Gun owners who are "against the cause"

[stephpd]

To be accurate, there are variations in crime per capita that change with the region. My area, Abington Township, for example has only about 1/5th of the violent crime per capita that PA experiences on average, and around 2/5th property crime.

That does make it a nicer and safer area. But it still would be a big mistake to feel "safe" and assume that "this can never happen here" attitude. In reality those statistics tell us that these crimes definitely happen here too, just a little less often.


Jan

I didn't mean for it to seem that crime rates are the same everywhere. Of course there are variations in the rate of crime. There may even be a a few areas where no crime has been committed. Not many, I'd guess, but possible.

But that can all change in a single day with one lone nut going berserk.

The illusion of safety is all in ones mind. Most here believe that crime can happen anywhere, at any time. That's why we carry. Not to start crimes but to be prepared in case it falls into our laps.

I happen to live in an area that has a much lower crime rate then other places around me. Only one person shot around my neighborhood last year. But then I did hear some gunshots just outside my house last week as well as other shots a couple of months ago. Both peaked my interest but didn't see anything in the local paper about either incident.

[fizzyone]

I also don't get the "you should just move" mentality, like that's an easy option for some people. I would think that, if someone was living in a crappy neighborhood and had the means to move, they would get the hell out, right? Duh!

[Philbert]

I don't know. I see this type of attitude on firearms and self defense forums all the time.
"Why would you carry a BUG? If you feel like you need more than one gun where you live, you should move. Also, you must be looking for trouble."
"Why would you carry that much ammo? You're not in Iraq are you? If you feel like you need that much ammo where you live, you should move. Also, you must be looking for trouble."
"Knives are tools, not weapons. If you feel like you need to carry a knife for self defense where you live, you should move. Also, I don't know how to use one, so that means knives are totally ineffective for self defense anyway. Oh yeah, and you must be looking for trouble. You're probably a mall ninja too."
"Why would you carry more than one knife? You're crazy and I find you frightening. I bet you eat puppies."

Sometimes people do say similar things, but more often than not it's with different motivations. The guy in the OP is not trying to argue that the OP doesn't need his gun, but that he should not be living where he does. The kinds of arguments you reference above are usually about hardware - the "you should move" thing is rhetorical, the real problem is that you affronted someone's faith in a j-frame snubby as the ultimate self defense tool or shook their belief that they never need to carry with a round in the chamber, or something.

[MDJschool]

If you've properly articulated the point, the audience/opponent is likely just being a douchebag.

It's not hard to comprehend that, while the tool is 'actively employed' only for the 0.001% of all the times that it is maintained, lacking the tool when it is needed can be fatally detrimental, whether the goal is finishing a project or maintaining a life. This, of course, is a limited response that could be part of a grater argument.

When someone else tries to define a schema in an effort to truncate one's ability to respond sufficiently, I'd suggest jumping out of that schema and making one's own. Where the ultimate point is 'utility of employing arms in defense of one's rights', I'd segue into the 'specific political intent' of constitutional recognizance of the right to bear arms (as common and natural law should be sufficient to protect the 'personal' defense of self.) Tyranny doesn't discriminate (although sometimes you can bribe it) and if Idiot has ever thought that the government has done something offensive to morals, or has simply bitched about its action, that is water that will some day boil over from the pains of tyranny.

When the tool is not being 'actively employed' but is still carried regularly by a group where there is a reasonable expectation that such a group regularly keeps and bears arms, or the group does this quite evidently, then deterrence is the effect of long-standing passive employment. How can that be denied? Certainly it may not be denied by advancing 'proof' that the deterrent doesn't work when the ability to employ that deterrent has already been significantly abridged, and in any case the group neither regularly evidences armament nor can it be reasonably expected that the group is armed.

That is: it doesn't even really matter that in the obstinate employment of one's rights, as it stands today, one would be targeted by criminals to be shot first during convenience store robberies or by law enforcement for confiscation of arms or elimination. The error is most instantly not your fault; it is not the fault of the instant existence, or lack thereof, of arms; it is not a matter of acquiescence. We have that human condition because we do not take the action required to make firearms a manifest deterrent (without regard as to whether such action is or needs to be peaceable or violent.)

So, the regular acquiescence to every threat to life, liberty, and property, with prejudice as to the cause and reason, should make one wonder if life is worth living, lacking the ability to expect and uphold the natural guarantees of liberty and property.

[jcabin]

Idiot: Uh, yeah it will. Ghettos dont follow people wherever they move. I have a friend who commutes every day 30 miles to and from school and work.

Ever heard of the Poconos? Where does this guy live fairy land? He must have rode his unicorn to 9th grade web design, right after he stopped at the candy land corner shop for his waffles made of cotton candy. Don't they monitor net access at the schools now-a-days?

Of course as a new yorker half of you are going to blame me for being some kind of scumbag, but the fact is my family are all in the medical field or law enforcement, federal. I come from solid american lineage. We moved to pennsylvania to get away from the low class scum that was encroaching into our neighborhoods and just lessening the quality of the area and endangering the safety of the youth and good citizens in general.

We moved here, we're good people. It just so happens that the criminal element found a niche here in the poconos, and is in no relation to me or my family. So yes, the ghetto does follow good people, any place they can make a dollar with minimal resistance from the indigenous people, and minimal resistance from the police.

[Al-Mumit]

"just move lol"

Ah, the words of a privileged idiot who has no sense of reality nor no knowledge of the struggles of the working class...

[jcabin]

"just move lol"

Ah, the words of a privileged idiot who has no sense of reality nor no knowledge of the struggles of the working class...

You don't need to be privileged to be an idiot.

[d90king]

I believe the term for these types is FUDD's.

[Al-Mumit]

You don't need to be privileged to be an idiot.

True enough, but that's the feeling I get from the idiot in question. He seems to think relocation is easy and arbitrary. 'o noes it sux here lets immediately move lul' isn't something anyone who has ever gone through the saving and planning involved with moving would say IMHO. He's either 16 (it WAS a gaming forum, to be fair) or he's never had to deal with the logistics of moving before. Likely both.

[jcabin]

True enough, but that's the feeling I get from the idiot in question. He seems to think relocation is easy and arbitrary. 'o noes it sux here lets immediately move lul' isn't something anyone who has ever gone through the saving and planning involved with moving would say IMHO. He's either 16 (it WAS a gaming forum, to be fair) or he's never had to deal with the logistics of moving before. Likely both.

I have a feeling he was probably 15, yes, and also didn't know wtf he was talking about. Typical liberal youth.