If you can't keep up, don't post.

 

[Blues Man]

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

That's about the stupidest analogy I've ever read. That's like asking who is more likely to get hit by a bus, the person crossing the street or the person in the bus?

My statement is the truth. You know it. The idea you toters argue that just proves how ignorant you people really are.

So we are at risk of getting run over by a bus so we shouldn't care if you yeahoos add to the risk? Really?

Buses perform a needed service. You toting a gun does not.

How many times have you been put at risk by a person carrying a concealed weapon?

Every time one is near me or my family. My house has been shot by brilliant gun toters shooting target. I have heard ricochets going over my head. I read stories about guns being left in public restrooms, Stories of women shooting themselves when reaching into their purses, People dropping their guns, etc etc etc' I have been shot in a hunting situation.

The idea you can't admit it is just proof how irresponsible you people are about this. If you think there is no risk, then you shouldn't be toting.

And how many times in a month is that?

I could be standing right next to you and you wouldn't even know I was carrying.

And I never once said there is zero risk so don't try and make up shit I said

Life is risk

If you want no risk you can buy a bullet and I'll rent you one of my handguns because the only way you will free yourself from risk is to be dead

 

[Blues Man]

More to the point:

I am anywhere at all while armed. You are anywhere at all while unarmed. Which one of us is at a higher risk of becoming a crime statistic?

And then the most important point:

Your hypothetical and my hypothetical. Which one is actually more likely to be real and relevant?

I bet the risk is worse on you because you would try to defend yourself & get shot.

I have never been in any situation where I was the victim of any crime that being armed would have prevented. The risk that you would harm yourself, like shoot yourself in the foot, is likely higher that that gun saving you from any crime.

And yet over a million times a year, armed civilians use their guns to protect themselves without firing a shot. Merely demonstrating they are armed often defuses the situation.

Great. Don't carry loaded guns. Remove the risk & does the same job.

That's like telling people their car will do the same job if the gas tank is empty

I was responding to this post. "And yet over a million times a year, armed civilians use their guns to protect themselves without firing a shot. Merely demonstrating they are armed often defuses the situation."

If you can't keep up, don't post.

And what happens that one time when an unloaded gun doesn't do the job?

The fact that there are so few self defense killings committed by people who carry is testament to the incredible restraint people who carry possess.

 

[SavannahMann]

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

That's about the stupidest analogy I've ever read. That's like asking who is more likely to get hit by a bus, the person crossing the street or the person in the bus?

My statement is the truth. You know it. The idea you toters argue that just proves how ignorant you people really are.

So we are at risk of getting run over by a bus so we shouldn't care if you yeahoos add to the risk? Really?

Buses perform a needed service. You toting a gun does not.

Your statement is so dumb it doesn’t even qualify as a logical fallacy. Let’s put it in the same format for other situations.

I drive a Toyota, and you drive a Dodge. Who is more likely to be involved in an accident where a Dodge is one of the cars wrecked? I work in Construction, and you work in an office. Who is more likely to get a papercut?

You can’t argue statistics, and you can’t argue facts, so instead you create the dumbest, most juvenile, scenario to justify your opposition.

Statistic back up the CCW people. Facts back up the CCW people. So when the law, and the facts are against you then pound the table and shout like a ninny.

 

[SavannahMann]

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

That's about the stupidest analogy I've ever read. That's like asking who is more likely to get hit by a bus, the person crossing the street or the person in the bus?

My statement is the truth. You know it. The idea you toters argue that just proves how ignorant you people really are.

So we are at risk of getting run over by a bus so we shouldn't care if you yeahoos add to the risk? Really?

Buses perform a needed service. You toting a gun does not.

How many times have you been put at risk by a person carrying a concealed weapon?

Every time one is near me or my family. My house has been shot by brilliant gun toters shooting target. I have heard ricochets going over my head. I read stories about guns being left in public restrooms, Stories of women shooting themselves when reaching into their purses, People dropping their guns, etc etc etc' I have been shot in a hunting situation.

The idea you can't admit it is just proof how irresponsible you people are about this. If you think there is no risk, then you shouldn't be toting.

Somebody is full of shit. If bullets are flying around your house, then in every state of the Union, they are committing a crime. You would be calling the Police after every incident of this. If a bullet hit your house, then the shooter would at a minimum be liable for the damage. Again the truth in every single state of this Union.

Dave, you’re not even grasping at straws anymore. You’re flailing about badly. Perhaps you should fall back, regroup, and start a thread about how awful Trump Supporters are. Your thoughts on that are no more cogent, but at least you are on slightly more solid ground.

 

[toobfreak]

"Carry" implies a conceal carry permit, which can get you in trouble if you pass thru states that don't have "reciprocity", just ask this mom:
Woman with Pa. handgun permit faces prison sentence for carrying in New Jersey

Keep hoping the Donald can fix that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just because YOU are irresponsible, untrustworthy, and deranged, don't project that onto everyone else.

First of all, you certainly can not guarantee that every toter is trustworthy, responsible & not deranged. I mean there is something not right about the urge to have your loaded firearm with you 24/7/365.

Second, accidents happen.
Of course, you are PERFECT but others can have misfires, leave their guns where they shouldn't, have guns taken from them, and if a temper tantrum , stsart shooting.

There is a risk. If you think there is not, then you are too God damn stupid to carry a loaded weapon.

You can't guarantee anything about anyone. And life is risk

If you want a risk free life you are going to be disappointed

Why do you think it is OK for you to pose a link to a family eating dinner at the next table.

Why do YOU think it is okay for you to demand that millions of women be defenseless because your junkless pussy self is afraid of guns and gun owners?

Because he's a leftist, that's why. They all believe they hold the sole power to tell everybody else how to live their lives.

Oh, I know. They also all seem to have the same complete conviction that they are the center of the universe, and everything should be arranged solely for their own convenience and comfort. "Assfuck Dave" feelz that he would be safer if no one had guns, therefore everyone else should just suck it up and live their lives to accommodate his cowardice and phobia.

 

[Cecilie1200]

OK I gert it.

If You & I are walking in a crowded park. Me unarmed, you toting a loaded weapon. Which one of us poses a higher risk of getting someone injured or killed by a weapon we are carrying?

My risk is zero. If you claim yours is zero then you are just a liar.

That's about the stupidest analogy I've ever read. That's like asking who is more likely to get hit by a bus, the person crossing the street or the person in the bus?

My statement is the truth. You know it. The idea you toters argue that just proves how ignorant you people really are.

So we are at risk of getting run over by a bus so we shouldn't care if you yeahoos add to the risk? Really?

Buses perform a needed service. You toting a gun does not.

So women are at risk of being attacked by predatory criminals so we shouldn't care if you yahoos add to the risk by demanding that we be completely defenseless? Really?

Guns perform a needed service. The fact that YOU don't care about it is irrelevant, and just tells us what a selfish ass you are.