Right or wrong convo with my Anti best friend..

[jcabin]

i know this is kind of long, but its interesting and im glad i had a conversation with him about it.. im just hoping i made him see we arent looking for trouble.. just looking to live our lives.. while responsibly maintaining our right to defend ourselves..
removing the screen names.. because that would be weird if i kept them..
this wasnt a pre planned debate or anything so everything was just off the tip of my tongue, i think i did a fair representation of the average gun owner/carrier, from my experience atleast.. feel free to critique


friend (3:27:23 PM): so you think there'd be less shootings if you armed everyone in the cities?
me (3:27:29 PM): nope
me (3:27:57 PM): you cant tell people what to do, you can only protect yourself
friend (3:28:38 PM): so you're in favor of people having the option to carry a gun
me (3:28:44 PM): of course
me(3:28:49 PM): as long as theyre law abbiding citizens
friend (3:29:28 PM): define law abbiding
me (3:30:08 PM): to apply for a LTCF in other words, license to carry firearm
me(3:30:18 PM): for you to be authorized
me(3:30:20 PM): you have to
friend (3:30:38 PM): k
me(3:30:55 PM): up until that point, never have committed any felonies, never have been convicted of any from a substantially large list of misdemeanor drug offense
me(3:31:04 PM): never have been committed to a mental facility
friend (3:31:11 PM): o alight
me (3:31:13 PM): never have received more than 1 dui in 10 years
me(3:31:27 PM): if you can pass that
me (3:31:29 PM): which isnt hard to do
me(3:31:33 PM): being a law abbiding citizen
friend (3:31:36 PM): would you say more law abbiding people carrying weapons would lower the probability of innocent people being hurt?
me(3:31:48 PM): then you should still have the right to carry a weapon for your own defense
friend (3:31:51 PM): yeah i don't think it's hard to be a law abbiding citizen either.
me (3:32:05 PM): ok so we agree
me (3:32:09 PM): however
me (3:32:21 PM): if the government denies our right, after proven being law abbiding citizens
me (3:32:25 PM): what does that imply
me(3:32:29 PM): our government doesnt trust us
me(3:32:39 PM): and when our government doesnt trust us, it makes our decisions for us
me(3:32:47 PM): and removes our only way of stopping them
friend (3:32:48 PM): well i wouldn't say the government, i would say our people don't trust each other
friend (3:33:00 PM): which seems to be why we need guns in the first place
friend (3:33:17 PM): as per your comment before about different peoples living so close together
me (3:34:11 PM): if you break the rules and are no longer law abbiding then you shouldnt be allowed to own/carry a weapon
friend (3:34:34 PM): yea i agree
friend (3:34:39 PM): but what we were just saying
me(3:34:41 PM): because you've proven by display of being a danger to society
friend (3:34:48 PM): yea no i agree with that point
friend (3:34:53 PM): but we were taling about something a little different
me (3:35:06 PM): well you asked me to define law abbiding
friend (3:35:17 PM): yea and u did
friend (3:35:37 PM): then we started talking about the government denying those law abiding citizens the right to carry
friend (3:35:47 PM): and that being a sign that the government didn't trust those citizens
me (3:36:02 PM): yeah
friend (3:36:19 PM): and i think it's not so much that our government doesn't trust us, it's that we don't trust each other
friend (3:36:26 PM): like what you said earlier
friend (3:36:35 PM): about different peoples living next to each other
me(3:36:59 PM): do i think it would lower the probability of innocents getting hurt
me (3:37:07 PM): define innocent?
friend (3:37:22 PM): law abbiding citizens
me(3:37:28 PM): i believe a persons innocence is situational
friend (3:37:38 PM): well let's just say law abbiding citizens
me (3:37:42 PM): ok
friend (3:37:45 PM): people who would he able to carry a gun
friend (3:37:55 PM): if more people able to carry a gun, did carry guns
friend (3:38:24 PM): would that increase the safety for all law abbiding citizens, able to carry a weapon
me (3:38:37 PM): youre never safe
me (3:38:51 PM): id say carrying a gun provides as much safety as wearing a seat belt
me(3:39:02 PM): if someone crashes into you
me (3:39:08 PM): it atleast gives you a chance of surviving
friend (3:39:22 PM): yea but i a gun is more offensive, whereas a seatbelt is defensive
me (3:39:23 PM): someone crashing into you, if you are innocent, is not something you could ahve prevented
me (3:39:29 PM): no
friend (3:39:37 PM): lol yes
me (3:39:44 PM): a gun in the hands of a law abbiding citizen, if they are following the law, is defensive
friend (3:39:44 PM): lou you hold a seatbelt and give me a gun
friend (3:39:59 PM): but i think we both said it's pretty easy to be a law abbiding citizen
me(3:40:05 PM): yes
friend (3:40:11 PM): well to me that says
me(3:40:14 PM): just like its easy to be a safe, defensive driver
me(3:40:24 PM): you cannot know when someone is going to crash into you
friend (3:40:24 PM): yea but living in new jersey
me(3:40:33 PM): thats why the seatbelt, helps save your life
friend (3:40:35 PM): i would say there are a lot of lisenced drivers who are not safe drivers
friend (3:41:04 PM): my point is that although on paper a person might be a law abbiding citizen, they might be lisenced to drive
me(3:41:05 PM): thats because anyone can be a driver
me (3:41:07 PM): even felons
me (3:41:10 PM): 16 year olds
me(3:41:15 PM): the blind
me(3:41:23 PM): theres no regulation on it
friend (3:41:24 PM): idk i think we'd have to talk about this in person
friend (3:41:26 PM): a lot gets lost of aim
me(3:41:41 PM): i understand that youre saying
friend (3:41:56 PM): what or that
me(3:41:57 PM): but how can you justify denying people the freedom, just because of what MIGHT happen
friend (3:42:15 PM): how can you justify giving someone the freedom just because of what MIGHT happen
friend (3:42:16 PM): lol
me(3:42:30 PM): its constitutional
friend (3:42:36 PM): arguably
me(3:42:38 PM): you'd have to travel back in time
me(3:42:40 PM): and ask them that
friend (3:43:01 PM): idk if that would help
friend (3:43:14 PM): or if i'd want their advice
friend (3:43:20 PM): they could have imagined the world i live in
me (3:43:32 PM): they couldnt
me(3:43:36 PM): but how about this
me(3:43:52 PM): everything theyve ever known and were taught, influenced their decision
me (3:43:58 PM): in putting that into the constitution
me (3:44:04 PM): it was for a reason
me(3:44:07 PM): not just on a whime
friend (3:44:11 PM): true
me(3:44:14 PM): whim*
me (3:44:27 PM): today we dont have to worry about a tyrannical government
me(3:44:28 PM): i dont think
me (3:44:38 PM): despite what the leftist hippy youth thinks
me (3:44:51 PM): we do have to worry about tyrannical bad guys
friend (3:44:54 PM): and the libertarians
me (3:44:55 PM): and gangs
me(3:45:00 PM): and organized crime
me(3:45:16 PM): which has hit every neighborhood in america
friend (3:45:27 PM): i think that's where we might see things differenlty
friend (3:45:37 PM): i think you live in a much more dangerous world that i do
friend (3:45:49 PM): where the need for defense is much more common place
me (3:46:02 PM): you might be right
me(3:46:05 PM): but 20 years ago
me (3:46:09 PM): i could have said the same thing
me (3:46:15 PM): then organized crime made its way into the poconos
friend (3:46:30 PM): aye but today
friend (3:46:35 PM): i mean we grew up in the same place
friend (3:46:48 PM): and i don't feel the need to carry a gun
me(3:47:10 PM): i dont either not out here, i said if i were to leave the area, and go into stroudsburg
me(3:47:14 PM): or easton/bethlehem
friend (3:47:21 PM): lol i was including all those places
friend (3:47:33 PM): north eastern pa
me(3:47:37 PM): depends on where you are
me(3:47:48 PM): i wouldnt see the need of carrying during day light
me(3:48:14 PM): i would only carry at night, and if i thought i was going to be in a place where i would be forced to use my gun, i wouldnt be there
friend (3:48:46 PM): lol so why do you need a gun?
me (3:48:51 PM): i think people have a misconception, almost a stereotype, of gun owners
me (3:49:03 PM): i just proved to you why i wouldnt need a gun
friend (3:49:26 PM): ?
me(3:49:27 PM): why i would need one, would be for a very insignificant amount of my life
me (3:49:35 PM): for example, when kyle and i are bored
me (3:49:44 PM): and like to go out to walmart at night
me (3:49:52 PM): id feel much safer, if i had a gun on me
me (3:50:14 PM): seeing the amount of muggins/rapings/auto theft, thats occured at the stroudsburg walmart
me (3:50:16 PM): in the last year
me (3:50:24 PM): muggings*
me (3:50:29 PM): then you say
friend (3:50:47 PM): ?
me(3:50:50 PM): well you said if you thought you would be at a place where you might be forced to use a gun you wouldnt go
me(3:50:52 PM): but then i say
me(3:51:03 PM): i live here, am i afraid to move about in my own town?
friend (3:51:15 PM): then why did you say that in the first place lol
me(3:51:28 PM): because most people think gun owners are looking for trouble
me(3:51:44 PM): but if my friend and i want to go to walmart to go food shopping because we are bored
me(3:51:48 PM): we are adults
me(3:51:51 PM): and we can damned well do that
friend (3:52:06 PM): do what
me(3:52:12 PM): go food shopping
friend (3:52:36 PM): idk again
friend (3:52:47 PM): i don't think i need a gun to go to walmart at 2am w/ kyle
friend (3:52:54 PM): i think i'ts just a difference in mentality
me (3:53:00 PM): i guess
friend (3:53:08 PM): aye
friend (3:53:16 PM): i gotta go to class
friend (3:53:17 PM): i'll ttyl man
me (3:53:18 PM): the guy who almost got mugged the other night
me (3:53:21 PM): was only at 12:30 am
friend (3:53:22 PM): ty for the discussion

[dreydin]

i had another gun conversation with my friend Lola (bored? read a chat log!) today on AIM too. didnt save or post it but she was going ape sh1t over the "guns on school campus" debate thats been going on lately. your friend seems to be much more reasonable, while my friend suggested alternatives like a new government, changing the way people think and more utopia minded alternatives to guns. either way, looks like you held our end up pretty well over there.

[New2Arms]

I read through the whole thing because I often have a similar conversation with one of my friends who is anti-gun.

In my opinion, the largest misconception of that whole dialog is:
"
me (3:38:51 PM): id say carrying a gun provides as much safety as wearing a seat belt
me(3:39:02 PM): if someone crashes into you
me (3:39:08 PM): it at least gives you a chance of surviving
friend (3:39:22 PM): yea but a gun is more offensive, whereas a seatbelt is defensive
"
A gun in the "hands" of it's owner (legal) is always defensive. But the idea that gun owners are action junkies is what gets us in trouble. Your friend views a gun an an offensive tool, but when referring to CCW, it is strictly a defensive one.

That is the point I would of driven home to him.

[dreydin]

Originally Posted by New2Arms

In my opinion, the largest misconception of that whole dialog is:
"
me (3:38:51 PM): id say carrying a gun provides as much safety as wearing a seat belt
me(3:39:02 PM): if someone crashes into you
me (3:39:08 PM): it at least gives you a chance of surviving
friend (3:39:22 PM): yea but a gun is more offensive, whereas a seatbelt is defensive
"
A gun in the "hands" of it's owner (legal) is always defensive. But the idea that gun owners are action junkies is what gets us in trouble. Your friend views a gun an an offensive tool, but when referring to CCW, it is strictly a defensive one.

That is the point I would of driven home to him.

yea, i really liked the seat belt analogy there. but you didnt go far enough with it, imo.

[robinsre]

I would argue that neither a seatbelt, nor a handgun are offensive OR defensive "items". These are terms to define actions, not items.

Is there a situation where a seatbelt could be offensive? How about if some 6'8" 350lb gorilla of a man rips it out of his car and beats you to death with it? I'd say he's using it in a pretty offensive fashion. Seat belts CAN be used OFFENSIVELY, but they are designed to be used DEFENSIVELY.

It's the same thing with a handgun. Drawing a handgun and firing on a person that is already attacking you is a defensive action. It is not a PASSIVE defense (like a seatbelt), but it is still a defensive action, you are reacting to a perceived threat.

Handguns were designed to be DEFENSIVE weapons. They can be used as OFFENSIVE weapons, but that is not their original intended purpose. And just as with vehicles, seat belts, and baseball bats, we cannot ban handguns or the use/carry of handguns strictly because some individuals choose to misuse them for actions other than their intended purpose.

Edit : Also - the correct response to a friend who says "I just don't think I need a gun for...X" is generally "That's fine, if you don't think you need one, don't have one, but don't also presume you can tell me that I can't have one."

[jeepinbanditrider]

i wouldnt see the need of carrying during day light
me(3:48:14 PM): i would only carry at night, and if i thought i was going to be in a place where i would be forced to use my gun, i wouldnt be there

Unfortunatly no one can see into the future and tell when this will or won't happen. Bad stuff happens in "nice" areas all over the US every day.

Going back to the seatbelt analogy this is like saying that I'm not going to wear my seatbelt unless I feel like I'm going to be in a situation where I'm going to have a wreck.

I can almost guarantee you that no one that has ever had an accidnet has planned on having it. Just like pretty much everyone that has ever fired a weapon in self defense woke up that morning and decided that today was going to be the day that they are going to use that weapon in self defense.

I think by in that part of your IMings that you may have given your buddy the wrong idea that maybe we really don't need weapons since we can just avoid "problem" areas.

[tallmanis67]

I like this little story to make a point to the antis.

"A lady asked me if I keep a gun in the house. I replied "yes I do keep a gun in the house." She asked me "do you keep it loaded?" I said, "I do" "Well you must be afraid of a break in." I said, " I am not afraid of someone breaking in... I'm not afraid of the house burning down either but I keep fire extinguishers in the house too and they are ALL loaded."

[jcabin]

i think we just need to have well thought, non aggressive, informative conversations with the anti's and indifferent people out there and lead by example.. alot of the problem with our image is the people who are really vocal about being an owner/carrier come off as extreme.. ive seen it myself and can only shake my head..

[MGD 45]

My only critique would be the rules regarding who can have a gun. Only people who have never been a "law-breaker"? If we as gun owners truly believe that owning a gun is a "Right", then how can you lose that "Right" by simply being arrested for a crime?

Does a criminal lose their other "Rights" once they've been arrested & convicted, like the Right to Free Speech.....Free from illegal searches.....Freedom of religion....? If not, then how can we say that they lose the Right in the 2nd Amendment....?

Now as an LEO, I'm not real happy to see a convicted felon carrying a gun, but as a citizen who believes in my "Rights", how can I deny him his...? Maybe I've fallen off the wagon here, because most if not all of my co-workers think I'm nuts in my way of thinking!!

I just believe that a "Right" is a "Right", & nothing can change that.......otherwise we risk the chance that someone else in government will change the rules down the road & make other exemptions.

Just my crazy 2 cents.......

[jcabin]

Originally Posted by MGD 45

I just believe that a "Right" is a "Right", & nothing can change that.......otherwise we risk the chance that someone else in government will change the rules down the road & make other exemptions.

Just my crazy 2 cents.......

if someone proves they arent worthy of their rights, by violating the laws we have in place to maintain and evolve society. when someone violates those laws they are harming society, then they go to prison, while in prison, they still have their rights, yet they are diminished. Where it concerns the 2nd Amendment, if they are convicted of a felony, they now have diminished rights outside the prison.. everyone makes their own choices in life, i believe in that.. maybe the laws could change to be specific.. but i dont feel right having a felon convicted of violent crimes allowed to buy a gun, among many other types of felons