If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MLive.com)   Proponents of Michigan's new open-carry gun law say they're loving their new sense of freedom, and they just wish the cops would remember that open carry is now legal and not to stage high-risk takedowns every time there's a gun call   (mlive.com) divider line 509
    More: Followup, Grand Rapids Press, gun laws  
•       •       •

2054 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jan 2014 at 3:42 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



509 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-14 06:44:09 PM

justtray: Now a side note;
Here's a simple but irrelevant question - Have you ever discharged your weapon, legally, to defend or stop a crime? No, I'm not talking about made up DGU where some guy yelled at you and you pulled your piece and he walked away. I'm talking about have you EVER actually had to use the weapon you feel the need to carry around? If the answer is no, why do you feel the need to carry it around. This should be introspective to any gun nut, I hope, and should help you understand why everyone on the other side finds you so paranoid.


Had to discharge a firearm? No. Had the need to use one to stop a crime? yes.

Next question?
 
2014-01-14 06:54:42 PM

rzrwiresunrise: Kit Fister: rzrwiresunrise: Unfortunately, the in-your-face approach is what's becoming more prominent. There are situations where a weapon is warranted, but that's not what the open-carry movement is about. The movement is about bringing a gun to Starbucks, where we all know gun-toting gangstas with AK's are lyin' in wait take yo' sh*t, amirite? Open-carry thinks it's about de-escalation, but it's actually promoting escalation. Everyone carrying a gun doesn't defuse the environment, nor does it put everyone on equal footing. All it does is make everyone look at each other suspiciously, especially since everyone would be hyper-aware of the damage potential if one began to discharge. Even at the range I and my buddies were acutely aware of everyone who was holding. It was fun, but it was tense, because one bullet is all it takes.

Eh, I'm more in tune to the behaviors of the people with the gun than who has guns. If you look like you're nervous and twitchy, you're higher on the radar than some old man with a gun on.

It wasn't about nervous or twitchy, it was about monitoring everyone's safety awareness, regardless of the safety-rules we would talk about every time we got together. Now imagine everyone has a firearm in a public place and these are people you don't know. I don't know about you,  but I'm not about to assume everyone has my level of safety awareness or training. I'd rather there be no one carrying, including me.


Of course you're leaving out the difference between people carrying in public and people at the range.


People carrying in public tend to leave their guns in the holster, and even if someone does pull their gun out for some reason, it's not 20 people with the express purpose of shooting their guns. It's people who are just doing normal stuff and happen to have a gun with them. It's not like the range at all really.
 
2014-01-14 06:59:09 PM

Geotpf: The problem is that almost all forms of gun control that pass constitutional muster do nothing to reduce that death count.  Banning or restricting "assault weapons", limiting the concealed or open carry of firearms, and the like do nothing to reduce that death count.


I never advocated for a ban on anything. And I do not agree that "all forms of gun control" do nothing to reduce death count.
 
2014-01-14 07:00:46 PM

DrPainMD: ...and throwing millions of people in jail for driving safely from Point A to Point B, just because they have an arbitrary amount of alcohol in their bloodstream.


We shouldn't have drunk driving laws?
 
2014-01-14 07:00:53 PM

mr intrepid: That's always been my question; how do we differentiate between the hood going to knock over the quicky-mart, and Mr responsible gun owner? Until it's too late?


We can't. Just like we can't differentiate between a normal 80 year old driving to the flea market and the crazed, senile 80 year old driving through the flea market until it's too late.

Several things might happen:

1. The carnage from gun fire will become so great that:
either the culture and/or laws will change or we'll decide that XXX number of deaths is just acceptable collateral damage

or

2. The carnage from gun fire won't substantially change at all and either we'll decide that the current level of carnage is okay or we'll make cultural/legal changes because of it

or

3. Perhaps the carnage will increase in a completely out of control fashion and we'll have daily world-wide FPS events and it will be normal for everyone to carry multiple, different weapons and to wear kevlar suits, and only move around with "cover me" and dodge around bullet blocking objects

or

4. Something completely different will happen that we can't even imagine
 
2014-01-14 07:15:24 PM

Weatherkiss: If the 'other' people on the gun issue think that responsible owners should have to kill or injure another person commiting a violent crime in order to justify its continued legal existance, I think they're more batshiat insane than some of the Teatards who think Obama is going to take their guns.


So you think that whether or not things actually happen shouldn't affect public policy? Because that's what it seems like you're saying.

How can you justify the need for something without showing the need? I'd say that's the basis for every law to ever be fathomed.

For example, the gun control side can point to a myriad of studies that show that you're more at risk by having a gun, more likely to shoot a loved one than an intruder, that more guns = more crime on a state by state basis, that the states with the least restrictive laws have the most gun crime, etc, yet we can't even begin to form a law that restricts or requires, well, anything.

But as I said in my initial post, it was an irrelevant question, because you don't have to constantly prove the need for it. However, you should at least understand why you're seen as paranoid or unstable to outsiders. And it was a nice platform to show how obstructionist the gun nut side is when there is legitimate data to support additional gun control.
 
2014-01-14 07:18:19 PM

Kit Fister: justtray: Now a side note;
Here's a simple but irrelevant question - Have you ever discharged your weapon, legally, to defend or stop a crime? No, I'm not talking about made up DGU where some guy yelled at you and you pulled your piece and he walked away. I'm talking about have you EVER actually had to use the weapon you feel the need to carry around? If the answer is no, why do you feel the need to carry it around. This should be introspective to any gun nut, I hope, and should help you understand why everyone on the other side finds you so paranoid.

Had to discharge a firearm? No. Had the need to use one to stop a crime? yes.

Next question?


I totes believe you, just like I totes believe there's more defensive gun use than violent crime.

It was just a thought experiment, thanks for replying.
 
2014-01-14 07:19:08 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: I never advocated for a ban on anything. And I do not agree that "all forms of gun control" do nothing to reduce death count.


I do not agree that gun control is necessarily the answer that will have the most impact. Again, the number of 30k deaths due to guns is 60% suicides. So, wouldn't treating suicidal people and increasing awareness of/treatment of suicide/depression be more beneficial? Of the remaining number, a large majority of the crimes are committed by low-income, poorly educated folks who are using firearms to further criminal means of wealth enhancement. So, wouldn't increasing education, outreach, and programs that help folks that are poor and/or at risk to make better choices and not need to turn to crime and gangs be more useful?

Don't get me wrong, there are many things we can do that will help keep guns from flowing into the hands of the lawless. A big part of that has to be addressing the issues that drive the behaviors, though, otherwise we're not really fixing the problem, we're just spackeling over it.
 
2014-01-14 07:21:23 PM
So hypothetically since most businesses have insurance, does there tend to be discount/premium change for businesses that adopt a "no guns/notify police" policy. I'd expect that the insurer would want to make sure for their liability that they did everything in their power to prevent a shooting in the insured's facility.

Isn't this the same reason stores won't pursue a shoplifter who make it outside of the store, and employees are trained to not be a hero and just give the robber what they want and expedite them out of the store.
 
2014-01-14 07:24:24 PM

justtray: I totes believe you, just like I totes believe there's more defensive gun use than violent crime.

It was just a thought experiment, thanks for replying.


You know, I would be perfectly happy if we had a means to stop violence that didn't involve bullets. I like guns, sure, but as it is, it's an inefficient process that results in bodily harm. Ideally, I never want that to happen. We really don't have many alternatives that will reliably stop a determined attacker, though. There's a stun gun, but those are generally illegal for private citizens to own. There's mace, but mace is often times iffy and not really useful unless you get it in the face. Then there's tranquilizer darts, but the tranquilizers are usually hard to come by without certain licenses and take time to take effect, then you have to get the dosage right and risk reaction with other substances and/or physiological conditions...

I'd love to have some kind of futuristic plasma gun or sonic gun or something that simply stunned my attacker, rather than killing him. But that's science fiction.  Until then, I'm going to stick with a tool that lets me have some chance against an attacker or group of attackers so that I can at least fight back rather than simply beg for death as I bleed out. That wasn't a pleasant experience the last time.
 
2014-01-14 07:26:47 PM
You guys aren't understanding the intent of this legislation at all.  All they're trying to do is make it easier to tell who the most Responsible® people are in any given public space, that way we'll know who to put the least restrictions on.
 
2014-01-14 07:30:08 PM

Kit Fister: Again, the number of 30k deaths due to guns is 60% suicides.


Right. But they are no less dead and a gun was no less involved.

Kit Fister: So, wouldn't treating suicidal people and increasing awareness of/treatment of suicide/depression be more beneficial?


Let's also do this.

Kit Fister: Of the remaining number, a large majority of the crimes are committed by low-income, poorly educated folks who are using firearms to further criminal means of wealth enhancement.


I don't know that this is true.

Kit Fister: So, wouldn't increasing education, outreach, and programs that help folks that are poor and/or at risk to make better choices and not need to turn to crime and gangs be more useful?


Let's also do this.

Kit Fister: A big part of that has to be addressing the issues that drive the behaviors, though, otherwise we're not really fixing the problem, we're just spackeling over it.


Every single one of the above situations has one thing in common - a gun. We can address all those thing you want to address and tackle the access part of the equation.
 
2014-01-14 07:34:43 PM

LadySusan: mr intrepid: That's always been my question; how do we differentiate between the hood going to knock over the quicky-mart, and Mr responsible gun owner? Until it's too late?

We can't. Just like we can't differentiate between a normal 80 year old driving to the flea market and the crazed, senile 80 year old driving through the flea market until it's too late


Easily preventable . Senility and other imparments don't just happen in an instance. Mandatory extensive psych, physical, and toxological evaluations yearly for every driver, monthly when your reach a certain age. Weekly for teenagers. Biometrics and breathalizer starters on every car mandatory.  National criminal background checks at every point of alcohol sales.  But, there is no public or political will  to do this. Like you said,  we have reached an acceptable level of automotive carnage, and it is far greater than firearms. Meanwhile, the gun carnage level has been dropping for awhile.
 
2014-01-14 07:35:32 PM

Kit Fister: Again, the number of 30k deaths due to guns is 60% suicides. So, wouldn't treating suicidal people and increasing awareness of/treatment of suicide/depression be more beneficial? Of the remaining number, a large majority of the crimes are committed by low-income, poorly educated folks who are using firearms to further criminal means of wealth enhancement. So, wouldn't increasing education, outreach, and programs that help folks that are poor and/or at risk to make better choices and not need to turn to crime and gangs be more useful?


If gun owners cared about these things as much as they cared about their guns, we'd have the most robust social safety net on earth.

Until I see self-conscious gun owners marching on Washington for education reform, universal healthcare and a living wage, I'd rather just take your precious dick-extenders away.
 
2014-01-14 07:37:37 PM

justtray: So you think that whether or not things actually happen shouldn't affect public policy? Because that's what it seems like you're saying.


It's easy to make the case for gun crimes, mass shootings, etc. being cause for more gun control. Extremely easy. Because there is raw, tangible data there to use to back up your case.

It is not easy for those of us on the pro-gun side of the issue to defend it. While we do have access to stastistics and plenty of real life stories backed by solid documentation of firearms being used for their intended purpose of hunting game, target practice, and home defense -- what we do not have statistics on is how many crimes are prevented simply by the criminal recognizing their intended target as openly carrying a pistol, and simply not executing their criminal act as a result.

This is both good and bad. It is good because of the raw reality of crimes simply not being committed due to the would-be criminal unwilling to take the risk, biding their time, and going after someone else who is not carrying. Since 'thought crime' is an impossibility, the statistics on crimes being prevented through the presence of a legally-carried sidearm (not its use) are dubious at worst, and unknowable at best.

Gambles are taken every day by criminals. Risk vs. Reward. The criminal act vs. the reward of said act, and the consequences of being caught. If one of the consequences of being caught is getting killed -- this is a variable that will no doubt influence the criminal's decision to act.

But there are no statistics to back up the 'would be' crimes prevented. That doesn't mean it isn't a very real thing -- since that's the idea of carrying a gun, deterring negative social behavior towards your person or those around you. It's not the idea of actually using it on another living person. It's the idea of preventing them from acting to begin with.

It is bad, because as previously mentioned... without data to back up would be criminals, it makes the current gun laws seem highly unnecessary from a pure data standpoint. With guns being used in illegal ways, it overshadows the many responsible gun owners who live their entire lives without having to use it -- because they aren't newsworthy, and it prevents 'would be' crimes from entering the statistics because it's impossible to know what crimes might have been prevented. As opposed to the crimes that are commited against people who openly carry, which once again -- provides raw data suggesting people who openly carry 'dare' others to attack them. When in fact it could be just as feasible many more don't occur at all because people don't want to take the gamble.
 
2014-01-14 07:43:45 PM

The Name: Kit Fister: Again, the number of 30k deaths due to guns is 60% suicides. So, wouldn't treating suicidal people and increasing awareness of/treatment of suicide/depression be more beneficial? Of the remaining number, a large majority of the crimes are committed by low-income, poorly educated folks who are using firearms to further criminal means of wealth enhancement. So, wouldn't increasing education, outreach, and programs that help folks that are poor and/or at risk to make better choices and not need to turn to crime and gangs be more useful?

If gun owners cared about these things as much as they cared about their guns, we'd have the most robust social safety net on earth.

Until I see self-conscious gun owners marching on Washington for education reform, universal healthcare and a living wage, I'd rather just take your precious dick-extenders away.


well, you certainly sound like a dick.  Like attracts like I guess.
 
2014-01-14 07:46:10 PM

BunkoSquad: Kit Fister: Uh, open-carry in MI has been legal. You just needed a CCW permit to carry in your vehicle.

What if you ride with your window open, and your arm holding your gun out the window. That sounds cool as shiat actually.


dude yes, and once in a while you can shoot it in the air a few times, like if the guy in front of you is going too slow
 
2014-01-14 07:49:37 PM

Farker Soze: well, you certainly sound like a dick. Like attracts like I guess.


Yeah.  A nation full of gun owners, most of whom never utter the words "poverty" or "mental health" unless followed by "should be focused on instead of guns."  And I'M the dick.
 
2014-01-14 07:58:11 PM
I write my politicians and support every effort I can for education, higher minimum wages, and so on. All of the gun owners I know are parents and are heavily involved in education and social programs and many also donate to local shelters, mental health programs and what have you.

I am proud to say I donate regularly to many orgs that support these efforts.

But yeah, gun owners are the bad guys here.
 
2014-01-14 08:01:15 PM
So when it comes to all the OC proponents here- are you just unholstering and leaving your weapon unsecured in your vehicle every time you come across a "No Guns Allowed" sign on private property? What about other areas that weapons are not allowed?
 
2014-01-14 08:06:20 PM

Kit Fister: I write my politicians and support every effort I can for education, higher minimum wages, and so on. All of the gun owners I know are parents and are heavily involved in education and social programs and many also donate to local shelters, mental health programs and what have you.

I am proud to say I donate regularly to many orgs that support these efforts.

But yeah, gun owners are the bad guys here.


Again, if you (a collective "you") cared about social welfare as much as you do about your guns, we'd have a social safety net that is as strong as our gun laws are weak.  Why is the NRA the wealthiest and most prolific institution representing gun owners?  For as much as you guys talk about social welfare (when gun control is put on the table, at least), shouldn't it be "Gun Owners for Social Democracy" or something to that effect?
 
2014-01-14 08:09:14 PM

The Name: Farker Soze: well, you certainly sound like a dick. Like attracts like I guess.

Yeah.  A nation full of gun owners, most of whom never utter the words "poverty" or "mental health" unless followed by "should be focused on instead of guns."  And I'M the dick.


Oh boo hoo, someone cares more about one subject than another one that I prefer, so I'm going to take that away out of pure spite. Yep, your a dick.
 
2014-01-14 08:12:57 PM

Farker Soze: The Name: Farker Soze: well, you certainly sound like a dick. Like attracts like I guess.

Yeah.  A nation full of gun owners, most of whom never utter the words "poverty" or "mental health" unless followed by "should be focused on instead of guns."  And I'M the dick.

Oh boo hoo, someone cares more about one subject than another one that I prefer, so I'm going to take that away out of pure spite. Yep, your a dick.


But it's that "one subject that I prefer" that YOU guys are bringing up as the key to alleviating problems associated with your "subject."  That kind of puts the ball in you guys' court, and you're not following through.  So yeah, let's cut the BS and solve those problems the easy way.
 
2014-01-14 08:18:36 PM

The Name: Farker Soze: The Name: Farker Soze: well, you certainly sound like a dick. Like attracts like I guess.

Yeah.  A nation full of gun owners, most of whom never utter the words "poverty" or "mental health" unless followed by "should be focused on instead of guns."  And I'M the dick.

Oh boo hoo, someone cares more about one subject than another one that I prefer, so I'm going to take that away out of pure spite. Yep, your a dick.

But it's that "one subject that I prefer" that YOU guys are bringing up as the key to alleviating problems associated with your "subject."  That kind of puts the ball in you guys' court, and you're not following through.  So yeah, let's cut the BS and solve those problems the easy way.


why are you ranting so much on the internet when you could be out working a soup kitchen or developmental half way house?   More dickish behavior showing through.
 
2014-01-14 08:19:56 PM

Kit Fister: I write my politicians and support every effort I can for education, higher minimum wages, and so on. All of the gun owners I know are parents and are heavily involved in education and social programs and many also donate to local shelters, mental health programs and what have you.

I am proud to say I donate regularly to many orgs that support these efforts.


You forgot to tell us about your black friends.
 
2014-01-14 08:23:18 PM
First the rape enthusiast shows and now the racists. Swell.
 
2014-01-14 08:26:11 PM

Farker Soze: why are you ranting so much on the internet when you could be out working a soup kitchen or developmental half way house? More dickish behavior showing through.


Last semester I taught 56 undergrads ancient history; this semester I'm teaching about 75.  Education was one of the topics brought up here, and I'm following through by dedicating my life (not to mention sacrificing my health) to it.

I was going to follow that up with a challenge to your own contributions to society, but I've already lost track of the point, which is that the support gun owners show for social welfare is not reflected in their politics.  Again, if they brought as much fervor to social welfare issues as they do to gun issues, then Congressmen would be just as afraid to vote against the minimum wage increase as they are to vote for gun control.
 
2014-01-14 08:31:57 PM

Ringshadow: Wait what?

Open Carry has been legal in Michigan for years. My brother's an open carry supporter.


There's at least one in every family.
 
2014-01-14 08:33:55 PM

The Name: Farker Soze: why are you ranting so much on the internet when you could be out working a soup kitchen or developmental half way house? More dickish behavior showing through.

Last semester I taught 56 undergrads ancient history; this semester I'm teaching about 75.  Education was one of the topics brought up here, and I'm following through by dedicating my life (not to mention sacrificing my health) to it.

I was going to follow that up with a challenge to your own contributions to society, but I've already lost track of the point, which is that the support gun owners show for social welfare is not reflected in their politics.  Again, if they brought as much fervor to social welfare issues as they do to gun issues, then Congressmen would be just as afraid to vote against the minimum wage increase as they are to vote for gun control.


When I think of helping the downtrodden and social welfare outreach, teaching ancient history to college undergrads isn't high on my list. It's not even in the top 14.
 
2014-01-14 08:34:33 PM
Real solutions to imaginary threats for imaginary heroes.
 
2014-01-14 08:39:09 PM

edmo: Real solutions to imaginary threats for imaginary heroes.


Yeah, it's a good thing criminal acts only happen on TV, in the movies, and in video games.
 
2014-01-14 08:40:25 PM

Farker Soze: When I think of helping the downtrodden and social welfare outreach, teaching ancient history to college undergrads isn't high on my list. It's not even in the top 14.


Well, to begin with we weren't even talking about helping the downtrodden and social welfare outreach per se.  I'm talking about public policy, not individual charity.  Simple question: why are Congressmen not afraid to vote against a minimum wage increase but very afraid to vote for gun control?

And while we're at it, just for the hell of it, tell me what contribution you're making to society that stacks up against my teaching.
 
2014-01-14 08:41:31 PM

EdNortonsTwin: The reason people open carry is......................it's been a secret until now...................because it's funny to watch people wet themselves when they see a safely holstered pistol.

I'd open carry from time to time if it was legal here.

/ 8.5" thanks for asking.


They do make pistols that aren't chopped-down-to-stupid AR15s.

i1346.photobucket.com
 May I suggest something more purpose-built and useful, with a 6.5" barrel, like this:
ruger.com
 
2014-01-14 08:47:25 PM

The Name: Farker Soze: When I think of helping the downtrodden and social welfare outreach, teaching ancient history to college undergrads isn't high on my list. It's not even in the top 14.

Well, to begin with we weren't even talking about helping the downtrodden and social welfare outreach per se.  I'm talking about public policy, not individual charity.  Simple question: why are Congressmen not afraid to vote against a minimum wage increase but very afraid to vote for gun control?

And while we're at it, just for the hell of it, tell me what contribution you're making to society that stacks up against my teaching.


I give very large government checks to people who usually aren't very well off after events that would have otherwise devastated them financially.
 
2014-01-14 08:48:44 PM

Farker Soze: The Name: Farker Soze: When I think of helping the downtrodden and social welfare outreach, teaching ancient history to college undergrads isn't high on my list. It's not even in the top 14.

Well, to begin with we weren't even talking about helping the downtrodden and social welfare outreach per se.  I'm talking about public policy, not individual charity.  Simple question: why are Congressmen not afraid to vote against a minimum wage increase but very afraid to vote for gun control?

And while we're at it, just for the hell of it, tell me what contribution you're making to society that stacks up against my teaching.

I give very large government checks to people who usually aren't very well off after events that would have otherwise devastated them financially.


You forgot to tell me about your black friends.
 
2014-01-14 08:48:49 PM

ikanreed: JerseyTim: 99% percent of open carriers look like tools, but it's still better than concealed carry. Concealed carry is like, "ok, if shiat goes down, I can be the hero." At least open is carry is, "Hopefully shiat won't go down if they see my piece."

And the sad thing is, the difference should be completely irrelevant to us gun control advocates.  The not-entirely-justified assumption of them not shooting people for no reason belies both activities.  Whether you see it or not, it can still be used to kill someone without a thought.


In fact, no, it can't.  Killing someone with a gun does, in fact, require a thought.  And when you stay stupid shiat like that, you make it harder for those of who would like to see intelligent restrictions get anything done, but you play into the "omg liberals think guns kill people by themselves!11!!" mindset.
 
2014-01-14 08:53:03 PM

The Name: Farker Soze: The Name: Farker Soze: When I think of helping the downtrodden and social welfare outreach, teaching ancient history to college undergrads isn't high on my list. It's not even in the top 14.

Well, to begin with we weren't even talking about helping the downtrodden and social welfare outreach per se.  I'm talking about public policy, not individual charity.  Simple question: why are Congressmen not afraid to vote against a minimum wage increase but very afraid to vote for gun control?

And while we're at it, just for the hell of it, tell me what contribution you're making to society that stacks up against my teaching.

I give very large government checks to people who usually aren't very well off after events that would have otherwise devastated them financially.

You forgot to tell me about your black friends.


What is it with your racists?
 
2014-01-14 08:53:49 PM

justtray: Wow, dumbass thinks he laid down the old school alley rape on the gun nuts in this thread.


This must be that rape culture I hear so much about.
 
2014-01-14 08:53:56 PM

DrPainMD: rzrwiresunrise: There are no more "injuns" looking to scalp you.
The robbers use PoS hacks now.
There won't be any slave uprisings any time soon.
There are no gangstas comin to cap yo ass, unless you tryin to creep turf or front off.
The game tend to avoid public places.
The city of Fallujah is nearly 7,000 mi away.
The Martians have ray-guns whose discharge travels at the speed of light.
What is the need for open-carry again?

Ummm... there may not be any of those things anymore, but there still is a 2nd Amendment.


Open-carry is different from right-to-bear.
 
2014-01-14 08:54:09 PM

Farker Soze: What is it with your racists?


My racists are just fine, thank you very much.  Is there something wrong with yours?
 
2014-01-14 09:02:36 PM

Weatherkiss: Corvus: So gun nuts in this thread are both saying:
A) There is NO reason you should feel nervous others have a gun or that you need a gun on public.
B) I MUST have a gun in public because of all those reason above I said you don't need to have a gun.


Umm how does that make sense?

If you feel you have to have a gun, then why don't others have the same reason need to have a gun?

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight? You don't bring fists to a gun fight? There are many ways to harm other people using completely legal methods (including your fists). There are many ways to manipulate people to do what you want.

But a gun is generally agreed upon as being the final decider of a fight. You carry a gun because it is the superior weapon to either a knife, fist, etc. (again, depending on situation this can be untrue, but for your common everyday life it is).

There's a certain respect or fear for pistols. If you want to give someone an attitude adjustment, you openly carry. If you take the same human being and put them in front of someone who wants something from them, if that human being has a gunbelt and a holstered pistol -- more often than not the way you deal with that person will be extremely different.

And I think there are a lot of people in everyday life that needs to have an attitude adjustment.


This is one of the more stupid things I have read this year.
/I'm sure your mom is proud.
//At least I think that's what she was trying to say.
///She wasn't enunciating clearly at the time.
 
2014-01-14 09:03:28 PM

The Name: Farker Soze: What is it with your racists?

My racists are just fine, thank you very much.  Is there something wrong with yours?


you. Stupid tablet. Twice in 20-so posts two guys invoke black people in a condescending way when they got nothing. Mighty white of you. Can't admit that you can't handle someone actually in the field helpng the poor, with both hard work and hard cash, while you're.. teaching them about the Phoenician Empire?
 
2014-01-14 09:04:07 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: There's a certain respect or fear for pistols. If you want to give someone an attitude adjustment, you openly carry. If you take the same human being and put them in front of someone who wants something from them, if that human being has a gunbelt and a holstered pistol -- more often than not the way you deal with that person will be extremely different.

And I think there are a lot of people in everyday life that needs to have an attitude adjustment.


And don't you DARE suggest that guns are psychological substitutes for penises!
 
2014-01-14 09:08:20 PM

The Name: Kit Fister: I write my politicians and support every effort I can for education, higher minimum wages, and so on. All of the gun owners I know are parents and are heavily involved in education and social programs and many also donate to local shelters, mental health programs and what have you.

I am proud to say I donate regularly to many orgs that support these efforts.

But yeah, gun owners are the bad guys here.

Again, if you (a collective "you") cared about social welfare as much as you do about your guns, we'd have a social safety net that is as strong as our gun laws are weak.  Why is the NRA the wealthiest and most prolific institution representing gun owners?  For as much as you guys talk about social welfare (when gun control is put on the table, at least), shouldn't it be "Gun Owners for Social Democracy" or something to that effect?


Would you like to concede this sweeping generalization to laziness or bigotry?
 
2014-01-14 09:10:29 PM

The Name: demaL-demaL-yeH: There's a certain respect or fear for pistols. If you want to give someone an attitude adjustment, you openly carry. If you take the same human being and put them in front of someone who wants something from them, if that human being has a gunbelt and a holstered pistol -- more often than not the way you deal with that person will be extremely different.

And I think there are a lot of people in everyday life that needs to have an attitude adjustment.

And don't you DARE suggest that guns are psychological substitutes for penises!



You do know I didn't write that, right?
The original author of that idiotic tripe was Weatherkiss.
/Pistols are also a piss-poor substitute for brains, balls, and situational awareness.
 
2014-01-14 09:12:52 PM
If all of you pants wetters are so intent on living in a country without guns.....there is nothing stopping you from doing that. I can even provide you with links to airlines if you are having trouble moving to Australia or England.
 
2014-01-14 09:17:51 PM

Weatherkiss: There's a certain respect or fear for pistols. If you want to give someone an attitude adjustment, you openly carry. If you take the same human being and put them in front of someone who wants something from them, if that human being has a gunbelt and a holstered pistol -- more often than not the way you deal with that person will be extremely different.

And I think there are a lot of people in everyday life that needs to have an attitude adjustment.


www.tricitypsychology.com
 
2014-01-14 09:23:20 PM

Toxicphreke: If all of you pants wetters are so intent on living in a country without guns.....there is nothing stopping you from doing that. I can even provide you with links to airlines if you are having trouble moving to Australia or England.


1. Do you carry a firearm?
b. What are the reasons you carry a firearm?
 
2014-01-14 09:32:45 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: You do know I didn't write that, right?


Yeah, I know.  Got distracted while quoting.  Sorry.
 
2014-01-14 09:42:37 PM

mediablitz: MFAWG: FlashHarry: what is the point of open carry? is it to show off? is it to make a political point? or is it just to warn other people that you're an asshole?

It's so that you'll know to not disrespect the carrier.

Makes it easier to kill someone if they are texting during the previews of a movie.


So what you're saying is, "ban retired cops?"
 
Displayed 50 of 509 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report