... would be vigilantes and cop wanna-bes.

...you feel fit this description.

are CCP holders that he has been a dick too and when they give it right back to him, he thinks that all CCP holders are like that.

BTW, as I said, I'm a CCP holder.

every CCP holder he has had interaction with, he's had a problem with, which leads to the conclusion, along with his many snarky, insulting put down of gun owners, that he has been confrontational with them, ergo, he has been a dick towards them and they responded back.

I resopnded to post #5 who had responded to post #2.

... I know a whole bunch of firearm owners, mostly hunters, some competitive target shooters, combat action, etc.

At one time I was the Safety Officer at a public range. I can assure you there are too many firearm owners who think they are crime stoppers and/or have seen too many Charles Bronson movies.

Certainly the majority of owners are responsible citizens; it's the "cowboys" who are the concern.



So what's the point of your poll?

...that crime and foolish accidents don't have "acceptable" levels. I'm also aware that real assholes tend to standout from the crowd. It shouldn't be an exercise in Math to ballpark the "asshole incidence" somewhere between 1 in 2 and 1 in a 1000.

That's what I'm asking.

... and some of the "good guys" could be closet vigilantes for all I know.

...not be a real vigilante?

Also, your estimate would put the "asshole incidence" around 7%, give or take a little. Does that sound about right?

... so what's the purpose of the poll?

...the poll addresses an aspect of the group SOP that I was interested in discussing. Apparently you agree with me.

"Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence."

<< http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1172 >>

What aspect: the use of firearms relating to self-defense, committing crime and violence.

I think that when you wrote "too many" are vigilantes and/or wanna cops people are reading "The majority " are vigilantes and/or wanna cops and i don't think that's what you're saying at all.

With that in mind, I have to agree.

All one needs to do is head over to any gun forum and type the word "sheep dog" into the search engine. There are a lot of gun owners that feel that their permit makes them some kind of adjunct police officer. I can't give you a percentage but I agree with Scuba what ever the percentage is it's too many.

...that when you find out a person is a CCW permittee, you talk to them in person like you post in here.

If so, that might be why the permittees you meet are acting in an assholish manner.

...what percentage you're thinking fir this category, please?

wouldn't we expect to see an increase in shootings as the number of CCW holders skyrockets? Why do we see exactly the opposite?

You said shootings were "the exact opposite" of skyrocketing.

or is it your contention that CCW holders are lousy shoots? Or are guns are less lethal then 30 years ago?


My point is what public safety issue do all these CCW holders pose? Is it just your opinion?

...when CCP is allowed. I've not made any statement about the numbers of shooting incidents, only that there are some CCP holders who feel it is their right/duty/whatever to act as crime stoppers and vigilantes.

I would welcome any data that showed a drop off in shooting incidents following CCP. That's why I asked.

therefore increased CCW does not pose a public safety issue. Which undermines your notion of too many would be vigilantes and cop wanna-bes. What is your measure of "too many" besides your personal prejudices?

You still haven't shown any data supporting your claim that fewer people are being killed by guns.

But, I also feel that is the same for the majority of people, with or without owning a gun.

are upstanding honest citizens. I am an honest citizen who will soon have a CCP.

Most people are good, and bad apples can be found in any group.

...is the only one supported by reams and reams of verifiable data.

that we would judge others by what they own?

Sad, ain't it?

Other than by what we own, on what can we judge most others?

The balance between society's judgement of those who "merely own" a firearm as opposed to the adjudicated actions of the relevant individuals is generally addressed by gun control laws.

Other than hearsay and anything I might witness, my knowledge of the actions of others is mostly limited to my family, about 10% of the actions of those I work with and only about 10% of the time and how often my neighbors cut their grass.

The whole premise of many aspects of proposed gun-control are based on ownership.

Lots of folks have better regard for those that own BMWs rather than Buicks.

I do not judge other people by the views expressed here by a Very Small Minority of Authoritarian-Minded, Short-Sighted Few.

Or at least what we think. Or maybe what we believe.

Acquiring stuff is of course part of what we do, and what we do with it depends on what we believe, but judging others based on their stuff seems like two or three degrees of separation from what we should be asking.

This is part of my point. The NICS method, IMHO, seems like a very good means for assuring that a firearm isn't sold to an irresponsible person. The pro-control group seems still unhappy with this and pushes for further controls that, IMHO, are fraught with problems.

The antis (by and large) only see the stuff because most anti gun ideology is just another consumer product designed to appeal to consumers.

...that crime prevention is a valid (and the best) goal for legislation.

is the equitable distribution of resources, then making unjust inequity a crime would make its prevention a worthy legislative objective.

Ideologies as products, designed to be applied to problems rather than embraced with attendant sacrifice, contribute to inequality of resources.

What is "equitable"?

Why would we assume "equitable distribution of resources" is the "primary goal of government"?

for the last million years or so.

Our species was designed to function in an environment of scarcity. The only way we could survive is through cooperation. Cooperation in that context means equitable distribution of resources. It's how the human species developed the concept of fairness.

We have enjoyed a meteoric increase in wealth because of our exploitation of resources. Thus our system of resource distribution is - complex. And it frequently fails. We haven't been rich long enough to learn how to manage abundance. And the way things are going I doubt we'll get the chance.

All the schemes that relate to "competition in the free market" and "survival of the fittest" are designed to benefit most those who have the most. Thus, they depend on a temporary state of resource abundance and inevitably lead to civil strife and general uncivilized behaivor.

The longevity of a civilization, and our species, will depend not on acquisition but on generosity, which makes equitable distribution possible.

...What is equitable? Letting the government decide that kind of thing (IMHO) goes along with letting the government decide who actually voted in Florida.

I see government as a constant evolution in the progressively better understanding of humans and their rights and the checks and balances setup to protect them.

Your generosity point is well put. I would add however that generosity derived from one's abundance is a duty while generosity in spite of one's lack of abundance is a sign of a hero.

We only know it when we see it. I think that knowledge depends on the resources available and our understanding of "enough", which goes back to "abundance training".

I agree about the evolution of government. I'm a big fan of liberal government. I'm also a big fan of noblesse oblige. While generosity is all well and good, sometimes I think government should, um, persuade those who have more to properly attend their civic duty. Not to flog the word to death, but it seems more civilized to have the government compel equitable resource distribution than to have appropriation by mob action.

I appreciate your skepticism when it comes to government. That kind of thinking keeps those fuckers honest too.

Just a few of my favorites:

"Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason." (Franklin, I think)

"What this country needs are more unemployed politicians" (Edward Langley)

"I was really too honest a man to be a politician and live." (Socrates)

Especially regarding the diaper simile .

...in the movie Man of the Year. There were some interesting exchanges between Robin Williams, Christopher Walken and Lewis Black.

But overall, I think gun owners are responsible people. I have little use for the NRA though.

...the NRA's support for their ILA group but the main org serves a useful purpose.

And there are many other examples of the same thing.

No one is doing anything about the causes of the Crazy, so guns become a particular problem. Yeah, it's not the guns themselves, it's the numbers and types of guns - PLUS - The CRAZY. The feedback loop between these 2 elements is fucking everything up for responsible sane gun owners.

"...it's the numbers and types of guns."

I'm not sure what you mean here. Does/did Zimmerman own a lot of guns?

n/t

If you were to take away the true sport hunters, I would choose the third answer, but many of us hunters are true responsible gun owners. We do not use assault rifles or automatic hand guns, fore we shoot one round at a time,
take our game responsibly.

Why would you say the third answer if hunters were excluded?

I personally don’t give a damn about hunting. I have never hunted, and don’t want to. I’m not opposed to it philosophically, BUT the attitude of some hunters, as expressed by you, if the thing I really don’t like.

Your statement reads as you’re one of those who think the “real” purpose of gun ownership is hunting. In other words, you are a “Fudd”, as in “Elmer Fudd”.

Fudds are perfectly willing to give up handguns and semi-autos, as long as they can keep their precious hunting guns, and keep hunting.

I on the other hand, think the prime purpose of the RKBA is self and home defense.

Let me clue you in on something. If the Gun Prohibitionists got their way and banned EVERYTHING but hunting guns, then the PETA Zealots would soon try to get hunting banned, and as soon as hunting was banned, then there would be no “need” for anyone to own a gun, and that would be the end of the RKBA.

If your attitude is no one “needs” to own a handgun or semi-auto, then IMO, no one except the Native People in Alaska, who are subsistence hunters, or the very poor in rural areas, “needs” to hunt.

Fortunately we don’t have a Department of Needs in this country, and I hope we never will. If you don’t stand up for my right to own handguns and semi-autos, don’t expect me to stand up for your right to hunt.

If I’m wrong about your mindset, I apologize, but the attitudes of “Fudds” really piss me off.

I think you're trying to reply to same poster to which I have replied. Since no reply has been forthcoming so I wouldn't waste my time. BTW, in my mind hunting is fine, if that's your thing, but I'm with you and I won't be.

And 1 post in 90 days? Yes, I think it's a waste of time.

the 2A has nothing to do with hunting. NOTHING!!!!!!!
Assault Rifles or automatic hand guns?

Where did you come up with this?
Are you saying that those of us that have firearms for self defense, sport or target shooting, or just taking the firearms out on a weekend for fun are not responsible gun owners?

I used a lever when I hunted. If I had a bank account like Mitt's, a nice double barrel rifle would be nice. There is no difference between an AR-10 with a five round mag (max allowed in Florida for hunting) and a semi auto with a wooden stock. BTW, what do you mean buy "automatic hand gun"? You mean a full auto pistol like the Glock 18 with shoulder stock or HK VP-70 or are you talking about a standard pistol like a 1911 or Ruger mkII?

Your praising someone who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about?
Typical Hoyt. But I suppose 2 of a kind and all.

should be role model to the rest of you.

They could be the poster-girl/boy (in a good way) for what the 2nd Amendment really meant/means.

Please show us where in the 2A hunting is mentioned?
A role model who knows nothing about the 2A? Yeah, right.

Could be the poster-girl/boy (in a bad way) for what ignorance of the 2nd Amendment really meant/means.

now where in the 2A does it say anything about hunting? Or are you going to do your usual deflection game and not answer again/
Thats ok, we're used to it.

it's actually funny, but you are consistent, I'll give you that. Just more and more distraction.

you live up to your reputation, won't answer questions, won't provide links or stats when you make outrageous claims and deflect, deflect, and more deflection.

I rest my case.

your never going to get it. I'm sure those that have been here a lot longer than me can explain it better.

In fact it is an almost unhealthy obsession for you. Can hardly make three posts where you aren't whining about how many guns are being strapped on...

so can I, I just choose not to, wonderful thing about choice.

Unlike you though, I don't beg for a cookie or a pat on the back. I carry when I can, I use other means when I can't carry. Best is to have both options. Intelligent people keep their choices available instead of being whinny hypocritical keyboard commandos...

Plus, they know that guns in public are not in society's best interest.

Often for their own and the public's interest.

Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

I've used an AR-15-pattern rifle for small game. It only shoots one round at a time.

There are a few semi-auto handguns you could hunt with, but most hand-gun hunting is done with specialized revolvers. I don't know of any "automatic hand guns" suitable for hunting; all the ones I know of use much to small a round and are not particularly accurate.

Available in 357Mag, 41Mag, 44Mag and 50AE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Desert_Eagle

There are 300+ Million guns in private hands in this country owned by 80+ Million owners (and that's just the ones that admitted to it).

If the majority of those folk weren't stand up citizens we'd have some serious problems in this country

The recent high profile cases show that.
In today's media, good news is no news and bad news sells; until it is so common they don't even really report it any more.

...favoring expanded control feel 'we have some problems in this country.'

Just playing devil's advocate.

Are the predicted shoot outs at Starbucks or gunfights over parking spaces that the pro control group seems to postulate every time the pro second ammendment group wins another victory.

It's been said the honest man does not need laws and the criminal will not follow them

Now you're getting Philosophical.

What I say is that in spirit you're 100% correct. But in actuality both the criminal and the honest man find laws vital. The honest man will look to his conscience in deciding issues of correct behavior. The businessman will rely on the law and court system should he find himself in solvent or a party to a breached contract. The criminal, once convicted, will depend on laws for fair treatment.

What we can't depend on laws for is control of the evil among us. As you said, criminals don't follow the law. A good law will make important distinctions so that a jury may justly convict the guilty and hold others as innocent.

A vast majority of gun owners are responsible and there are way too many Hollywood cowboy culture nut jobs.

...prejudice against "Hollywood cowboy culture nut jobs"? Didn't you vote for Reagan?

The phrase "way too many" is subjective and has a really, really wide range of definitions from person to person.

...definition of "way too many".

slightly different, I can accept it as being closest to my understanding and life experience of gun owners.

At least 10% of a population can probably be expected to be outside the norm (make a bad decision) and there will always be accidents, possibly another 10% could fall into some type of over vigilant/survivalist/eow outlook.

I think easily the other 80% fall into a category of "normal" values and are well within the boundaries of the Average American.

...as How should treat the ones outside the norm BEFORE they make the bad decision? and How we tell to which group a person belongs BEFORE they make the bad decision?

bad decisions.

We need to fund social programs and Mental and Emotional help should be destigmatized and available.

We need to help people rather than throwing them in prison.

People need to value theirselves and not keep getting pushed into corners whereby they have reduced their options to the point that desperation leads them to make those bad decisions.

...that I have little patience for violent criminals and even less in the way of understanding. I have read that help people in various situations is generally cheaper than paying the hospital and prison bills that develop from their poor choices.

Clearly people need some options.

to violence then how do we reteach empathy? I understand not having sympathy especially when One of them is in your house after midnight (god forbid) but, if we spend the money on educational, vocational, arts and music then they learn other ways to deal with anger and frustration. Maybe, they will never feel forced to break and enter to begin with. Yes, they need to have Positive options. We need JOBS !!!! People need to know that they are an integral part of society. They are wanted. They are needed. They have worth. They have value. They have something positive to offer. an Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I understand that this is not for everyone but, I bet everyone knows just ONE someone that they can reach out to. Some special people have a gift for teaching and nuturing.

We need less prisons and more Mental health facilities.

I'm not exactly a gun lover.
I do not own a gun.
I firmly believe that......
If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns!

Yes their are people who should not be allowed any where near a gun.
Their are people who should not be allowed to drive a car.

Yes in the heat of the moment you can kill with a gun.
In the heat of the moment you can kill with a knife, or a tire iron, or a brick or a stick.

One problem I do have is with the right wing hate talk. The overlaying targets on people, or yammering about second amendment remades. This can cause someone with mental difficulties, beyond just being right wing, to think they can solve their own political problems with a gun.
On the other hand, if Sahara Palin were overlaying kazoos on people said type of person might be inspired to commit murder with a kazoo.

Just for the record, why I do not own a gun.
If it ain't a guitar, the insides of a computer, the insides of a car motor....
I am an absolute klutz.
I can barley chop up veggies without hacking off a finger.
You want I should shoot my foot off?

But you can't be jailed for carrying a concealed kazoo without a permit.

Guns make you safer, say the NRA (a group that hates Democracy & Liberalism), and so say the gun-religionists at DU.

...so why haven't you gotten rid of them? You are so full of it

that he's here for one thing and one thing only, to try to disrupt the dialog and then, well, thats as far as I'm willing to go but I think pretty much everyone here knows what he is trying to do.

more carriers, and more relaxed laws are exactly whats happening. Kinda looks like your little crusade is failing and failing badly.

Do you really think your changing anyone's views here? Especially with your false claims, your false portrayal of honest citizens who choose to legally carry a concealed weapon, your constant comparing us to bigots, Tbaggers, racists, your constant bringing up Zimmerman as though to subtlely compare us to him?
Can you try to answer without the deflecting?

you just couldn't help yourself could you?
I'll tell ya what, you keep on pounding that keyboard ranting and raving while doing nothing else to further your cause, and I'll keep on writing my congressman, my state reps., donating money to the SAF, working the telephones, canvassing neighborhoods in support of progressive candidates who support the 2A, which here in my state, is just about all of them.
Lets see who has the better results.

Deal?

It is a "disruption" whenever somebody disturbs the "MORE GUNS! GUNS ARE MY LIFE!" mindset.

You gun-religionists sure live in a little bubble.

Ya know, just sayin.

Get out of the gun-religion bubble, filled with fear & loathing, and enjoy life.

Get out of the anti-gun-religion bubble, filled with fear and loathing, and enjoy life. The unknown isn't always bad.

"The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside." - Allan Bloom

Not.

your making sense.

That should be "you're". Your religious beliefs & gun-worship keep you locked in a cycle of ignorance.