Open carry: how many guns is too many?

For all but military/law enforcement, yes.

So you believe military and law enforcement are more trust worthy/better trained than I am?

You would be wrong. You want to take guns away from law abiding citizens because your insecurities.

Do you know "Christopher Dorner"?

You want to remove my ability to protect myself. You're are a power hungry egomaniac.
 
So you believe military and law enforcement are more trust worthy/better trained than I am?
Yes - it is their job to protect me, not yours.
You would be wrong. You want to take guns away from law abiding citizens because your insecurities.
I want to take guns away from everybody, because if nobody had them, no criminal could shoot me.

And it is demonstrable that guns-illegal is safer than guns-legal.
You want to remove my ability to protect myself. You're are a power hungry egomaniac.
Based on what?

Gun nut propaganda.
 
If the government does not protect him, he deserves to be stabbed or bludgeoned or whatever
If you saw him on the side of the road you would need to quell your Good Samaritan tendencies and leave him to his own devices I guess.

Liberals sure do get into a pretzel when talking about their bogeyman, the gun.

If it wasn't a gun it'd be a sword. No sword it would be a bat. No bat it would be a knife. No knife it would be whatever random object is laying around.

I don't even like guns.
 
Yes - it is their job to protect me, not yours.

I didn't hire them to protect me. It isn't their job to protect me. That is MY job.

I want to take guns away from everybody, because if nobody had them, no criminal could shoot me.

You can't take away guns from everyone. Criminals will still shot you and you will not be able to defend yourself.

And it is demonstrable that guns-illegal is safer than guns-legal.

That is a lie. The restricts on guns makes everyone less safe.

Based on what?

Gun nut propaganda.

No. Based upon your flawed mentality of wanting to own what I can and can't do. You're a power hungry egomaniac.

You do what you want to do and leave me to do what I want to do. We (US) cast off your tyranny a long time ago. Tyranny isn't just an issue with Kings. Your entire culture is one of control and oppression.

You simple "SELL" it as..... "let me help you". I don't need or want your help.
 
Or if I saw someone attack him, he would refuse my offer to shoot the attacker.
Hmm. Well, I may override that one maybe. Not sure.

I don't own a handgun so it would need to be my certified dangerous weapons, fist left and fist right, aka pain and death. lol
 
You can't take away guns from everyone. Criminals will still shot you and you will not be able to defend yourself.
A criminal is less likely to be armed in a society where guns are not allowed.

Refute it - I dare you.
That is a lie. The restricts on guns makes everyone less safe.
"Everyone"? Again - for the umpteenth time - check the homicide rate in the US vs UK.

We in the UK are safer because guns aren't allowed.

(Or, because Yanks are just scumbags, maybe?)
You're a power hungry egomaniac.
You repeat this as though you've been hypnotized to say it.

(Which, I suppose, you have.)
 
A criminal is less likely to be armed in a society where guns are not allowed.

Refute it - I dare you.

Less likely based upon what formula? Share your formula. I dare you.

"Everyone"? Again - for the umpteenth time - check the homicide rate in the US vs UK.

We in the UK are safer because guns aren't allowed.

There are plenty of guns allowed in the UK. You just don't have them.

(Or, because Yanks are just scumbags, maybe?)

Nope. You want to control what I do. I haven't committed any crime. You want to punish the innocent.

You repeat this as though you've been hypnotized to say it.

(Which, I suppose, you have.)

You don't believe in freedom. You never have. Your countrymen had terrorized the world for centuries. You're not peaceful. You want to control others. That is why I say it.
 
So you believe military and law enforcement are more trust worthy/better trained than I am?

You would be wrong. You want to take guns away from law abiding citizens because your insecurities.

Do you know "Christopher Dorner"?

You want to remove my ability to protect myself. You're are a power hungry egomaniac.
Yes, I do believe that professional law enforcement and military who are required to take routine training are better trained than gun toting civilians.

I think the ones with insecurities are the gun toters who see boogeymen behind each tree. I just don't get that level of paranoia. I am a 73 YO woman and walk alone at night in my neighborhood or in the downtown areas of major cities, while gun toters cower behind their guns, sure that they are about to be assaulted wherever they are.

I also don't trust gun toting civilians who think our elected govt is tyrannical and should be overturned, by force if necessary. And insisting that they have the right to carry guns for this unConstitutional purpose.
 
And mass shootings are virtually nonexistent in countries where gun ownership is restricted.
If it is true "mass shootings are extremely rare in comparison to the total number of guns owners," and "mass shootings are virtually nonexistent in countries where gun ownership is restricted," then the problem is neither guns nor their number. The problem is mental health, not gun ownership, possession, number of firearms per person, or open carry. ALL of these are red herrings to the problem of mental illness manifesting as mass shootings.

We pour billions of dollars into mental illness but don't address this one area. We have seven or eight decades of social science research telling us what creates and maintains healthy, functional society on both an individual and corporate level, but that information is largely ignored in policy and law. Why? Supposedly this information is ignored because it is not profitable politically or in the media but that's just hogwash. The very same argument applied to "green policy" (the economy will adapt) could be applied to research-driven social policy and legislation.

In the over-whelming number of cases of mass shootings, the perpetrator was mentally ill AND known beforehand to have some sort of emotional and relational dysfunction.

Did the NYT's article mention any of that? Is the absence of this information a lie of omission? Neglect? Incompetence? Intentionally left out because of some unstated reason, purpose, agenda, or goal?

Now here's a thought that's gonna provoke: most of us are complicit! because if we really want this to stop then we'll act in a manner that ignores all the red herrings and addresses the actual problem to be solved. One step in that direction is NOT authoring ops like this one! Another step is not relying on biased sources that assert red herrings and ignore the truth.

Open Carry: How many guns is too many? Who in heaven and hell knows, but that is not the question we should be asking! It is a red herring. It is beneath us to entertain that question as veracious. It should be called out for what it is (a fallacious red herring), and then ignored. And if EVERYONE did that then we'd have one small place of consensus, one small place of unity that transcends political divisions, and maybe one small place of unity and consensus upon which we can build more of the same to keep fools who don't shoot a bunch of people from carrying multiple firearms (even soldiers in combat don't carry more than a few firearms; they carry ammo, not multiple weapons), AND those who are mentally ill from endangering others.


America is not other nations. On ALL such occasions, comparisons with other nations are ALWAYS false analogies. False analogies are not a reasonable, rationale basis for sound social policy and law. For better or worse, Americans like their guns. For better or worse, the US Constitution guarantees a right to bear firearms to every citizen AND prohibits the federal government from legislation restricting that right. Americans may have a collective hole in their soul but complaints and contempt do not solve the problem red-herringly cited in this op and the NYT article it referenced.


Lastly, in my profession we have a "rule," a guideline that says, simply, there is not proper treatment absent correct diagnosis. It's a concept that can and should be applied to a variety of circumstances as a universal core-concept in problem solving. This is important because the vast majority of argument over "gun control," and the Second Amendment are red herrings. If I did in my profession what politicians and the media do in theirs, I'd be in front of the ethics committee, a courtroom judge, and quite possibly looking for a new profession. HERE is the Journalists' Code of Ethics for everyone to read. Go back to the NYT article and measure it by the standards listed in this Code, and then ask yourself how it is they get away violating their own ethics (frequently and severely, often with enduring effect)? Likewise, every single legislator swears an oath to uphold the Constitution of either the federal government, the state government, or the laws of their municipality. They do NOT swear an oath to change the Constitution based on transient political ideology or personal preference.

We are all complicit when we do not hold the institutions of our country accountable to the rule(s) of law. We are also complicit when we abdicate logic, reason, and the rule of law to ideological preferences.
 
I gather that you are a gun enthusiast,
Actually that's not correct. I've sold most of my guns because I don't really have enough time to take them to the range and fire them. I figured getting them into the hands of people who would actually use them would be better for society at large. What I am is a logic enthusiast. I understand there's a lot better to defend yourself with a gun then have a police officer come and draw a chalk outline around your body.
and think it fine and dandy for men to be in public places while carrying multiple large and loaded guns and wearing body armor.
"Dandy" is your word. But I don't see a problem with it.
Well, that guy in Atlanta caused a panic in that market, and rightly so.
I always wondered who to consult when determining the "perfect time to panic" might be. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Public safety should be a prime consideration,
Which logically would suggest that we arm every citizen. And if we follow that ridiculous logic to its ultimate conclusion it would also suggest that people be prevented from expressing the opinion that you were advocating as a curtailment on the first amendment also. Happily God-given rights trump "common sense." Which generally means whatever the left wing wants.
and there is no justifiable reason for anyone to appear like that in a market, church, theater, school, etc.
I don't see any justifiable reason for someone not leaving the premises of any establishment that asks him to leave on the ground that you're carrying guns and wearing body armor. But that's a very different standard.
Bystanders reasonably conclude that such individuals are about to start shooting,
Why is that reasonable? That is certainly not my experience.
which happened in the Colorado case.
And I could upon sufficient investigation give you thousands of counter examples.
The increasing laxity of gun laws
We don't have any kook laws, yet the left-wing goes on it's insane tirades without any impediment whatsoever. Case in point, this post of yours that I'm responding to hear.
has gone too far.
The left always thinks that Americanism has gone too far. I understand you can find some attractive property values in Red China these days. Undoubtedly the CCP is still taking applications. With your politics you should feel right at home.
 
If it is true "mass shootings are extremely rare in comparison to the total number of guns owners," and "mass shootings are virtually nonexistent in countries where gun ownership is restricted," then the problem is neither guns nor their number. The problem is mental health, not gun ownership, possession, number of firearms per person, or open carry. ALL of these are red herrings to the problem of mental illness manifesting as mass shootings.

We pour billions of dollars into mental illness but don't address this one area. We have seven or eight decades of social science research telling us what creates and maintains healthy, functional society on both an individual and corporate level, but that information is largely ignored in policy and law. Why? Supposedly this information is ignored because it is not profitable politically or in the media but that's just hogwash. The very same argument applied to "green policy" (the economy will adapt) could be applied to research-driven social policy and legislation.

In the over-whelming number of cases of mass shootings, the perpetrator was mentally ill AND known beforehand to have some sort of emotional and relational dysfunction.

Did the NYT's article mention any of that? Is the absence of this information a lie of omission? Neglect? Incompetence? Intentionally left out because of some unstated reason, purpose, agenda, or goal?

Now here's a thought that's gonna provoke: most of us are complicit! because if we really want this to stop then we'll act in a manner that ignores all the red herrings and addresses the actual problem to be solved. One step in that direction is NOT authoring ops like this one! Another step is not relying on biased sources that assert red herrings and ignore the truth.

Open Carry: How many guns is too many? Who in heaven and hell knows, but that is not the question we should be asking! It is a red herring. It is beneath us to entertain that question as veracious. It should be called out for what it is (a fallacious red herring), and then ignored. And if EVERYONE did that then we'd have one small place of consensus, one small place of unity that transcends political divisions, and maybe one small place of unity and consensus upon which we can build more of the same to keep fools who don't shoot a bunch of people from carrying multiple firearms (even soldiers in combat don't carry more than a few firearms; they carry ammo, not multiple weapons), AND those who are mentally ill from endangering others.


America is not other nations. On ALL such occasions, comparisons with other nations are ALWAYS false analogies. False analogies are not a reasonable, rationale basis for sound social policy and law. For better or worse, Americans like their guns. For better or worse, the US Constitution guarantees a right to bear firearms to every citizen AND prohibits the federal government from legislation restricting that right. Americans may have a collective hole in their soul but complaints and contempt do not solve the problem red-herringly cited in this op and the NYT article it referenced.


Lastly, in my profession we have a "rule," a guideline that says, simply, there is not proper treatment absent correct diagnosis. It's a concept that can and should be applied to a variety of circumstances as a universal core-concept in problem solving. This is important because the vast majority of argument over "gun control," and the Second Amendment are red herrings. If I did in my profession what politicians and the media do in theirs, I'd be in front of the ethics committee, a courtroom judge, and quite possibly looking for a new profession. HERE is the Journalists' Code of Ethics for everyone to read. Go back to the NYT article and measure it by the standards listed in this Code, and then ask yourself how it is they get away violating their own ethics (frequently and severely, often with enduring effect)? Likewise, every single legislator swears an oath to uphold the Constitution of either the federal government, the state government, or the laws of their municipality. They do NOT swear an oath to change the Constitution based on transient political ideology or personal preference.

We are all complicit when we do not hold the institutions of our country accountable to the rule(s) of law. We are also complicit when we abdicate logic, reason, and the rule of law to ideological preferences.
The problem is not mental health, unless you can show that the USA uniquely has more mental health problems than any other developed country.

The backgroung of the Atlanta man decked out in body armor and massive guns in a grocery store. His lawyer said he is homeless. If you think there is info out there about his mental status, then please present it.

Are you saying there should be a formal mental health evaluation before anyone is allowed to purchase a gun? I would be OK with that.

So you are in favor of red flag laws? Should the friends and families of people attempting to buy guns be asked if there are issues about that person's mental status or tendencies to violence? I am OK with that also.

What kind of justification is there for a person to go to a supermarket and then go into a restroom to dress in body armor, and load multiple weapons before going out into the store? Should such behavior be treated as perfectly normal? Is it unwise for other shoppers to panic when they see him? Can you not see a difference between what this man did, and what most other gun owners do, which is to carry a single gun in a holster?
 
They are all feral - they are all wild animals and violent - thats why I carry a gun - there are atheists around
I would guess that more fundamentalist Christians carry guns than atheists. Do you have the stats?

Seems like mostly in conservative Republican states.

 
I would guess that more fundamentalist Christians carry guns than atheists. Do you have the stats?
thats why I carry a gun - there are atheists around - atheists are the most murderous bloodthirsty sociopathic group in human history - I need to protect myself from your sickness
 
Back
Top