This is why I don't understand gun enthusiasts

As Peter Griffen would say "this grinds my gears". I hate when people treat the homeless this way and assume they will use your money for drugs. I have worked with the homeless and I promise you while some of them do con you, many of them really are very appreciative for your spare change. I have given some money only to have them return a few minutes later and insist they share the meal with me. They are good people who have had bad luck. How can you get a job and start to fix things when you sleep under a bridge? No one will hire you when you have no place to even have a proper shower to look good for the interview.

This guy to me is what is wrong with America, this whole shoot first ask questions later attitude. I would think a black man would be more sympathetic to being judged as a threat right away when there is really no good reason to think that other then the person has approached you. Of course there is always a risk when in public that you could be robbed but the chances of that happening are slim. I have been approached by homeless people pretty much anytime I am in a large city and I have never felt like I was in danger. In my mind it's better to not assume you have to harm someone. But I have never been robbed, so maybe my perspective is not the same as his.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuG-JukwUIM"]Concealed Carry Life: The Homeless - YouTube

 

'so much more harder'

haha

 

Drugs and homelessness are so closely tied together, I think its hard for the general public to tease apart and differentiate between the two...

Oh and the guy in that video is precisely the type of person who should NOT be running around with a gun in his pants... He runs around the internet making videos in which he brags about his piece and how he "almost had to use it" because homeless people were existing in the same general vicinity as him

 

Interesting how this one man suddenly represents gun enthusiasts as a whole.

 

Next time I am walking down the street I hope I do not run into that guy.

 

a puff of scopolamine in his face will do the trick..

guns dont scare me.. since Ive seen the face of GOD.. Have you?

 

my conceal holds 15 bullets as fast as i can pull the trigger.. i enjoy it on my right side when im buying produce..

 

produce is a good isle to be in when walking around strapped.. shit goes down all you gotta do is put a potato on that fucker and take people out like your name is Agent 47

 

i wonder how many homeless people died of hypethermia while that guy in the vid was using them as an example for some people ta potentially shoot on,because of his own misconceptions bout homeless people.his time makin' that vid would have been better served helping out in a soup run.

 

Not everyone. But clearly at least a small portion of your community is like this. Are you denying you own a gun for the same reasons this guy does?

 

I keep an 8" chef's knife in the trim above my front door... if anyone tries coming in unexpectedly... they'll get a whole lotta stainless steel to the chest or stomach... that's if my dog don't take care of'em first

 

Indeed I am. I certainly don't feel threatened outside my home.

 

Yes. I got into guns as sport, not to shoot homeless people.

My first purchase was a Thompson Center Contender pistol chambered for .357 Maximum. Hardly an offensive or defensive weapon, but some the best target/hunting pistols in the world.


Concerning homeless people, one important factor is
How does your state deal with the mentally ill?

In Ca. there have been a few times starting when good ole' Ronnie Raygun was the Gov. when the state essentially opens the doors and tells everybody "Get out!"

In California there are a lot of seriously ill people living on the street, not everyone, but enough to cause me to be cautious, but not paranoid like the buffoon in the video.

 

Yes, there is the "sport" side of it. The challenge of being accurate, but the only reason a gun exists is to kill something. The sport only comes about because you are all waiting and hoping for the day when you get to be an action movie star, so you practice and practice. I have spent some time in the gun culture. One of my best friends was a gun nut and the only thing that stopped him from killing someone was equipment failure, he tried to kill a burglar (after he was incapacitated by a shot to the knee) the gun jammed and the guy only went to prison.

You don't by a Ferrari unless you plan to speed right? Same thing here, you have a gun and you plan to use it. Are you really gonna spend thousands of dollars and not really use a tool how it's mean to be. You can call it sport but by owning a gun you have already made the moral decision that is will be them and not me, you are willing and ready to kill. Where I as would rather give someone my wallet then live with that guilt.

 

You know I like you unfocused, but those really are some asinine assumptions about my motivations and intentions concerning gun ownership.

You do realize that there are situations in which an assailant isn't interested in your money, but your life or body, don't you?
And for your information, if you did shoot someone simply because they demanded money, you would go to jail.
If your friend killed his assailant after already incapacitating him, he would be in prison for murder. Sounds like your friend is an idiot with or without guns.

Learn the actual laws before you speak of them please.

Why can't any of these people debating this shit stick to rational arguments.

 

This guy sounds like Vern Tessio on watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWv11_ZVSfM?t=10m12s

 

That's my point, whatever they want I am not willing to kill them. You don't go to prison for using your gun in America. How about stand your ground laws, much like the guy in the video I as a gun owner can decide that guy is a threat to me, I kill him and in court my word that he was a threat is enough, I am not punished.

I think my points are rational, just difficult for to understand since your on the other end of the argument. You probably feel that owning a gun protects you against the government, after all that is the purpose of the second amendment. So the militia can be "well regulated". But to someone like me I see that was written when if a farmer had a musket he was on the same level as the British army. Now they have drones, tanks, missiles, more powerful fully automatic weapons even you can not own. The second amendment is outdated, it does not protect you. This is why it is used a public distraction.

 

Again, you're making a lot of assumptions about me and my motivations.
In the interest of not copy/paste a ton, please read this;
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=469458&f=614&page=6

 

Personally, I fucking despise guns...

But I agree with you here.

Although, what do you think about the argument that having a gun present/available makes you more likely to use it? That is one of the arguments I think does hold some water... It's pretty undeniable I'd say. You can be the most calm and collected individual with a tremendous level of self restraint and impeccable decision making skills, but when a troublesome situation presents itself, adrenal systems take over and fight or flight sets in... and if it settles upon "fight," its probably not going to end well for the perpetrator, considering you're carrying a loaded gun. Even for the most collected and restrained of individuals, decision making and judgement can be seriously obstructed/altered/suspended when that good ol' epinephrine starts pumping. So its not just a matter of making sure people who own guns are of sound mind and capable of exercising restraint and proper judgement, because given the context of a potentially dangerous situation this might be out the window.

Just wondering what you're take on the whole "if its there, you're likely to use it" argument against gun ownership is...

The gun issue is a tricky one. I think we need the right to own them and defend ourselves because they'd be our only means of protecting ourselves in the rare (although plausible) case of governmental tyrannical overthrow of some sort. There's wayyyyy too many people who think there's some need to "protect themselves" even though they live in middle class suburbia, have cameras on every street corner, and have never been in a physical altercation in their entire lives... Granted, some people do actually need self-protection in the form of a gun. So it's just another one of those issues, where you have a large body of people behaving rationally and responsibly, and another (typically smaller) body of people acting recklessly and exercising poor judgement... it becomes another one of those issues of; do we want to punish the many for the actions of a delinquent few? Because even though I'm not in favor of guns, I believe if you were to look at the statistical data for the number of responsible, law abiding gun owners vs. the delinquent few who use the weapon criminally and recklessly, I'm sure there's a much higher ratio of safe gun owners when compared to dangerous gun owners.

So I guess the only thing I could offer on this, would be the suggestion that it should be made EXTREMELY difficult for one to acquire a concealed carry weapon... Multiple background checks should be instated, character references of some sort should be required, and perhaps make the applicant complete several written exams (looking primarily for signs of violent behavior, mental illnesses, and emotional instability), maybe a letter of intent stating why the person wishes to buy the weapon and what he/she plans on using it for. Also, there should be at least a couple weeks of "live tests," where you would take the applicant out in the field, and see if he could properly demonstrate how to responsibly use the gun in a whole slew of different scenarios. And if the person fails any part of these tests, they should not have to simply pay a fine and be eligible to retake the test, they should instead be mandated to a month or two of additional training routines that are specifically specialized to focus on the areas in which the person was lacking...

Just a few suggestions I was thinking about as I typed this out... This is a very intricate and multi-faceted problem and I honestly have no idea what the proper solution is.