arma virumque cano (et alia)
There are some problems where violence IS the way to resolve problems. Namely in times where deadly force in self defense is needed.
Oh, for shit's sake. Carrying a firearm, whether concealed or openly, is not "violence," and any kid who draws the conclusion that it is should be sterilized before he/she breeds.
I disagree. A gun on one's person is indeed a threat.
I disagree. A gun on one's person is indeed a threat.If you say so, but even so, a threat is not "violence."
A gun in and of itself is not a threat. A person can be a threat with or without a gun present. Or anything else a threating person can be in possession of.
Howdy Newcastle. Haven't seen you here before so I assume you're new. Welcome, and hope you like hanging here.
That's nitpicking, Kurt. The sight of a gun is a threat of violence.
The sight of a gun is a threat of violence.To the terminally frightened, perhaps. No one should be expected to cater to their phobias, though.
"A gun in and of itself is not a threat."BS. A guns purpose is to kill, that makes it a threat whenever it is around. How many have died from "accidents" (laughable) when there was no intent from the gun owner, for anyone to die?
More BS from someone too afraid to name himself. A gun can just shoot all by itself. Your a true holophobe.
Perhaps you should start a campaign to require police officers to conceal then Anon.
Another diversion from the gun loon SS. We have all the official reports we need to show I am correct.
Post those official reports that shows you are correct. I would like to read them.
Newcastle, Anon doesn't do facts, or data, or proof. Especially if he's expected to provide it.
And there's the problem right there. To gun control supporters: guns = violence.I wonder if the same CSGV folks think armed police teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve problems in a modern, democratic society.
That's their job. The gun still represents a threat, though, regardless of who's carrying it.
And it's an individual's job to protect themselves. It's not the job of police.
We say you have no right to teach our children that.Well, it would only teach children that if were resolving problems. If it only creates problems (as you most assuredly believe), then it would teach children that open carrying guns creates problems. So what are you worried about?
I don't here gun loons teaching children WHEN deadly force can be used. It's clear from incidents of the past that throwing popcorn, loud music, or other inane harmless acts are reason enough to kill.
Actually, those are all acts that I expressly said do not justify deadly self defense, are not protected by law, and it happened to turn out that I was correct given that those guys are most likely going to spend the rest of their lives in prison.
You didn't answer the question, typical for gun loons who dishonestly divert the conversation. Why do you have to do that instead of just answering the question?
"It's clear from incidents of the past that throwing popcorn, loud music, or other inane harmless acts are reason enough to kill." Actually Anon, the events you listed are wonderful examples that those aren't reasons to use deadly force since they have all resulted in criminal charges and/or conviction.
The support from gun loons was clear, for those killers and you still haven't pointed to what gun loons are teaching children about self defense and when to use it.
"for those killers and you still haven't pointed to what gun loons are teaching children about self defense and when to use it. " Well Anon, personally, I've discussed when deadly force can be used with my two oldest kids, 16 and 14. And that is because they asked me about in in the context of me carrying. And of course, my actions teach my children. Its called being a role model and I take it seriously. Just as I take teaching my children to shoot seriously.
I wasn't talking about YOUR children, but you knew that. To bad you have to lie to support your side. Why do gun loons have to lie?
"I wasn't talking about YOUR children, but you knew that. To bad you have to lie to support your side." What part of my comment was a lie Anon? So you want to know what pro-gun organizations are doing in the area of teaching children the principles od use of deadly force? To be honest, not very much. This training vacuum is most likely because in most states its sort of tough to either get a carry permit of be allowed to carry one in a Constitutional carry state. Kids certainly don't learn anything in school in regards to the principles of self defense of any sort. If a kid actually defends themselves in school, they stand a very good chance of being punished under the same rules as the aggressor. So currently, the only way kids will learn of the proper use of deadly force would be to do self study or ask their parents, which is what happened in my case. Please get back to me as to where I lied in my comments here.
It's a lie that what's happening in the general public, is what YOUR children are doing. Your argument is weak as usual, and dishonest, as usual.