"Cyrus Afzali"
wrote in message
news:2qtta4t1alocv9htnev9dkr4lkg9vq54gb@4ax.com...> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:55:05 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
>
bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>"Cyrus Afzali"
wrote in message
>>news:jhara4pta32elq8vf5mk1h4g41pcn97ok4@4ax.com...>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:17:58 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
>
>>>>Who is fearful of becoming a victim, Cyrus? Not I and
>>>>probably not David. Do you have a fire extinguisher,
>>>>hospitalization insurance, auto insurance, and/or
>>>>disability
>>>>insurance? A spare tire and a jack in your car? A
>>>>first
>>>>aid kit in your home and/or car? A list of emergency
>>>>numbers to call in case you, your wife, or your child is
>>>>injured or exposed to poison or dangerous chemicals?
>>>>Does
>>>>any of those items or policies mean you are fearful.
>>>>Probably not, they just mean you are taking wise
>>>>precautions. There is a reason for the Boy Scout motto,
>>>>"Be
>>>>Prepared."
>>>
>>> You can say that all you want, but I simply will never
>>> believe it.
>>
>>So, in effect, you're calling me a liar. How nice.
>
> For starters, you've implied as much or more of folks in
> this group
> many times. Play victim if you want, but that's nothing
> worse than
> you've done on MANY, MANY occasions.
>
> Secondly, my opinion is in reference also to gun owners as
> a whole.
> Every gun owner I've ever heard speak about why they have
> guns, talks
> about the possibility of becoming a victim. That's fear
> whether you
> want to acknowledge it or not.
>
>>I don't present myself as a victim and that's a key
>>ingredent.
>
> So people who don't carry guns and are presenting
> themselves as a
> victim? Sounds like a classic fear card to me.
I never said that. Presenting one's self as a victim or a
non-victim is more of an attitude displayed, body language.
If a person acts like he/she has every right to be where
he/she is, victimhood is frequently avoided. If one acts
nervous, has eyes down, avoids even the slightest hint of
eye contact, the bad guys will sense it, much like a dog
senses fear. Act like you know where you're going and doing
what you have every right to do. Show confidence.
Between the ages of 21-63 I didn't go armed and I never had
any problems, including the times I worked in North
Nashville near Meharry and TSU and sometimes carried large
amounts of money to the bank on West End, even though I
stuck out like a sore thumb (short overweight white guy).
>
> See this is the problem that I have with this kind of
> reasoning. You
> claim you don't carry a gun because you fear being a
> victim, but you
> also say that the fact that you carry a gun is one of the
> reasons
> you're not being presented as a victim. Those two
> statements don't
> jive to me.
Although Tennessee law does not require me carry concealed,
I do conceal the weapon. Any potential bad guys have no way
of knowing if I'm armed or not. What the weapon does for me
is to heighten my sense of responsibility, not necessairly
my sense of confidence.
>
> To use another line of logic, I could say I was just being
> prepared by
> stocking a year's worth of supplies, having a generator in
> my basement
> and/or a storm cellar, etc. Yet, considering the fact that
> there
> hasn't been a tornado come through our neck of the woods
> in some 50
> years or more, a lot of people would say I was being
> either paranoid
> or fearful of becoming a victim to a storm.
Yet a tornado or two recently hit the Chicago area, not a
frequent occurance there either.
>
>>> To put it simply, we have more places in the country
>>> with
>>> relatively
>>> liberal gun laws than we do with strict and crime as a
>>> whole in the
>>> country isn't rapidly declining. You can't solve a
>>> societal problem
>>> with a gun.
>>
>>You're right there and I've never suggested otherwise.
>>But
>>victims of violent crime should have the most efficient
>>and
>>effective means to protect themselves. I believe that a
>>handgun is both when in the hands of a trained citizen,
>>trained in the proper use and vetted on the laws regarding
>>the use of deadly force.
>
> And the difference between your line of thinking and mine
> is from a
> societal standpoint, we're better off focusing on the
> problem than
> using widespread gun ownership as a solution. There are
> MANY examples
> that show cities have tackled crime problems and brought
> them under
> control for the betterment of everybody, so it can be
> done. If NYC can
> go from 2,200 murders at the peak in the 80s down to less
> than 500
> today, these kinds of things can be done elsewhere.
There are certain problems where gun ownership has
absolutely no relationship, true. But denying honest
citizens an enumerated right because of the bad acts of a
few is not only wrong, but unconstitutional per D.C. vs.
Heller.
--
Vote Freedom First
Kent Finnell
From the Music City, USA
