Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: "I have a permit, but why are you carrying a gun?"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Valdosta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    347

    Post imported post

    I saw a friend today at Walmart. He said: "Why are you carrying a gun?"
    I replied: "To exercise my 2nd amendment right and to p--s off Obama."
    He said: "I have a permit too, but why are you carrying a gun?"

    I said: "Its like a seatbelt; You never know when you'll need it."
    He nodded and walked away, but I could see that he was still confused.
    Frankly, I was confused too. Why would a permit holder not understand one carrying a gun? I was openly carrying, but he didn't address that. What could else could I have said in a short time frame?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    open4years wrote:
    I saw a friend today at Walmart. He said: "Why are you carrying a gun?"
    I replied: "To exercise my 2nd amendment right and to p--s off Obama."
    He said: "I have a permit too, but why are you carrying a gun?"
    That is where he lost you. He, and I doubt he is alone, thinks that all he has to do to exercise his rights is to buy a gun and register for a permit. No amount of argument in support of carrying would have changed his view that he was already, even while unarmed, exercising his right to bear arms.

    Next time it comes up try to address that point and it may go better.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NOVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    732

    Post imported post

    I've got a coworker who's like that. He wants to get a gun again, but he doesn't want to carry it (openly or concealed). He said he used to have a CHP, but let it expire. He believes it's actually more dangerous to carry a gun.

  4. #4
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    eyesopened wrote:
    I've got a coworker who's like that. He wants to get a gun again, but he doesn't want to carry it (openly or concealed). He said he used to have a CHP, but let it expire. He believes it's actually more dangerous to carry a gun.
    It is, for the criminals anyway.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514

    Post imported post

    A gun is like a condom... better to have one and never need it than to need it once and not have it.

    My other favorite question from the liberal hippies is, "Would you actually kill someone?"

    My answer is always:

    If you saw someone you care about, or a perfect stranger for that matter, being mugged, beaten or raped... would you hit the attacker on the head with a baseball bat?

    End result: dead or incapacitated attacker... same as if I shot him.

    My gun just happens to be easier to carry than a Louisville Slugger... and reaches a bit farther.



  6. #6
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    daddy4count wrote:
    A gun is like a condom... better to have one and never need it than to need it once and not have it.

    My other favorite question from the liberal hippies is, "Would you actually kill someone?"

    My answer is always:

    If you saw someone you care about, or a perfect stranger for that matter, being mugged, beaten or raped... would you hit the attacker on the head with a baseball bat?

    End result: dead or incapacitated attacker... same as if I shot him.

    My gun just happens to be easier to carry than a Louisville Slugger... and reaches a bit farther.

    Don't bank on getting an affirmative answer to this question from some of these clowns. I have tried this same tactic a number of times and on occasion, run into the idiot who cringes or actually says they wouldn't resort to violence to stop a violent act. Most recent example of this was 16 days ago. The lady was from Boston and my example was if she arrived home early from work to find her daughter, who had just been repeatedly rape, in the process of being murdered by her attacker - would she use some form of deadly force against the BG to halt his attack? She cringed and then blurted out that she was a flaming liberal... no answer to my question.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514

    Post imported post

    I don't think some people have a realistic grasp of what they will feel if something like this happens...

    I don't know about you... but I have yet to meet a mother who would not go "Momma Bear" on anybody who seeks to harm their children.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    daddy4count wrote:
    I don't think some people have a realistic grasp of what they will feel if something like this happens...

    I don't know about you... but I have yet to meet a mother who would not go "Momma Bear" on anybody who seeks to harm their children.
    Seriously, I think you are correct - except for the part where you ask them about it. There are a whole bunch of folks who profess the theory of non-violence and find it to be a deadly form of cognitive dissonance to consider there might be exceptions to their position.

    Those folks carry the label of "victim". Many of them do so proudly.

    Go figure.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    daddy4count wrote:
    I don't think some people have a realistic grasp of what they will feel if something like this happens...

    I don't know about you... but I have yet to meet a mother who would not go "Momma Bear" on anybody who seeks to harm their children.
    I think you're right with the exception of the extreme nutcases. I have always felt that no one knows exactly how they will react to a deadly encounter until it's staring them in the face.. unless they've had a similar experience(s) before.

    I suspect people who make these outlandish statements enjoy the perceived vaulted level of moral superiority they believe they project. They think that by them making these types of statements, they elevate themselves above the "masses". I think most all of them would either fall to the ground, quivering in fear and spewing forth bodily fluids or lash out beyond any thing they've ever imagined. I vote for the falling to the ground.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    eyesopened wrote:
    I've got a coworker who's like that. He wants to get a gun again, but he doesn't want to carry it (openly or concealed). He said he used to have a CHP, but let it expire. He believes it's actually more dangerous to carry a gun.
    In his case he is probably correct. He obviously does not have the mindset to react to a bad situation except to run or surrender and tat means the bad guy would get his gun if he has one.

    If he is an otherwise good guy you just have to mark him up as another sheep for the dogs to guard because he wouldn't use his teeth even if he had any. I bet he stops to look at an accident but never stops to get out and help.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514

    Post imported post

    He probably is remembering a statistic from several years ago that the anti-gun FUD peddlers were promoting... that owning a gun meant you were "3 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound"

    I never did see any backup data to support the statement...

    But since the majority of us have a zero chance of ever being shot... 3 times zero is still zero





  12. #12
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    THat statistic is a total farce but has been passed around for years as common knowledge. It makes me sad.



    http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html


    and

    http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514

    Post imported post

    Yep... and nobody ever seems to have an answer when you ask them where they got their info

  14. #14
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    I assume you're talking about the report that came out last year. The "research" behind that study has been slow to come out, but I've seen several reports about how they arrived at those numbers...

    First, they included ALL gun-owners (not just civilian citizens), which included LEOs and active-duty military, and included the death statistics of these groups--REGARDLESS of the circumstances of the death. What this means is that LEO's and soldiers who were killed int he line of duty are included in the "death statistics"...

    Secondly, I've seen some reports (but no definitive documentation to prove it) that they included ALL gun-owners, not just lawful, legal gun owners. This means that ANYONE who possessed a gun and was killed by a gun was included in their statistics. This would include felons and other "prohibited persons", and even if their death was caused by the justifiable actions of an LEO or a law-abiding citizen acting in self-defense, it was included in the statistics. You will notice if you look at that report they don't say "having a legally-possessed handgun in the home" increases your chance of death, just "having a handgun in your home"...

    They did not discriminate with the cause of death. If an innocent person legally owned a firearm and kept it in their home, and was killed by a random drive-by shooting, or a mugger while they were on vacation, or was "accidentally" killed by a botched no-knock raid on the wrong house, or in a case of mistaken identity, they include it.

    Under this sort of "research", it's no wonder they arrived at the numbers they did. This sort of logic essentially says that the reason why cops and soldiers get killed with firearms is because they happen to own personal firearms in their home.

    This study is such a joke that it barely merits comment. Their research methods and statistical collection, filtering, and processing methods are SO faulty and full of illogical associations that a grade-school student could see it's all a big fat lie.

    One of the older studies on this issue, the 1993 paper published in the NEJM:

    http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content...15/1084?ck=nck

    arrived at the conclusion that if you have a gun in the house, AND you are involved in drugs or other illicit or illegal activity, then the you do have an increased chance of being killed in a homicide. Most people don't read past the "conclusion" of the summary of this report. But if you read the whole report, you find that the authors have a VERY slanted agenda, and seem to dismiss the fact that most of these homicides were of people who were engaging in illegal activites (gang membership, drug dealing, prostitution, etc), but then they spend most of the paper saying that it is because they own a gun that they were killed. Not because they were gang-bangers, or were selling crack, or were terrorizing their community.

    As someone who is currently a Graduate student, and in up to my eyeballs in research, writing papers, and documenting my work, I find this article to be an embarrassment to the academic world, and NEJM should have had their accreditation as a "peer reviewed journal" revoked for publishing it. It's NOT academic research--it's brazen, fraudulent propaganda.

    As Bob Dylan said, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

    IF you remove the deaths of criminals (who have established records) killed by other criminals (who have established records) from the statistics, the US actually has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world...

    Personally, I think we should just round up all the gang members, give them Uzi's and a few truckloads of ammo, and then set them loose on some isolated island. That would fix a LOT of the problems we're seeing in this country.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514

    Post imported post

    Just goes to show that you can spin statistics any way you want...

    I was unaware of a new study... but 13 years ago the support data was slow to be released as well.

    And then it never was.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    Where's the whistle-blowing emoticon? This is truly a thread hijack in progress!

    Given that half to two-thirds of homicides by firearm in any given year are suicides, and the incidence may actually be significantly under-reported because of the stigma against suicide, any statistic that talks about how you are "more likely to be injured blah blah blah" is disingenuous. Statistically speaking, the person you should most fear is indeed "someone you know" -- yourself.

    I find it ironic that the same folks who argue in favor of medically-assisted suicide want to deny the desperate a relatively safe (to others), cheap, quick, and sure way to assist themselves!


  17. #17
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    open4years wrote:
    I saw a friend today at Walmart. He said: "Why are you carrying a gun?"
    I replied: "To exercise my 2nd amendment right and to p--s off Obama."
    He said: "I have a permit too, but why are you carrying a gun?"

    I said: "Its like a seatbelt; You never know when you'll need it."
    He nodded and walked away, but I could see that he was still confused.
    Frankly, I was confused too. Why would a permit holder not understand one carrying a gun? I was openly carrying, but he didn't address that. What could else could I have said in a short time frame?
    A better thing to ask him (instead of the seatbelt angle) would be to ask him if he had a Drivers License. (of course he does). Then ask him (with a shocked expression and tone of voice), why he drives, because it's MUCH more dangerous to drive your own car than to walk or take public transit. According to the US DOT's 2008 figures, there were 37,313 highway-related fatalities in the US.

    According to the CDC's most recent data (2004) there were about 29,569 firearms-related deaths, and over half (57%) of those were suicides (16,750).

    http://washingtonceasefire.org/resou...ath-statistics


    So if you're not considering killing yourself, it's actually almost three times more dangerous to drive your car than it is to carry a gun.

    (and actually, the initial FBI homicide statistics for 2009 appear to show a SIGNIFICANT drop in homicides nationwide since 2008--down by 10%, and the homicide statistics have been dropping EVERY year in the US since 2006. So when we get detailed data from CDC on 2009, it will probably be closer to FOUR times as dangerous to drive...)

    I just don't understand why anyone who has a drivers license would even CONSIDER driving their car--it's just TOOO dangerous...



    Statistics are wonderful...
    NOTE:
    I'm not sure where the CDC gets their numbers, because according to the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports and BJS's website, in 2006, the national total for ALL murders was just a bit over 17,000. I'm assuming there are a lot of different modes of murder--knives, baseball bats, cars, pushing people out a window. It looks like the CDC is not for "murders", but rather for ALL homicides, which includes justifiable self-defense shootings, valid police shootings in the line of duty, and "accidental", non-neglegent shootings that resulted in death--NONE of which are crimes. If we take the suicides out of the CDC's total, it leaves us with 12,819 homicides, which means, if we are to believe the FBI, only about 4200 murders were using methods other than firearms. It looks like the CDC might be "cooking the books" with some of the same statistical chicanery that VPC, MMM, and Brady use to arrive at their grossly inflated figures...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NOVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    732

    Post imported post

    Old Grump wrote:
    eyesopened wrote:
    I've got a coworker who's like that. He wants to get a gun again, but he doesn't want to carry it (openly or concealed). He said he used to have a CHP, but let it expire. He believes it's actually more dangerous to carry a gun.
    In his case he is probably correct. He obviously does not have the mindset to react to a bad situation except to run or surrender and tat means the bad guy would get his gun if he has one.

    If he is an otherwise good guy you just have to mark him up as another sheep for the dogs to guard because he wouldn't use his teeth even if he had any. I bet he stops to look at an accident but never stops to get out and help.
    He's basically a good guy so I'm still working on him. I don't think he's a lost cause so hopefully I can turn his way of thinking.

    He also claims to have done years of martial arts, but if it was me I'd still stack the odds in my favor.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Things to ponder...
    If you treat a gun like a condom wouldn't like that condom that sits in the
    wallet for years fail when finally needed?
    Could this not be the reason for the "owners gun" used to kill themselves?
    Like any good women they need to be taken out and shown they are loved,
    or woe be you when you want it.

    I lost the point after "friend" how is it he just noticed at walmart you carry?
    Anyone else see the rabid fox attack footage on the news?
    He Kung Foo kicked the sh*t out of it but is still getting the shots now.
    There is a need for stand off defense.
    I'm watching it thinking what great target practice, good clear field of fire,
    fast moving small target out to do you harm, what a lucky stiff if he had
    common sense to defend himself.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    95

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    I suspect people who make these outlandish statements enjoy the perceived vaulted level of moral superiority they believe they project. They think that by them making these types of statements, they elevate themselves above the "masses".
    This is the point where I say "If you wouldn't protect a child, you are subhuman" and walk away. Nothing disgusts me more.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514

    Post imported post

    I love this forum

    :P

  22. #22
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    eyesopened wrote:
    I've got a coworker who's like that. He wants to get a gun again, but he doesn't want to carry it (openly or concealed). He said he used to have a CHP, but let it expire. He believes it's actually more dangerous to carry a gun.
    Ask him to name one person at Virginia Tech who survived because they DIDN'T have a gun.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    "One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

    Jeff coopers

    "You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or use any other word you think will work but I've found that a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much the universal language." Clint smith




    For us "Gun collectors"

    "It is a lesson of history that it is ethically, morally, and philosophically impossible to have too many personal weapons, whether they be edged, impact or projectile."
    - David W. Loeffler
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    groats wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    I suspect people who make these outlandish statements enjoy the perceived vaulted level of moral superiority they believe they project. They think that by them making these types of statements, they elevate themselves above the "masses".
    This is the point where I say "If you wouldn't protect a child, you are subhuman" and walk away. Nothing disgusts me more.
    EXACTLY. I'm glad you mentioned that. We once had a lady over visiting who asked in a loud snobbish insulting tone of voice how that I could carry a gun around kids. (Her intention was to embarass me in front of everybody else). My reply: MY kids are worth defending. Her countenance fell. I turned and walked away

  25. #25
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    6L6GC wrote:
    groats wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    I suspect people who make these outlandish statements enjoy the perceived vaulted level of moral superiority they believe they project. They think that by them making these types of statements, they elevate themselves above the "masses".
    This is the point where I say "If you wouldn't protect a child, you are subhuman" and walk away. Nothing disgusts me more.
    EXACTLY. I'm glad you mentioned that. We once had a lady over visiting who asked in a loud snobbish insulting tone of voice how that I could carry a gun around kids. (Her intention was to embarass me in front of everybody else). My reply: MY kids are worth defending. Her countenance fell. I turned and walked away
    Great answer! You could also have offered something similar such as...

    "Perhaps you don't care to protect your children... I do."

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •