When did you use your gun defensively?

When I was an infant we took a day trip to the mountains and stopped at one of my parents’ favorite spots. During our stay a couple bikers rolled in. Dad could tell they were trouble and loaded wife & kid into the car.

During the load up one of the bikers shouted at dad to “hand over summa that g00k ***** (mom was Asian).” Loudmouth wheeled his bike about 5 feet off the back bumper and dismounted. He walked over to the driver’s side window and leaned in to find himself looking down the barrel of a .357. He and his compadre saddled up and rode off.

25 years later I owned a 1965 Plymouth Barracuda. One day I towed it to a building my dad owned where I was going to work on it. As I pulled onto the property there were a couple guys about my age sharing a crack pipe. I rolled down the window and said “Hate to tell you guys, but this is private property and you’ll need to clear off.” They both snarled and cursed. One of them picked up a piece of rebar and both advanced. I let them see my pistol and told them to simmer down. Both men split.

In both instances: no shots fired and nobody hurt. The FBI says that kind of defensive gun usage - where the weapon is brandished but not fired and no injuries are sustained – happens upward of 250k times annually. There’s private sector research asserting the actual number is north of 1 million. Whatever the actual tally, it’s not insignificant.

Mod Edit/Filter

 

[/QUOTE]
I don't want to quibble about your dubious tropes, half truths and untruths you expressed that no right-winger would disagree with. You just asked for the righty boxes you checked. I ain't got all day.

You rant against progressives, a list of grievances actual progressives would disagree with, and then say you are a progressive. What are your new/liberal ideas?

I suspect you are referring to classical liberalism which is a far cry from what we know as liberalism today. There's a clue.

Your narrow definition of "socialism" conveniently leaves out "various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." That's why right-wingers squeal about single payer health care as "socialist". Why leave that out.....the case builds.

Then we agree about ending the drug war....more evidence.

And you go on about me advocating for new tactics in the drug war? Do you mean increasing access to drug and alcohol treatment programs? Making parolees go to school? Those are the tactics to get people to conform to the will of the government? Wow, now making it obvious.

Next it's on to misuse the word conservative and think true liberalism is not controlling firearms...Okay the verdict is in.

You may now come out of the closet.....LIBERTARIAN.

One more thing, calling me an elitist. You take umbridge that I was making assumptions about a demographic (even though you did the same about progressives) but studies, just not my opinion, have shown, white middle class and up misjudge the threat of violent crime to themselves. I've noted my "position of privilege" before. I live in a dense urban neighborhood with homeowners and rentals, that is 58% Black and my city last year beat Chicago in homicides per capita.

Elitism by definition is giving advantage to the wealthy....nope not doing that.

How about regarding other people as inferior because they lack power, wealth....nope, I'm on some socialist thing called social security and having a disagreement about dumb choices people make is not elitism no matter how hard you spin it..

You are the one that said regulatory agencies are there for "control and authority". Does that mean an institution with evil intent should continue or not?

Someone that doesn't care about society's needs and only their own is egocentric and maybe narcissistic but not a megalomaniac.

The amount of uncontrolled gunfire gunfire can be reduced and you and the rest of the fringe patrol don't care..

I never brought up or cried about "feeling constantly under threat of being shot", you did. Was that projection.

 

Thanks for the story and the moral of the story is displaying a lethal weapon scares people. You and family were lucky they were unarmed or it would not have had such a happy ending.

 

Out of curiosity, would you prefer than me & my dad had been unarmed on those occasions?

 

do you not know what regulatory means? The implication is that they regulate in order to regulate they must have authority and control over something.

disagree. Society cares about societies needs society sets about fulfilling societies needs and individual cannot do that. The only ones that have any way of doing anything for society are billionaires and still they don't have much they can do.

the way you reduce accidental gunfire is safety precautions and if people like me didn't care then why would I take safety precautions.

So? Whatever your fear is of gun owners it is irrational. The only reason why you would ever advocate for restricting their rights is because you're afraid of them.

 

LOL. I accept your concession. You’ve made an accusation you can’t substantiate. The appeal to stone and ad hominem fallacy from you is expected and appreciated. When you accuse someone of lying without evidence you have lost any credibility you had.

Modern “progressives” are conservatives masquerading as progressive. They are conservative because they advocate for millennia-old government control of society policies. Modern progressives are statists. The quote I provided from the House Progressive Caucus demonstrates this to be true. This is not my opinion. By definition, statism is elitism because no entity can claim to be more qualified to make decisions for others if they are not elitist. You can not subscribe to modern progressivism without being elitist. This is not debatable unless you can provide evidence the definitions of elitism I provided are incorrect in some way.

Liberal ideas are relatively new in human history. They began with baby steps by the Greeks. Things really got rolling with the Reformation which allowed the Enlightenment to occur. Out of the enlightenment came what you correctly call classical liberalism. This was NEW in the context of human politics and agriculture based society. This classical liberalism was tried in practice in the United States (with a lot of mis-steps like slavery, prohibition, etc.) and resulted in the healthiest, most affluent, most productive society in history. Unfortunately, many humans still pine for the days of monarchy and feudalism. These folks don’t think the majority of people are as capable of making good decisions and must be ruled by an elite class. Thus, modern progressives, modern liberals, and modern conservatives advocate for millennia old controls on individuals and demographics

I reject old ideas of modern progressivism. I prefer the new ideas that came out of the enlightenment including (but not limited to)use of the scientific method, individual liberty, tolerance, and separation of church (all religions) and state.

Classical liberalism is the foundation of true progressivism but not modern progressivism you espouse. You are correct that modern liberals are not liberal by definition. They (modern liberals) are also statists and by definition elitist. They are also conservatives because they advocate for millennia old statist policies, not liberal policies.

I left nothing out. When I told you I was a socialist I clearly stated I was not authoritarian. Yes, there is statist socialism in theory, but it always ends up just authoritarian statism with one very elite class (economically) and a bunch of hungry folks.

Government ownership of production is unicorn dust—it doesn’t exist. On the other hand, worker ownership of production flourishes all over the world for those who desire true socialism.

It’s not my fault right wingers call universal healthcare “socialist”. It clearly isn’t socialist—it’s just more redistribution of wealth/surplus created through capitalism.

No. I want to end it. You wish it to continue. Evidence of what?

It’s none of the government’s business what you put in your body. It’s none of their business if you put laminaria and suction devices in your body. It’s none of their business what food you put in your body. And it’s none of their business what drugs you put in your body. And it’s none of your business either unless you are an elitist….

LOL. Actually I’m not a modern libertarian. I’ll bet you are unaware libertarianism is a leftist ideology historically and was co-opted and corrupted by neo-cons just like liberalism was co-opted and corrupted my modern progressives. I do believe in voluntarism, but as you should already know as a socialist it’s impossible to be a modern libertarian or LIBERTARIAN as you say. But you could say I have some relationship to the original leftist libertarianism based on socialism.

So you are saying you can’t be elitist because you live amongst minorities? LOL. I have not assumed anything about modern progressivism. I’ve stated facts about it and even posted the House Progressive Caucus to back it up. Not my assumption, from the horse’s mouth….

What makes you elitist is the fact you think you know better than others what their risk is. What makes you elitist is you are a statist that believes government (elites) need to guide and control others who are in your eyes deficient in knowledge, wealth, or intelligence. It has nothing to do with how many black people live near you.

Elitism is not based on wealth alone. In this case your elitism is based on your belief you and others know what’s best for others in a different demographic. You should know elitism can be based on perceived intelligence differences, educational differences, racial differences and social class differences as well as wealth. I hope this helps.

You have just proved you have no idea what socialism is. Social security is not socialism. It’s redistribution of capitalistic largess. There is nothing about Social Security that has anything to do with socialism. LOL

Yes. You are elitist because you are statist. You think you know better than others what kind of security they need. You think you know better than they do what they should own or possess. You are elitist because you think an elite class of people should govern using authoritarian policies to control other classes that are in different circumstances or enjoy different past times or have different beliefs.

You call other people’s choices dumb. People who you ADMIT are at much greater risk than you. Again, textbook elitism.

 

His answer is yes.

 

Yep - that was a rhetorical question, obviously. Edna says we were “lucky” the cockroaches were unarmed (although in my case one of them was explicit about how he was going to eff me up with the rebar if I didn't leave). It wasn’t that we were prepared. It was just dumb luck having nothing to do refusing to capitulate & having the means to back it up. She would clearly prefer that I had taken a beating or that my mom had been raped, and maybe one or more of us had been killed. Liberal contempt/disdain/disgust for anyone with a backbone never ceases to amaze.

 

Outed libertarian drops a load of rationalizations.

You asked what right-wing things you said and I provided a list no righty would argue with and no liberal would agree with. Mission accomplished. But you cry about ad hominem attacks and calling you a liar. Never did that. I said untruths which can be ignorance of the facts.

You then go onto quibble and rationalize...they're not really right-wing....yes they are. (I have all day)

With statements like :

Gun grabbers fear guns. Wrong. People don't pack guns out of fear. Wrong.
Again. " Research has likewise shown that the decision to obtain a firearm is largely motivated by past victimization and/or fears of future victimization (Kleck et al., 2011; Hauser and Kleck,)."

"Progressives have damaged the 'social order'". A classic right-wing trope and you use ancient history examples. Cherry picked social experiments that went bad having nothing to do with today. Moderates and the right were all for the "war on drugs". The left not so much.

"Progressives. have destroyed the family unit". Another right-wing classic that is without proof. Not a fact, a product of confirmation bias.

"Progressive policies haven't eliminated crime." "Just a fact"...not. An exceedingly vague statement, but righties would agree blaming crime on progressives....but crime will never be eliminated or maybe you know how? Progressive policing policies have increased crime? No, crime is down overall, but gun use is up. Whose policies are at fault there?

"Social programs have exacerbated the crime problem." "True"...not. You are singing to the right-wing choir. What no social safety net? Let's yank it and see increased homelessness, desperation and hunger. I'm sure that won't make crime go up. It's a right-wing myth that programs are "designed" to keep people in poverty and you buy into it. Jobs programs and financial aid for education are efforts to move people out of poverty were pushed by progressives.

"Taxes that support law enforcement hasn’t worked to protect innocents from criminals." Right-wingers always have a problem with taxes and they think that's why ya gotta be armed.

"The ones you wish to violate the rights of differ from you " "Just a fact"...no. We all live in the same society. We all must live together.in a hopefully peaceful society. In that we are the same. To get there, I say less guns and the right (and you) says more guns. Who sounds sane?

"Progressives lack personal responsibility." Total subjective nonsense and another right-wing trope. Your "proof" is quoting the Progressive Caucus which states government should ensure equal opportunity for everyone and they want to advances justice, dignity, and peace for all people. Like that is a bad thing? How is that preventing personal responsibility? Allowing unequal opportunity promotes personal responsibility? What? More rationalizations.




You then go on to further misuse words like conservative and progressive. Progressives "are conservative because they advocate for millennia-old government control of society policies." Nope, untrue. Insuring equal rights and opportunity for all classes, races, sexes, genders is a new thing as far as history goes and conservatives fought against each gain. You go on to say governing is elitism. So you're antigovernment. I guess that makes you anarcho-libertarian. So places like Mogadishu is more your style.

You go on pontificating about "classical liberalism". It favors negative liberty which is the absence of restraints or barriers limiting individual freedoms, to the extent that governments and other people should not be allowed to interfere with the free market or natural individual freedoms. I think we tried that in the 19th century and it didn't work out for a lot of people. The ruling classes made out like bandits though.

Modern social liberals, on the other hand, believe that individuals have positive rights, such as the right to vote, the right to a minimum living wage, and—more recently—the right to health care. By necessity, guaranteeing positive rights requires government intervention in the form of protective legislative and higher taxes than those required to ensure negative rights. Good things come of it for everyone and that is elitism? Okay.

It does get more strange. You say worker ownership of production flourishes all over the world? I must have missed the flourishing, but doesn't this production depend on making a profit through capitalistic endeavor and redistributing that profit to its workers? Then you say universal healthcare "isn’t socialist—it’s just more redistribution of wealth/surplus created through capitalism." And you see a difference? Wow.

Social Security forces you to pay into it, you can't opt out, the government then redistributes the money under it own rules. Classic socialism.

Then it's on to "It’s none of the government’s business what you put in your body." Well it kinda is, if you want to live in a safe society. I do, you don't. I don't want to be poisoned by unsafe products. Elitist thinking? I want companies to be regulated for safety. I don't like rat turds in my cereal or lead in my aspirin. And its kinda the governments business if it has to clean up the mess you make because of your addictions.

You do have a fascination with throwing the word "elitist" around. You call me an elitist, but I am not crying about an ad hominem attack, it's just dumb. Was that elitist? I point out the fact that the threat of violent crime to middle and upper class white people is exaggerated by usually conservatives (and libertarians) and I have studies to prove it makes me an elitist? Define me anyway you want because I defined you.

 

Well there were two other options you all didn't choose, flee or open a can of whoopass. If it were me it would have been flight, but that's not very manly and flashing a gun makes a better story. But two episodes in your life in what, the last 50 plus years, is certainly reason enough to daily carry a deadly weapon.

Now there seems to be some cognitive dissonance. You said government "doesn't have a responsibility to protect health and safety". So you were saying the FAA, FDA, etc. are unneeded,, shouldn't exist. Now you say (a new tack) they regulate with authority and control and it's not their reason to be as you stated earlier.

Most normal people care about what's happening in society even if they can't do anything about it. You don't care what's happening in Ukraine because it doesn't effect you and you can't do anything about it? Egocentric.

What I meant by "uncontrolled gunfire" was illegal gunfire and why I brought up the Fringe Patrol. People that don't want background checks because it's "harassment".

You still don't get it. I do not fear rational legal gun owners, sorry to disappoint you. I don't like the body count due to guns and the obstinance of the right to do anything about it.

 

The key word there is "choose." In a minority of jurisdictions there is a duty to retreat. Not the case for me & the old man. Flight wasn’t an option in any case. Dad’s departure was blocked by a Harley; it’s 50-50 at best whether I could’ve exited safely towing an old Plymouth behind a Ford Ranger on a 2-track dirt road. The can of whoopass option would’ve been less than 50-50, given that we were both outnumbered 2 to 1. It’s pretty clear you’re OK with that, you have no problem with icky conservatives being beaten or murdered once they’ve dared to disagree with you.

Your contempt for those of us who carry vs. no comment on the bad guys – you know, the ones who threatened to rape my mother; the dudes who wanted to brain me with a length of rebar, is illuminating. My modest arsenal doesn’t make me feel more masculine, any more than the fire extinguisher in my kitchen makes me feel like a fireman. Both are tools and nothing more.

I’m couldn’t be happier that you’ve chosen not to prepare for a worst case scenario, and that capitulating to the violent among us is so prominent in your response hierarchy. It illustrates how I’m much more tolerant of you than you are of me. The Elitist label suits you right down to the ground. Fortunately, me & mine are not subject to your sanctimony.

 

if you mean something you should say something.

That contracts would do nothing about this

you're whining about background checks. The only people that that affects are legal gun owners. If you weren't afraid of them you wouldn't be arguing for that.

Then you should probably focus on doing something about that rather than completely ignoring it in order to go after legal gun owners.

 

That's exactly the point. According to the FBI, it scares approximately 250k dirtbags annually, resulting in 250k peaceful resolutions. Seems to me that's something to applaud.

 

Outed? Is there something wrong with libertarian ideas? You espouse the libertarian position on drugs. Are you therefore an “outed” libertarian? Yes, I do have roots in leftist classic libertarianism, but I have little in common with modern libertarians. Pretty much just the drug thing, just like you my fellow outed libertarian.

You are aware libertarian (classic liberalism) ideals are responsible for much of the historical success of the United States, right?

You failed to address the points I made and addressed me instead. That is ad hominem fallacy. You are getting a lot of education in this thread. I hope it is helping.

I pointed out I agree with very little of what the right wing you describe espouses. So how am I a righty? I’m trying to educate you on facts. But instead of addressing those facts you are labeling me.

Do you have any evidence? We will see below the origin survey of the “study” you cite claims people fear guns. You didn’t read any of your cites did you? LOL

I suppose it’s time to educate you on your source. Your 2011 cite is a re-analysis of data collected by a non profit organization in 1994 through a telephone survey. The results were first published by the non profit (Police Foundation) in 1996. Here is a link to that publication.

https://www.policinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Cook-et-al.-1996-Guns-in-America.pdf

Here is a pull quote from your 2011 cite confirming it is based on the 1994 survey data published by Police Foundation in 1996. Your cite is behind a paywall, but clearly “fear” is subjective opinion because “fear” of crime or victimization is never addressed by the survey. More below…

In the forward of the 1996 article is the only reference to fear.

So the only reference to fear is in relation to fear of guns, not fear of crime etc. No questions in the survey asked about fear—only about self protection etc.

Your “study” you cite is based on the same data set as the link above. The data is a result of questions about why people own guns. For sport, self protection, or hunting. No questions about fear. Fear is not addressed in the survey—period. The only reference to fear is in the forward in the context of people who fear guns. Any reference to fear in your cite is subjective opinion because fear is not addressed in the data set your cite is based on. Remember I told you this in our first couple exchanges—that the term fear is subjective opinion of the authors of your cites—especially the ESSAY you posted which IS NOT a study but opinion by definition.

As an aside, the credibility of the nonprofit survey is questionable based on this interesting quote from the article.

LOL. I don’t know if the CDC ever made that claim, but either way, it’s one of the dumbest statements on firearms in history.

If they had looked at the data they would see vehicle accidents leading firearm deaths. Also firearm deaths were declining while vehicle deaths were increasing.

Vehicle deaths: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year



Firearm deaths: https://www.statista.com/statistics/258913/number-of-firearm-deaths-in-the-united-states/




Isn’t it interesting to look at facts instead of subjective opinions you post?

What? Eugenics is a social experiment having nothing to do with today? There are a couple threads on PF right now where progressives are advocating for abortion based on the principles of eugenics. To be clear, I don’t take right wing positions on abortion either!

Agreed the left is less for the war on drugs. My position is far left on the drug war. I keep pointing that out.

No. Analysis of all data (meta analysis) shows progressive policy aimed at “equality” has had a negative effect on the family unit. Here’s on example.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230345/

I base my political beliefs on facts, not confirmation bias. Please don’t project….

Wrong again. Since the defund the police movement crime has increased substantially and not just firearm crime. All crime. Here’s a bit from CNN on the problem in Los Angeles after defunding.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/25/us/defund-police-crime-spike/index.html

Progressive demographics called for defunding law enforcement. This is a fact. Whatever they are trying instead of law enforcement isn’t working which is my point!

The rest of your post will be addressed in another post due to character limits per post. Stay tuned.

 

Right wing myth? We’ve been spending more every year on “safety nets”. Here’s some data.




According to the Census Bureau, we have been spending more as a percentage of total spending and more overall each year on welfare programs. Since 1977 we’ve increased spending 400% (indexed to 1977 levels). If your opinion was valid we should see some corresponding drop in poverty. But we don’t. According to the census bureau over that time period we’ve seen small fluctuations but static poverty overall.



So, if more spending has not decreased poverty, why would less spending increase poverty?


Now for “education”. We are number four in spending on education among OECD countries. But we rank 38th in mathematics, 19th in science, and 13th in reading. At the state level progressive educational states (districts) like NY, CA, and DC underperform in graduation rates relative to spending. Progressive policy in education is not correlated with performance. This is just reality.

What? People think they need to be armed because of taxes? LOL. Please provide some evidence for this.

Please also show evidence tax funded law enforcement has protected minorities and others from criminal acts by law enforcement. Is BLM a fraud? Is BLM “progressive” or right wing?

You are queen of fallacious arguments. Please quote me saying anyone needs more guns. My position is it’s NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS if people own guns or not. Your position that it’s your business is elitism by definition. My position is the sane position because it recognizes rights.

Here is the quote again.

It’s not “bad”, it’s a fraud. Look at the examples of education and poverty above. The more progressives meddle with spending and attempting to equalize, the worse it gets for those they say they are trying to help. There just isn’t much data showing the policies you support are successful. Actively tailoring entitlements to decrease marriage rates has led to a five fold higher rate of poverty in single mother households compared to married households. I don’t care how much money you give a single parent, the opportunity of their children will never be equal to the opportunity of children from married parents. Look at how educational achievement of children differs between single and two parent households. The gap has increased as we have increased assistance to single parents.

No. I’m pointing out terms like progressive and conservative are being misused today to fool you into believing things that aren’t true. I’m pointing out what you think is ensuring equal opportunity is having the opposite effect. I’m pointing out with facts the policies you prefer are leading to more inequality over time on average, not less.

You should polish up on your history. For example, one big “progressive” idea to create “equal opportunity” is government healthcare. You think this is a new concept but it was used as a societal control mechanism by Egyptians 3000 years ago. As I keep saying, modern progressives are simply re-packaging very old policies. This is why it’s really conservatism which by definition seeks to preserve traditional societal controls.

As far as Somalia is concerned, it’s not anarcho-libertarian. LOL. Please educate yourself before embarrassing yourself further.

I did not say government is elitism, I said modern progressivism is elitist. A liberal government is not elitist because it doesn’t attempt to make personal decisions for the governed like modern progressive government does. See the difference?

It’s sad you can’t see the fraud. Here again is the quote from the Progressive Caucus.

Yet the policies put forth (positive liberties) are not about creating equal opportunity but equal outcomes instead. Government healthcare and minimum wage don’t create equal opportunity. They attempt to create equal outcomes even if individuals display no initiative or willingness to seize opportunity. You e been hoodwinked. And the ruling class continues on benefitting while you are fooled into thinking they care about you. Sad.

Yes, worker ownership flourishes for those who wish to be involved. I’m one example. Production has nothing to do with capitalistic endeavor. Production can occur with or without outside capital. It (production) can occur if a company is worker owned, privately owned and funded by private capital, government owned, etc.

Socialism is worker ownership and/or control of production. Period. It has NOTHING to do with government taking capitalistic largess and giving it to others. I’ve provided the definition of socialism. It’s a fact. Government healthcare IS NOT SOCIALISM. It’s not debatable.

No. Definition of classic socialism.

Social security is funded almost entirely by capitalistic largess—period. Nothing at all to do with socialism.

Nope. None of their business what you put in your body. You can eat pure rat turds if you want. Or drink a liter of vodka. Or have an abortion. Or put whatever sex organs you want in your body. The negative results of all the above are YOUR business as well, not theirs.

The government allows rat turds in your cereal. Sorry to wake you up to reality.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/health/insect-rodent-filth-in-food-wellness/index.html


It’s not the government’s job to clean up your addictions. You are addicted to misinformation about politics, food, socialism, etc. It’s not the job of government to clean that up. It’s your job, and it’s my job to help because we can live in a functional society without government intervention at every level.

Pointing out logical fallacy is not “crying”. It’s attempting to get you to debate facts instead of feelings. You are by definition elitist because you are a statist. I’m not defining you. You are defining yourself by choosing to be a statist. I’m just pointing out the ramifications of following modern progressivism. If you were a liberal you would not be statist or elitist. If you were a modern conservative you would be a statist and elitist. You get to choose, but you don’t get to re-define terms to feel better about your choice. That is rationalization my friend. It’s what political parties have been doing all along. It’s why modern liberals aren’t liberal. It’s why modern progressives aren’t for progress. It’s why modern libertarians are capitalist instead of Marxist. It’s OK to admit what you are. I get a lot of crap for being a socialist, but I’m not going to deny that I am by definition. I can’t claim to be “right wing” because I disagree with the right on most every issue. It’s OK to not be affiliated 100% with one political movement. In fact it’s dangerous to follow one ideology 100% because no political movement is correct or follows facts on all matters.

 

My, my, I opened a can of worms. You certainly worked hard on this.

 

You should be grateful he's taking the time to explain to you why you're wrong does it matter whether or not you accept it the fact that someone took this time to make sure you got the information to be important so some level of care about discussing with you.

If you don't want to have a discussion and understand the other side you're just preaching and you belong in the religious forum if that's what you're going to do.

 

An episode maybe 50 years ago is certainly reason enough to carry a gun daily? Okay, but be careful

Yes I should keep it simple to not confuse.
You are the one "whining" about background check "harassment". The only people that background checks affect are those that can't legally buy a gun. You seem confused.
I'm open to any ideas getting guns off the street. Whatcha got?

I'm interested in reading that citation.

 

no I made a valid point that you refuse to address.

The background check would do nothing to curb any sort of crime. Consider now we have background checks when you purchase a firm from a dealer write a list of all the crimes that has prevented.

I doubt you can think of a single one

So anyone that can legally buy a gun doesn't have to do a background check? If they do having to do it is having to do it so it does affect them.

there aren't any guns on the street I've been driving cars for 20 years probably about a million miles in that time. And then I wrote in cars when I was too young to drive and any car or any bus I've never been in it's never run over a gun.

Why do you insist on solving problems that don't exist?

I

 

I finally got around to reading your condescending rant and one thing struck me as funny "you don’t get to re-define terms to feel better about your choice." You call yourself "progressive" and you espouse quite a few opinions right-wingers agree with. You call yourself a "socialist" but like a fundamentalist Christian who says non-fundamentalists aren't real Christians, says state sponsored socialism isn't really socialism. Your form of socialism would have to compete in a capitalistic world. Worker owned companies, are great, but that's all they are, any more is a socialist fantasy. Nations with democratic socialism consistently rate as the happiest most content populations. Your vision seems closer to Social Darwinism.

You seem to have an aversion to the logic that if you believe there is a hazard then you fear not being prepared for it, so you prepare for that hazard. I guess the word fear makes it all sound unmanly or something. but “gun owners will often tell you that guns help them to feel safe, secure and protected." It obviously allays their fears. As I've pointed out in the past the homicide rate for Blacks is 20.3 per 100K, for whites it's 1.8/100K and most violent crime affects those in poverty, so for members of the white middle class and above their rate would be somewhere south of 0.9/100k about Germany's homicide rate. They have very few guns.

Put in another way, the threat posed to an African American, especially in the lower classes is great and having a gun, legal or not, is a matter of self preservation, but for whites in the middle and upper classes is an overestimate of the threat. BTW my citation was from 2019 and used references from 2019 and earlier. BTW BTW firearm deaths are not declining.

Then you cite motor vehicle deaths? Can you say non sequitur?

Your defense that progressives have damaged the social order is "There are a couple threads on PF right now where progressives are advocating for abortion based on the principles of eugenics"? That's as thin as you can get or in other words, you got nothin.

On "progressives. have destroyed the family unit". your reference gives a hard....maybe. You just go with the "facts". Or how you want to spin them. Is it the fact that poverty itself discourages marriage. The father unable to support a family and that's when the social safety net comes in. It is a chicken or egg question. But that aside, marriage has been on the decline, across the board, for some time. Is the social safety net "destroying the family" or is it a modern social trend? Let your confirmation bias decide.

 

The right (and you) loves the handle "defund the police" to use it as a rhetorical bludgeon against the left. Few on the left agree with the phrase, but that doesn't matter to the right. It's out there and they are gonna milk it. What the intention was to put more funding into addiction and psychiatric services, not further militarizing the police.

Your cherry picked LA doesn't reflect national trends. Crimes like larceny, burglary, property crimes, robbery, rape are all down in the last 10 years. What's up, gun play and the right (and you) thinks there are too many restrictions on obtaining a gun already. How's that working out on the street?

Then your next statement, where you eviscerate my response, is "Social programs have exacerbated the crime problem." Well, you do go on about the number on welfare has been stagnant despite putting more money into it, but nothing about it "exacerbating the crime problem". Ouch, You do realize a social safety net is just that, a safety net. It gets no one out of poverty. Jobs, the economy, education and get this, equal access gets them out of poverty.

"Taxes that support law enforcement hasn’t worked to protect innocents from criminals." You are the one complaining about the lack of police protection. Isn't that why you're armed? You ask the question "People think they need to be armed because of taxes?" You sound confused.

"The ones you wish to violate the rights of differ from you " And then it's "My position is it’s NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS if people own guns or not." Yes it is, if they can get them illegally. Your position is less laws, which allows illegal guns to proliferate. By the way, how are your rights being violated if there were a national FOID law say?

"Progressives lack personal responsibility"? While ridiculous on its face, your proof is progressives want a level playing field. How you connect a lack of personal responsibility to equal opportunity for all is a mystery. Making sure everyone gets a quality education, equal job opportunity, access to healthcare is a goal. It should be offered, whether its used effectively is up to the individual only they control that. I think to make your statement more accurate I think you meant "those in poverty lack personal responsibility" by the way you go on about those in poverty.

Healthcare for all is social control? Every country that has it loves it compared to the alternative. They're just stupid? You won't be fooled. You will opt out because you have..."personal responsibility"

I mentioned Somalia because that is the end result of a anarcho-libertarian society.

Yes, someone is being "hoodwinked", If "you believe the ruling class continues on benefitting while you are fooled into thinking they care about you" and think that has anything to do with equal opportunity. You seem to believe equal opportunity means an individual has no need of initiative or willingness to seize opportunity, which is total nonsense. It does not insure individual equal outcomes. Those without talent, smarts or initiative will not succeed.

Yes, your definition of socialism is debatable. Socialism is defined by Merriam Webster as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” And the Social Security Administration itself admits its benefits are a form of democratic socialism.

You may want to live in a country that would not prevent your children from being poisoned or getting cancer because of tainted products or uncontrolled chemical use, but no one else does.

There are social costs to addictive behavior. Hospitalizations from multiple diseases like HIV, hepatitis, STDs, kidney failure, infections....Your answer let them die rather than treat the addiction. There's also the car wrecks, crime, prostitution because of addictions....prevention not an option?

You have pointed out you do not have a handle on the real world. Your imagined society would be cruel, definitely Darwinian "socialism".

 

If it costs me extra money, it affects me. If it costs me extra time, it affects me

If I'm a criminal acquiring guns through straw purchase, theft, family or the black market, background checks don't affect me.

There is no reason for a transfer between two non-prohibited persons to be a crime.

 

Woke Media Attack Florida Sheriff Who OK’d Citizens Shooting Home Invaders

"... Sheriff Johnson discussed the homeowner who had fired at Harris, who never came forward.

“I guess they think that they did something wrong, which they did not. If somebody’s breaking into your house, you’re more than welcome to shoot them in Santa Rosa County. We prefer that you do, actually,” Johnson said. “So, whoever that was, you’re not in trouble. Come see us. We have a gun safety class we put on every other Saturday. And if you take that, you’ll shoot a lot better and hopefully you’ll save the taxpayers money.” (emphasis mine)

And lo, did the wokescolds wail and moan and get their knickers in a twist:

“...wildly irresponsible advice that could cause needless loss of life and aggravate racial tensions.”

NPR didn't bother to look at the mugshot; the choirboy in question is a white dude. Sheriff Johnson is a riot - of the choirboy he says "For us, he's job security." If you have a good sheriff, support & get to know him/her. If the fit ever hits the shan, a sheriff's dept may be your only uniformed ally.

 

Holy hell .. America is terrifying.

In this country you could fish in the wilderness your entire life and never encounter such psychos. Harmless weirdos, sure .. but not this kind of BS.

 

I think I was just unlucky.