How do you leap to that conclusion? I do not see that 'logic' at all. The question is how many firearms, with no implication that more means better ability, or more craziness, or any kind of competition. The more pertinent question is why anyone would think like this over a poll question.. I'm an old guy with a large firearms collection. That does not put me in competition with a young cop. He & i would likely be allies, in any shtf scenario, anyway. Why would you think we would be competing with each other? I can shoot shotguns, rifles & pistols, with decent accuracy. There are a lot of very good shooters out there. I would bet on Jerry Miculek in any kind of a revolver match, against any well trained young guy. But this is not about competition.. in any kind of match shooting. Volume means nothing in that. Practice & more practice is the main factor in accurate competitive shooting, not the number of guns you own. As the Last Free American, i don't mind telling of my ownership of firearms. I possess them all legally, & they are not used in any criminal activity. I have nothing & no one to fear, so i don't. I'll talk about any particular weapon, how it shoots, what reloads work best, the combinations of powder.. it is my hobby, & i am open about it. That said, i understand the reluctance of many people to talk about their firearms in an open forum. They fear retribution or a conspiracy from gun grabbers.
You are late to the party. The inspiration for this poll was that certain posters on here made the claim that existing gun owners are the reason for the explosion in gun sales. He insists that gun owners are stockpiling guns, and that there are fewer actual gun owners. I started a post asking gun owners how many firearms do they own to prove that there are very few gun owners that have recently built up an arsenal of firearms. And that there are many first time gun owners? This thread with an actual voting poll, was based on my original thread.
While this is all true, none of it has anything to do with passing legislation. When ruling, our Supreme Court weighs facts, and facts only. We pass laws based on facts, not emotion. When knee jerk emotion gets in the way, there is no objectivity.
That is ultimately your opinion. Beyond those who have experienced victimization for themselves, and know what can go wrong with being unarmed? If such answers were had, the united states could more accurately combat such, and possibly conceive some effective method of reducing their prevalence. Such was never said. What was said was that feelings and emotions are of no relevance to the discussion. Considering the recent actions of police officers, they are not trained to diffuse situations. Rather than deescalate a volatile matter, they escalate the level of violence, making use of physical force and even deadly force almost immediately. None of which justifies using emotions and feelings as the basis for implementing policies that will affect hundreds of millions of individuals. Such policies and laws must be based on actual fact, not what you or anyone else feels when you are upset, and of the mindset that something, anything, simply must be done, rather than waiting to calm down, and think logically. It is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction. Are we to believe there is a problem with someone being a psychopath?
You are really funny! Other than having swallowed an outdated dictionary, your comments have not much to offer. Emotions and feelings MUST be taken into account in every decision making. . .even in economics. If you can't see that. . .we don't have much to talk about. And. . .YES, there is a real problem with ANYONE (especially people holding some power) being psychopaths.
I've never made an emotional decision that I'm proud of. In fact, making decisions based on emotion is almost always the wrong choice. Personally I think it's always the wrong choice, but there may be examples I can't think of where an emotional decision would be better. Got any examples of when making a decision based on emotions is better than when it is based on logic and reasoning? Psychopathy is the lack of empathy as well as emotion. There's a difference between choosing logic over emotion, and not having emotion or empathy.
You really don't get it, do you? Making decisions based on LOGIC and reasoning INCLUDES taking EMOTIONS under consideration! Ignoring emotions that often TRIGGER an action is ILLOGICAL. It is a combination between logic and reasoning that REQUIRES that one takes into consideration the emotions involved in the setting/issue to arrive to a proper conclusion and plan of action! I NEVER said that emotions should OVERRIDE logic and reasoning. . .just that the consideration of emotions MUST be part of the logical process and reasoning in order to be complete. And, whether you want to admit it or not, ONLY psychopath are able to negate all emotions to act!. . .and the exclusion of emotion and empathy in their action is exactly what makes them so dangerous to society
But our courts CONSIDERS THE EMOTIONS of people they judge before they render judgement! (i.e., "fear of being killed" in a murder case, or the case of "hate crimes")
None of which justifies the notion of drafting, passing, or enacting legislation that will have wide reaching consequences, based solely on the feelings and emotions of the public. Legislation must be based on actual facts, not what it felt during a time when no one is thinking clearly because they are too upset to actually stop and think.
Unfortunately the left doesn't consider any facts when it comes to reducing violence or criminal behavior, which is obvious in every action they take, and pure emotion is at the root of all "gun control" legislation.
Being a 50+ survivalist myself with a military background and a modest number of guns---I was just explaining my logic that some, maybe not you or others in this forum may have, that have a safe full of out-dated guns and stockpiles of ammo will be hard pressed in a survival situation with a younger guys trained in combat or used to gang activity with modern weapons. In a stand up fight, yes the shooting enthusiast would probably prevail---but reality is not Wild Bill shooting Tut on the town square at 75 yards. During some "event" there will be those with the bunker mentality vs those who will actively patrol---or raid. It will be those younger folks, some with police, military and especially criminal gang experience who will be the greatest threat. As witnessed in New Orleans during Katrina, it was not the older gun collector types killing people and raiding and looting---it was the younger criminal element.
Wow! And i thought I had a bad firearm addiction! I've only got 73. But i only shoot one at a time, so its not the quantity, but the quality. I have a very eclectic mix.. some cheap ones, some higher end.. rifles, shotguns, & pistols.. pretty equally distributed, but i admit a penchant for revolvers.. especially big bore revolvers. For some unknown reason, possibly insanity or dementia, i am wanting to add a 454 casull revolver to my collection.
Once again. . .where did I say "based SOLELY on the feelings and emotions" of anyone? But if legislation doesn't take into ACCOUNT the feelings and emotions of the public. . . the legislation will NOT be successful! Most legislations are actually progressing BASED on a change of emotions and feelings from the general public on an issue (i.e., gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. . .). The gay rights legislations (i.e., allowing homosexuals to marry same sex partners) was BASED on the growing feelings of acceptance of the REALITY of gay life style and their equal rights to choose their spouse.
Depending on just what the legislation in question is, and what it attempts to do, it cannot be successful even if based on a purely logical approach. There are those who believe that a sex offender convicted of raping a minor child either be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, or made eligible for the death penalty. Yet this is not the case. Sex offenders who raped children are eventually allowed back out into the public, regardless of the outrage this causes. Do you believe that this standard should be reversed because the public is outraged as a result?
lol, That's because this post is not about inanimate object fearing liberals. - - - Updated - - - LOL Well I didn't say that if you posted what you had, that it couldn't be traced. Just the poll...
