Who here is afraid to live unarmed?

I have now heard on this forum Power trip and penis extensions........

Watch out for the women on power trips.

 

It should also be added that the study doesn't explore the question of whether or not the victim was legally armed. One gang member shooting another gang member who had a gun has no bearing on law abiding citizens carrying a gun for defense. Even the "4.5 times" figure only highlights that the victim was himself a criminal, making himself more of a target than the average citizen. This study proves nothing in regard to lawful CCW.

- - - Updated - - -

Another Leftist lie debunked.

 

Not only do I live unarmed, I don't lock my doors either. I figure if someone wants to get in, they will.

 

Shudder! The point of locking your door is that it will discourage some casual attempts at burglary, especially if there is also an alarm system. But at to the serious people who want inside no matter what, a locked door can give you precious time to get prepared.

Now if you intend to be a passive victim come what may, then it makes no difference whatsoever, but if you intent to at least get a lunch off of them while they are getting a full meal, so to speak, then that at least gives you time to arm yourself with something.

 

Wow. I bet you live alone and don't have a family to protect.

Good for you!

 

We europeans already resigned to fighting because we know it is useless, we won't be fighting again each other, remember that we made more wars than all the rest of the world put togheter, we lost millions and destroyed ourselves in WWI and WW2. Consequently we have a rightful fear of arming again. Now we are much more concerned to make up the european union than defending from our local govs.

 

LOL, if you think WWI and WWII were started because law abiding citizens owned guns, then you have little use for History.

 

You are saying that, i didn't. Since we destroyed ourselves so many times we are rightfully fearful of arms, we don't want to fight, we prefer that our gov provides adequate protection, we are much more into the state than yours, we are have not your independent mentality. And just to make things clear: we don't have armed gangs and psychos hanging around, it's you who have that kind of people.

 

And who really provides the majority of protection for the EU? It certainly isn't the EU.

 

Those who own guns for personal protection and self-defense are obviously racists. If mischievous youths crash in your door and invade your home, don't be frightened. Turn it into a kumbaya moment. Invite them to have a peaceful and meaningful dialogue with you. Offer them milk and cookies and tell them to take their time looking through your home for stuff to take. If you have jewelry or money stashed away, direct the young men right to it. The oppressed young gentlemen need your stuff more than you do.

And don't report these youths. You can take comfort in the fact that you made a sacrifice for diversity.

 

I understand all that you've written and do wish sympathetically (cannot hope because that implies that there is a chance) that the world would embrace your sentiments, but must ask was it the peaceful armed citizen or the government leadership armed with military force that was/is responsible for all the death and destruction? Who do you believe to be responsible?

 

Would you feel the same way if you lived on the other side of the bay in Oakland? I live in an inner city community, and I do own a hand gun. This is not out of fear, but as a strong deterrent against someone doing something stupid. It will not stop someone from breaking, but it will make them think twice. Most people that knows me, knows my background. They have little doubt that I would shoot if necessary. They also know that I would not shoot to injure. They also know the same is true of my wife. Now, do I carry that gun everywhere I go. No. Why? Because, what little money I have does not make me much of a target, but a firearm that is worth several hundred does.

So, as you can see, my choice to own a firearm was not made out of fear. It is a simple matter of common sense. Thankfully, the Constitution gives me the right, and I choose to exercise that right.

 

Does your nation endure serial killers or organized crime?

 

If I lived life statistically I wouldn't be living.

As to not having a firearm in the hopes that someone with a firearm won't shoot me I counter; why not make those who carry firearms with evil intent fearful that they will encounter someone who peacefully carries a firearm?

Does your study see the armed perpetrator as a victim if he is shot during the commission of his violent crime? Did you know that the authorities in America are training high school students to react in an aggressive manner against an active shooter in school? Why then should we train children to defend themselves from an individual with a firearm but statistically push and embrace a position of victimhood for all others? It just don't make no sense, statistically speaking.

 

Those were the times of nationalisms and we cannot compare with the moden world, give me a break. We had fascism and nazicomunism, all sentiments born out of revenge and exaltation, today we live in a different world.

I'm not saying owning a gun is necessarily a bad thing, it's just that i see it something to be heavily regulated, as it is in europe. But in your case it' s also a matter of businness that of firearms, not just defense. Your hystory and geography too had a great influence on your choice to be prepared to anything, hurricanes and local disasters for example made having a gun useful against looters.

Anyway we have the lowest intentional homicide rate in the world as you see, which demonstrates that being unarmed not necessarily means more exposed to being killed, in our case it's the exact opposite.

 

You are only fooling yourself if you think we live in a different world.

 

At least our scientific discoveries will no longer consent arians to declare other people to be sub human and kill them en masse...

 

LOL, like Germany in the past, Russia is now hinting that Jews in charge are in power in Ukraine or liberal studies that try to prove that being conservative is a genetic trait. Nothing changes.

 

But they can't prove it empirically, that's quite something. Nazis managed to prove it by using the vague standards of their times, now they can't do it anymore.

 

It's not a case of hoping, it's a statistical fact that those who have a gun are more than FOUR TIMES more likely to be shot, than those who dont. It's the gun owners that become victims.

 

You fear firearms yet idolize government.
It was and is government that creates war which you fear. Blaming a gun for war is the epitome of denial.
The fact a European society could collectively bring itself to believe such a non truth is exactly why you had those two wars.
I agree Europeans shouldn't be armed, just for different reasons.

 

It partly depends on where one lives. I've lived in a higher crime inner city area for a long time, and especially as a woman I realized that there were times when I feared my safety and wished I had a firearm. I don't have that problem anymore now that I have a concealed weapons permit.

What I find particularly amusing from the gun control crowd is the way they try to look down on gun owners and say, "I feel sorry for you that you are so fearful you feel you need to own guns," while they themselves are so fearful they feel the need to enact gun bans. Not only do they feel the need to enact gun bans, but they single out guns to fixate on while ignoring far more deadly things like alcohol. Then again, they probably like alcohol.

Do these people think things through before saying this nonsense? I've had several liberals say that to me and I laugh at them.

 

That's befuddling to me.

You'd think support of gun control and blind trust in government would have gone out with Hitler, at the least. Nope, they keep on trucking like nothing happened.

Hint: Hitler demanded the Jews turn in their guns.

 

Could you give us a direct example of an "NRA scare campaign" that isn't a subjective complaint from an op-ed on a liberal website?

 

The study(ies) you cite, does it hold that criminals using firearms shot in the commission of a crime are considered gunshot victims, are they four times more likely to be shot (by whom?) than your peaceful, law-abiding citizen?