Why are so many growers against gun ownership?

BuddhaDawg said:

Defense, law, running infrastructure, and programs. The gov't production enables this fine nation which we live in. We can and should complain about how much better this country can be...we should strive for much better... but with all of that being said, this is a wonderful country to live in.

You can find a good dictionary online, since you did not understand the concept of ad hominem argumentation.

Self-denying Republican...maybe the truth will sink in this time around.

Click to expand...

I know exactly what ad hominem means, I just don't see how it applies to my statement. I don't really think I tried to weaken your position by belittling you. That would be ad hominem argumentum.

I'm really glad you came to RIU though. I could just LOL all day long at your posts.

BuddhaDawg said:

That circumstance very rarely happens at all.

What does happen much more often is that a woman is raped at gunpoint.

Click to expand...

Deterrence happens all the time. Criminals avoid potential victims who have the ability and willingness to fight back.

BuddhaDawg said:

What happens much more often is that an individual is shot by someone they know.

Click to expand...

Are you saying if they had no firearms, no violence would occur?

BuddhaDawg said:

What happens much more often is that a child will accidental shoot themselves or another.

Click to expand...

I don't see anyone here advocating children using firearms.

BuddhaDawg said:

Your emotionally charged argument is hardly convincing.

Click to expand...

And neither is your emotionally charged rebuttal.

BuddhaDawg said:

So sorry Johnnyorganic. But I do support responsible and regulated gun ownership.

Click to expand...

Responsible, yes. Regulated, not so much. I do not need the permission of the government to exercise my rights.

doc111 said:

I know exactly what ad hominem means, I just don't see how it applies to my statement. I don't really think I tried to weaken your position by belittling you. That would be ad hominem argumentum.

I'm really glad you came to RIU though. I could just LOL all day long at your posts.

Click to expand...

I accept that you do not fully understand.

I accept your LOLing as passive aggressive nonsense.

I am glad I came here as well. There has been some good information about growing. The political forum has enlightened me about how many people are clueless about political science.

Have a great one.

Johnnyorganic said:

Deterrence happens all the time. Criminals avoid potential victims who have the ability and willingness to fight back.


Are you saying if they had no firearms, no violence would occur?


I don't see anyone here advocating children using firearms.


And neither is your emotionally charged rebuttal.


Responsible, yes. Regulated, not so much. I do not need the permission of the government to exercise my rights.

Click to expand...

Deterrence is a weak argument. There is more violence in regions with larger populations of gun owners. Hence, guns are not stopping violent crime...and are probably adding to the success of violent crimes.

Violence will occur if guns are included or not. Guns add to the violence.

Some licensing and training should be required to own a firearm.

You did not advocate children using firearms...the point is that gunplay by children does occur much more often than your lame example. Requiring training and licensing might teach parents to respect their firearm and know to keep it under lock and key away from their children.

I would suggest pepperspray or a taser for your hypothetical woman. Those two items have been shown to be deterrents and more likely to be used by the person being attacked.

Responsible gun ownership - Being taught to use a gun. I think people should have the option to take gun classes in school, they teach them to drive. Regulations are already excessive in all honestly. Waiting periods and the like do not work, look at any state with a waiting period vs one without it. How many legal owners of guns commit crimes using them yearly? Not that many. There are hundreds of millions of guns in America, if you outlawed them, you would only get the legit legal citizens guns. What restrictions have actually worked? How about just giving me a license to own a gun? Let me go to a building, show that I understand gun safety, and prove that I can handle a weapon, then leave me alone. They actually give out FFL's to collectors to order antique guns (which encompass nearly all guns). You pay the fee, they check you out, then you can order them to your house with no background check. Do you know how many crimes C&R holders commit a year with their guns? None. Do you know how many crimes legal machine gun owners commit yearly? None.

Outlawing guns because people who get them illegally shoot people. It would be like outlawing cars cause someone could steal it and go on a rampage. It makes no sense at all. Hell, why not outlaw women being allowed to go outside, that would surely solve a lot of the rape problem. The reason none of those 3 things happen is because you are punishing the law abiding citizens for something some douchebag did.

"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually."

That is a lot of protection, whether you go with the low or high number thats thousands of people a day who are not being robbed, raped, and murdered because they have a gun.

Im pretty sure that the going statistic that I see quoted is "only 3% of women who carry a gun concealed with a permit that are the victims of an attempted rape are actually raped" as opposed to a much larger percent for unarmed women.

I have many guns, both purchased officially and not, all are legal. I prefer to buy guns without being tied to me, so I have them in case they round up the guns. I don't see the distinction between growing because I fucking feel like it and not hurting anyone, vs owning a gun because I fucking feel like it and not hurting anyone. Either way I'm doing what I want, legal or not.

As bad as everyone hated republicans a few years ago, they hate the democrats as bad now. lol. Maybe we will actually get a 3rd party soon.

If you look at the worst states for crime, you will see the most restrictive states at the top. New York, Illinois, California. What does that tell you about how well gun control works?

There are more guns than cars in the united states. Yet, more people die in cars than due to guns. Do any of you consider cars to be unsafe generally? I bet everyone here pretty much owns a car.

All in all, every bit of this is still completely pointless to argue. The simple fact is:

I have the right to own guns to protect myself per the constitution, nothing you can say or do removes that fact, or my god given right to protect myself. Passing all the laws you feel like wont change that, Ill still have guns, and Ill still feel justified shooting you if its morally acceptable to me in a situation.

I still don't understand how anyone can honestly be pro choice, pro legalization, and anti gun.

BuddhaDawg said:

Deterrence is a weak argument. There is more violence in regions with larger populations of gun owners. Hence, guns are not stopping violent crime...and are probably adding to the success of violent crimes.

Violence will occur if guns are included or not. Guns add to the violence.

Some licensing and training should be required to own a firearm.

You did not advocate children using firearms...the point is that gunplay by children does occur much more often than your lame example. Requiring training and licensing might teach parents to respect their firearm and know to keep it under lock and key away from their children.

I would suggest pepperspray or a taser for your hypothetical woman. Those two items have been shown to be deterrents and more likely to be used by the person being attacked.

Click to expand...

It's only a weak argument to you because you refuse to acknowledge that firearms reduce crime. All crime.

The are hundreds of thousands of these 'hypothetical women' as you choose to call them. They simply don't call 911 and neither do their thwarted attackers. My example is not lame, but your responses sure the hell are.

Woodie Guthrie said of his guitar, "This machine kills fascists." What did he mean exactly?

Did he intend to go to Italy and do the 'El Kabong' upside Mussolini's coconut? Because every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.

Or was he speaking metaphorically?

Gun control is fundamental to Fascism. Totalitarian regimes cannot coerce an armed populace.

Very early in the war, Imperial Japan scrapped plans for an invasion of the U.S.

The reason: An armed citizenry.

They knew they would get their asses shot off if they tried it.

That's what I call deterrence.

Is that why i have a better chance of being killed in washington(They had really strick gun laws)then i do going to iraq.

So your regulation goes right out the window.

BuddhaDawg said:

I accept that you do not fully understand.

I accept your LOLing as passive aggressive nonsense.

I am glad I came here as well. There has been some good information about growing. The political forum has enlightened me about how many people are clueless about political science.

Have a great one.

Click to expand...

Oh Mr. Dawg. I would say the first couple of lines of your post which I quoted would be borderline ad hominem. You are attempting to weaken my argument by saying I just 'do not fully understand.' Ad hominem argumentum my good chap, ad hominem argumentum.

I'm actually quite well educated. May not be the smartest person in the world but that's ok with me. I can see that you are an intelligent person but it hasn't helped you realize the liberal sham. It's ok though. I was once a lot like you..............then I grew up, got a job and realized that the world doesn't work the way we think it should at all! I got tired of doing this all the time. I'm all for helping those in need. Bankruptcy sucks (again, I speak from experience). It's not the end of the world by any means. In fact, you can still buy houses and cars. Bankruptcy is a naughty word but it's actually a financial do-over. I am now financially secure and own my own business. And I didn't take a dime of money from the govt. If I can do it without the help of Uncle Sam, anybody can do it.

Edit: Whoops! I got my threads mixed up! lol!

NoDrama said:

The meanings have changed since 1776. The founding fathers weren't Liberals in todays sense. A classical Liberal is much closer to the libertarian point of view today. Thomas Jefferson would be appalled at what the term has come to mean today. Todays' Liberals really believe the bigger the government the better. Like somehow it can solve problems. Government produces nothing like Doc said. You think a government agency builds bridges? People build bridges. A utopian society is impossible as long as man is involved, it matters not whether you are a Libertarian, a democrat or a republican or a anarchist. In Switzerland EVERYONE owns a military rifle, they have the lowest crime rates in the world, the lowest incidence of gun violence in the world. Every year they have a HUGE shooting competition attended by half the country, those Swiss cheese eatin bastards love guns. And they don't get involved in Wars either. Who woulda thunk that the most well armed country in the world does not engage in war, think about that.

Click to expand...

They were not liberals in the sense of the word that you and your brethren use today. Liberals are forward thinking group that believe in human rights, equality, fair trade, progressive taxation, separation of church/state, and democracy. Classical liberal economics is close to economic libertarianism of today (these two group believe in somewhat different outcomes). Thomas Jefferson would be clueless about today's climate, it is ridiculous to insert someone from that far in the past into today's climate. I am glad to see we are getting back to some Keynesian economics and kicking that Milton Friedman nonsense to the curb.

Liberals do not believe in bigger gov't. That is misconception by non-liberals and an inane generalization. Liberals believe that the gov't intervention can be used to help its citizenry.

In Switzerland, everyone knows how to use a military rifle correctly. A military rifle is much different than a handgun. Their culture is different that the US. Your comparison is not a good one. The US gun issues are not comparable to the Swiss owning military rifles.

So why are US gun deaths so high in comparison to the rifle crazy Swiss? It must be all of those gun regulations! We need more guns! I flabbergasts me that a large number of Americans have bought into the NRA and gun manufacture lobby BS. I do not have any issue with responsible gun owners. The point is that we need stronger regulation and training for all gun owners. I come from a family that owns firearm...I have a 12 gauge that my father gave me when I was 16. I was taught to respect and properly use a weapon. We ask people learn how to drive a car, to be licensed...why not a gun? I was in the military. I have seen what happens when an idiot does not respect their firearm, it is not pretty. Anyway, I am not asking for much...just responsible licensed ownership.

Oy vey... the gov't is an agency of people. These people plan and build bridges which we pay for with our taxes.

Individual agency will only get someone so far in this world...without the proper structure in place then individual agency is bound to fail. This is the old argument of Sociology. Agency versus Structure. It is foolish idea that an individual will succeed without supports in place. This is the nonsense that libertarians and conservatives have been spoonfed by the media/elite since the beginning of our Republic. The elite want us to believe the Horatio Alger BS. Without the fairy tale, the people would be pissed. This country has been threading water since 1970. The poor is getting poorer. The middle class is shrinking. And the richer are getting richer. What happened... we bought into the Milton Friedman nonsense. The market is not self-correcting. Wealth does not trickle down. Supply-side economics has been a disaster for us. Libertarian economics are not the answer, they are the problem.

BuddhaDawg said:

They were not liberals in the sense of the word that you and your brethren use today. Liberals are forward thinking group that believe in human rights, equality, fair trade, progressive taxation, separation of church/state, and democracy. Classical liberal economics is close to economic libertarianism of today (these two group believe in somewhat different outcomes). Thomas Jefferson would be clueless about today's climate, it is ridiculous to insert someone from that far in the past into today's climate. I am glad to see we are getting back to some Keynesian economics and kicking that Milton Friedman nonsense to the curb.

Liberals do not believe in bigger gov't. That is misconception by non-liberals and an inane generalization. Liberals believe that the gov't intervention can be used to help its citizenry.

In Switzerland, everyone knows how to use a military rifle correctly. A military rifle is much different than a handgun. Their culture is different that the US. Your comparison is not a good one. The US gun issues are not comparable to the Swiss owning military rifles.

So why are US gun deaths so high in comparison to the rifle crazy Swiss? It must be all of those gun regulations! We need more guns! I flabbergasts me that a large number of Americans have bought into the NRA and gun manufacture lobby BS. I do not have any issue with responsible gun owners. The point is that we need stronger regulation and training for all gun owners. I come from a family that owns firearm...I have a 12 gauge that my father gave me when I was 16. I was taught to respect and properly use a weapon. We ask people learn how to drive a car, to be licensed...why not a gun? I was in the military. I have seen what happens when an idiot does not respect their firearm, it is not pretty. Anyway, I am not asking for much...just responsible licensed ownership.

Oy vey... the gov't is an agency of people. These people plan and build bridges which we pay for with our taxes.

Individual agency will only get someone so far in this world...without the proper structure in place then individual agency is bound to fail. This is the old argument of Sociology. Agency versus Structure. It is foolish idea that an individual will succeed without supports in place. This is the nonsense that libertarians and conservatives have been spoonfed by the media/elite since the beginning of our Republic. The elite want us to believe the Horatio Alger BS. Without the fairy tale, the people would be pissed. This country has been threading water since 1970. The poor is getting poorer. The middle class is shrinking. And the richer are getting richer. What happened... we bought into the Milton Friedman nonsense. The market is not self-correcting. Wealth does not trickle down. Supply-side economics has been a disaster for us. Libertarian economics are not the answer, they are the problem.

Click to expand...

The problem all is this regulation you seem so fond of. We would already be out of this financial imbroglio if the government would simply stop deficit spending, get out of the way and let the free market function.

But that's not what the Progressives really want. They need the crisis to continue. And they cannot let a good crisis go to waste.

Without angry moochers, the looters have no power at all.

Buddah, I was OP,and if you read the opening post, you see I am asking why so many marijuana growers/smokers are anti gun rights but pro legalization of marijuana without understanding that trying to take one persons rights while gaining new ones for yourself is hypocrisy. Anti gun activists talk about how guns kill people and destroy lives, they might even believe it. Anti marijuana activists talk about how drugs kill people and destroy lives, they might believe it too. I really do not understand how you can support one or the other, to me its a support people to live their lives, or support controlling the people to the point where they have no rights. What happens when guns are outlawed - they go after something else, then something else, then something else. Eventually all that will be left is laying in a tub of slime hooked to wires like on the matrix.

By the way, its disgusting to openly admit you are a socialist. Why not say you are communist and be done with it? No one should have more than anyone else, regardless of how hard they work. Thats a big line of BS there. At least be honest with yourself, if none else.

To this day I carry lead in my arm from the third grade.

I got into a fight and a kid jabbed me with a pencil and the point broke off.

Pencil=weapon.

Solution?

Pencil Control.

Strict regulation governing responsible pencil ownership.

Zero tolerance for pencils in schools.

/sarc off.

im all for guns!!!

Carthoris said:

Buddah, I was OP,and if you read the opening post, you see I am asking why so many marijuana growers/smokers are anti gun rights but pro legalization of marijuana without understanding that trying to take one persons rights while gaining new ones for yourself is hypocrisy. Anti gun activists talk about how guns kill people and destroy lives, they might even believe it. Anti marijuana activists talk about how drugs kill people and destroy lives, they might believe it too. I really do not understand how you can support one or the other, to me its a support people to live their lives, or support controlling the people to the point where they have no rights. What happens when guns are outlawed - they go after something else, then something else, then something else. Eventually all that will be left is laying in a tub of slime hooked to wires like on the matrix.

By the way, its disgusting to openly admit you are a socialist. Why not say you are communist and be done with it? No one should have more than anyone else, regardless of how hard they work. Thats a big line of BS there. At least be honest with yourself, if none else.

Click to expand...

Socialism is an economic system. It is not inherently good or evil. To me, it is not an epithet.

There is nothing wrong with declaring oneself a Socialist.

I prefer it because it allows me to better understand the motivations of others.

Demonizing someone based on their beliefs only encourages them to mask their true intentions.

Johnny, people are free to believe whatever they want. That doesn't make it any less disturbing. Socialism - a way of government where the government robs the top 50% and gives to the bottom 50% on their way to being a communism.

Communism and Socialism are ideas put forward by dumbass students who did not understand reality and had no grasp of how the real world worked. Then, it was picked up by dictators as an excuse for taking over. Stealing from one person to give to another isn't noble. Calling stealing something else and doing it, doesn't make it ok. Saying "I am socialist" or "I am communist" is basically saying screw the individual, society is more important than you. Which is what most losers would say, nobody who is a winner would say "hey, heres an idea, lets rob all the winners, I feel so bad for the people who are too stupid and lazy to work" IE: the losers

Carthoris said:

Johnny, people are free to believe whatever they want. That doesn't make it any less disturbing. Socialism - a way of government where the government robs the top 50% and gives to the bottom 50% on their way to being a communism.

Communism and Socialism are ideas put forward by dumbass students who did not understand reality and had no grasp of how the real world worked. Then, it was picked up by dictators as an excuse for taking over. Stealing from one person to give to another isn't noble. Calling stealing something else and doing it, doesn't make it ok. Saying "I am socialist" or "I am communist" is basically saying screw the individual, society is more important than you. Which is what most losers would say, nobody who is a winner would say "hey, heres an idea, lets rob all the winners, I feel so bad for the people who are too stupid and lazy to work" IE: the losers

Click to expand...

My point is that by demonizing Socialists, they simply call themselves something else. It muddles the situation.

Socialism can work under the right conditions. And it's perfectly fine as long as it is what the citizens want.

I'm not defending Socialism, I'm just stating that it's not inherently evil. It's an economic system.

Any political system can descend into Totalitarianism if the citizens do not remain constantly vigilant against it. History bears this out. Which is why the Progressive movement of the last 100 years has been so destructive to the U.S. where the Federal government blithely disregards the Constitution regularly and Corporatism has replaced the free markets.

BuddhaDawg said:

I accept that you do not fully understand.

I accept your LOLing as passive aggressive nonsense.

I am glad I came here as well. There has been some good information about growing. The political forum has enlightened me about how many people are clueless about political science.

Have a great one.

Click to expand...

This has to be the most egocentric post I have seen. Have you realized that you described anyone who doesn't agree with you as clueless? Are you sure you aren't the one who is clueless?

BuddhaDawg said:

You did not advocate children using firearms...the point is that gunplay by children does occur much more often than your lame example. Requiring training and licensing might teach parents to respect their firearm and know to keep it under lock and key away from their children.

Click to expand...

Keeping a firearm under lock and key and never teaching your children the importance of Gun safety/gun use is just begging for a curious child to find the key and play with the "Taboo" object. I let my kids play with my guns, there is no ammo so its an inert object no more harmful than a shovel. They understand what guns can do, why we have them (Zombie attacks)and they know safe operation. They aren't excited by them at all anymore, boring stuff after being exposed to them for all these years. FYI From what I hear Zombies aren't deterred at all by pepper spray OR tasers. Less than 500 children per year die from gunshot wounds. 500 is a very small number when compared to how many children die from Car accidents, drowning and fire. Perhaps if you really want to save the children you will teach them to swim, respect for fire and to wear their seatbelt. If you did those things you would save the lives of more than 5000 kids per year. Perhaps you should start a petition to outlaw cars and swimming.

What country has the lowest crime rate in the world? Switzerland. The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

Carthoris said:

Buddah, I was OP,and if you read the opening post, you see I am asking why so many marijuana growers/smokers are anti gun rights but pro legalization of marijuana without understanding that trying to take one persons rights while gaining new ones for yourself is hypocrisy. Anti gun activists talk about how guns kill people and destroy lives, they might even believe it. Anti marijuana activists talk about how drugs kill people and destroy lives, they might believe it too. I really do not understand how you can support one or the other, to me its a support people to live their lives, or support controlling the people to the point where they have no rights. What happens when guns are outlawed - they go after something else, then something else, then something else. Eventually all that will be left is laying in a tub of slime hooked to wires like on the matrix.

By the way, its disgusting to openly admit you are a socialist. Why not say you are communist and be done with it? No one should have more than anyone else, regardless of how hard they work. Thats a big line of BS there. At least be honest with yourself, if none else.

Click to expand...

Please re-read my stance about firearms okay...you obviously missed what I think about guns.

Socialism is not Communism. I expect people to know better...but maybe I am giving too much credit. I realize people associate liberal, progressive with democrat and socialist...and unfortunately there are a few ignorant people who put communism in this group. There are some socialist policies in which I have no difficulties with... universal healthcare for example... free primary and secondary schooling (oh, no America has socialist programs!)... Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid... I have no issue being called a Social Democrat or even Democratic Socialist... I am a proud liberal.