By opting out of owning guns, you're giving us a power monopoly.

Another rather odd statement, given the irrational fears driving the gun control efforts of the left.

 

It sounds like you're equating carrying a gun with brandishing a gun. Brandishing is a crime, and has a legal definition that differentiates it from merely carrying, which is not a crime.

I've not encountered any police who seemed afraid when they find out (by asking) that Im armed. They've never even asked to see my permit to conceal.

 

So?

 

Why would a cop think you have a gun? As I said, never in all the times I've been pulled over have I ever been asked if I have a gun. Nor has anyone I know ever been asked such a question. I believe that to be the case because I don't believe that is a routine question cops ask during a routine traffic stop.

 

By opting out of owing a firearm, you shirk your duties as a contributing member of society - rather than take responsibility for your own security, you selfishly, and ridiculously, choose to let the state protect you.
This creates an unnecessary burden on others and wastes resources that could be better used elsewhere.

 

Deaths of 572,000 people in USA 1999-2016 is a tragedy. Why do modern Americans value human life so little?

 

Lol, it’s already a problem.
I do like older firearms I own several. Some are shooters some not, some ammo isn’t available. I have an old m-91 whose rear sight is graduated in arshini. Pretty cool old stuff.

 

You misunderstand my question.
You said:
I do not need such dangerous toys.
I asked:
So?

So...?

 

In reality no civilian needs them.

 

Prove this to be true.
Be sure to take into consideration the fact that 70% of violent crime in the US does not involve a firearm.

 

I just mentioned horrible statistics of firearm deaths in USA.

 

Why do make such assumptions? Let me be clear...I don't carry a gun.

 

Ah. You cannot prove you claim that "In reality no civilian needs them".
Thank you.

 

As opposed to politicians who call for nationwide prohibitions on firearms anytime they are used for illegal purposes?

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...xiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793824/

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...xiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793824/

 

Nothing here addresses what I said. Feel free to try again.

 

See post #42.

 

I am a gun owner and would never say "no civilian needs a gun" however, I would say most civilians in the US don't need a gun as evidenced by the fact that most civilians in the US go their entire lives never needing a gun.
I don't carry a gun but support the right for others to carry a gun. It comes down to comfort level. Some are comfortable going out in public without a gun while others aren't. To each his own I say.

 

Incorrect, however let's assume your position for the sake of argument: I don't recall it being called the "bill of needs".

 

I only needed flood insurance during a 1 week period (Harvey). The rest of the year? It was entirely superfluous but for my state of mind.

Thing is: You can't a) predict the one week you'll need it or b) magically produce it when its needed if you don't have it on a continuing basis.

Same principle applies to carrying a firearm for self defense.

 

My point is that carrying a gun is a choice.

 

Which has nothing to do with need. People deny themselves their needs all the time.

 

And?

 

"however, I would say most civilians in the US don't needa gun as evidenced by the fact that most civilians in the US go their entire lives never needing a gun."

And ^ that statement is incorrect. Full stop.

What was unclear about that?