Crazy Things Pacifists Tell Me About Guns

By Rob Morse

Shocked Scared Man
Crazy Things Pacifists Tell Me About Guns
Slow Facts
Slow Facts

Louisiana- (  I don’t mention being a gun owner to strangers.  Sometimes people find out, and the way they respond is remarkable.  I assume that they are sincere in what they say, but that assumption isn't easy.

Their comments are more of a confession about themselves than an honest question about me.  I usually bite my tongue because of the social situation.  Then it occurred to me that other gun owners must be hearing similar comments.

I’ve kept my answers to myself, but now I’ll share them with you.

“I live on the safe side of town so I don’t need a gun for protection.”

I usually hear this from a well-to-do woman and it makes me smile.  Does she think criminals don’t have maps that show them where the rich people live?  Maybe she thinks criminals can’t drive.  The woman is obviously intelligent, but has a profound blind-spot when it comes to personal safety.  We didn’t meet inside her gated community, so why does she think she is safe everywhere?

“Guns aren’t the answer.”

Maybe guns are not the answer, but then we are certainly talking about different questions.  I assume the speaker knows that the police have firearms for personal protection.  The first person who told me to go armed was a police officer.  I listen to professionals.

“People don’t protect themselves with guns any longer.  That is just a fantasy from the old-west.”

This one perplexes me.  I assume they read too many cowboy novels but they stopped reading too soon.  They never learned the real history of our western frontier.  Also, the speaker never bothered to learn the facts about armed citizens who carry in public now.  Armed towns on the western frontier were safer than our large democrat-controlled cities today.  Ain’t that right, Marshal Dillon?

“Only the police should have guns.”

True, the police should have guns, but have you thought about what it is like to be a policeman?  Almost every policeman I’ve met told me to carry because of what they see every day.  Time after time, day after day, the police arrive too late.  They take reports from innocent injured victims.  That is a core part of their job and it has to hurt.  The police would much rather take your report that says you protected yourself and the criminal ran away.

“Only criminals have guns.”

This is really a statement about how narrow a group of friends the speaker has.  I’m probably the first gun owner they know… and there are a hundred million gun owners in the US.  To be fair, they probably don’t know anyone who owns a pickup truck either.

“You don’t need a gun.”

That is true.  I don’t.  I guess I don’t need toothpaste and deodorant.  I don’t need a fire extinguisher at home or a first aid kit in my car, but I have them..just like I have a firearm.

“My husband or wife has a gun, so I don’t need one.”

This comment makes me bite my tongue.  I’m thinking they volunteered to be the designated victim..or maybe the designated hostage.  Must be an interesting personal relationship they have with their spouse, but I don’t ask.

“Gun’s don’t belong in schools.”

Lots of things don’t belong in schools, but I’ve seen them.  Cuts and broken bones don’t belong in schools, but we have first aid kits on scene for a reason.  I won’t pretend that bad things don’t happen.  I won’t lie to make you feel better.  What exactly is your plan when you see more things you don’t want in schools?

“You just want to kill someone.”

This person obviously has no idea about the costs of threatening to use lethal force, let alone pulling the trigger.  Ignorance must be bliss.

“I couldn’t kill someone.

That is hard to believe.  Maybe the people who say this think they are gentle.  Would they really stand by and watch while their family is threatened or injured?  If I take them seriously, then either they don’t care about other people, or they look forward to seeing an innocent person hurt.   Has some village lost its sociopath?

“People like you shouldn’t have machine guns.”

I’ve fired a machine gun.  Not having automatic weapons hasn’t compromised my self-defense plans since I don’t feel the need to fight off a zombie horde tonight.

“Why do you want another tool that kills?”

I love this question.  I look around the room and see how many things I could use or improvise.  What can I say.  I’m an engineer so everything is a tool.

“You’re more likely to be hurt if you have a gun because the criminal will take your gun away from you.”

So you’re saying we’d be safer if we disarmed the police and gave guns to criminals?   That way the police would always have a gun when they needed it by taking the criminal’s gun!  It’s an interesting idea, but you go first and I’ll record the results from here.

I know I’m not alone.  You’ve heard similar things and you’ve thought similar things.  Thank you for sharing them.. here, and not saying them in public


The original article is here.  Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

  • 176 thoughts on “Crazy Things Pacifists Tell Me About Guns

    1. By the way, re the line of rubbish peddeled by the anti gunners and their fellow travelers, think they actually believe the rubbish they peddle?

    2. The arrogant ignorance, stupidity if you prefer, of some segments of the population is truly amazing, I reference anti gun types, notwithstanding that people have the right to disarm themselves if they so choose. Strikes me however that many of the anti’s are the sort of persons who having gone out in the rain, without suitable cover, simply cannot understand how it came to be that they got wet.

    3. When I opened my safe and showed my Mother In Law my guns she ran out of the room screaming even though all of them were unloaded. Talk about a manufactured fear of guns.

    4. President Trump has a NYC carry permit. But he doesn’t need a gun because he has at least 100 Secret Service agents armed with Uzis, Glocks, M4s and they can carry anywhere on the planet Earth.

    5. One should not be too quick to dismiss the “pacifist’s” argument, “I couldn’t kill someone.” He/she may very well be correct. Suggest you read Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s book “On Killing” before too quickly attacking this post.

      1. Mr. Ree, that isn’t the same as being a pacifist, but I understand your point. Although, self-defense is *not* about killing someone, it’s stopping the threat. The threat may expire, but that isn’t the intent. The studies of soldiers shooting their firearms in battle is interesting. It is also interesting that, in recognizing that deficiency, the military has been able to alter their training so that more soldiers are willing to shoot when necessary.

        I, being very non-violent, had to mentally come to terms with that when I decided to carry. A relative who is now a retired LEO, during the course of numerous conversations, made it clear that defense of my family, and self-defense, is *my* responsibility, not his nor other LEOs, that if anything were to happen, LE would be there to only take a report and/or to gather evidence. I have decided my family and my life is worth more than that of some person willing to hurt them or me. I will not be a willing victim.

        1. I do not disagree with your point, because it reinforces mine. Humans are not predisposed to kill other humans (i.e.“I couldn’t kill someone.”) Grossman’s research confirmed that for most folks, killing another human is not natural, and humans usually must be conditioned to do so. So if someone says, “I couldn’t kill someone,” I submit the correct response is, “Your’e right, you probably can’t. But you can learn to do so in those instances where you may be call upon to use deadly force to protect yourself or a loved one. And that is something you have an obligation to do.”
          As for “intent,” the last time I looked, the law says you are held to have intended the result you achieved. “Stopping the threat” is a legal standard of sorts. If one does more (i.e. uses more deadly force) than what is perceived to be necessary to stop the threat, then one may be punished; if one does no more than what is perceived to be necessary to stop the threat, one is absolved. It is the degree of action in relation to the objective, not intent, that is the issue. Intent is essentially irrelevant. That’s a good thing. Death is by definition the potential (indeed, likely) consequence of stopping a threat using “deadly” force. The more deadly the force brought to bear; the more likely the result (viz. death). I do not find convincing the argument that one did not intend the result (i.e., death) once deadly force was employed. What matters is what a prosecutor or jury thinks the person should have done in the circumstances that counts, not that person’s specific intent.
          That said, I certainly am not going to fault anyone for saying they didn’t intend for the threat to “expire,” if that makes it easier for that person you to live with the consequences of using deadly force.

          1. Slightly off the original topic but certainly something that bears thinking about.

            One of the worst examples of conditioning to kill are the child soldiers. If ever there was a reason for summary execution it would be for those who indoctrinate and teach children to kill.

            I was speaking of killing and death to my former partner last night, remembering the first person I ever saw shot, many many years ago. It’s not like the movies, there was no great pool of blood. In fact, in this case there was no exit wound and I was amazed that a very small caliber round had just taken this person’s life. Over the course of many years I saw quite a few that had been shot, stabbed etc and some died in front of me. What stayed with me at the end was that I’d had enough. Would I use deadly force against another to save a life? Yes, I would. But I would rather be so far away from that so that it was as remote a possibility as could be, which is probably why I now live in the sticks and only go into town once or twice a month.

            When I read about folks so easily say “oh, if he comes into my house I’ll just blow him away”, as though it’s no more than a paper plate it makes me realize that they have a lot to learn and I hope they never learn it the hard way. Seeing human life ebb from the eyes of someone, even if they deserve it, is a profound event. An event you may get somewhat hardened to but you never forget.

          2. Mr. Ree, I agree with everything you stated. I have read a lot on these topics and thought greatly about it because I do not believe in violence or hurting anything – that is why I was never interested in hunting, even though I was a very good shot. I am older now, and I have come to accept certain things about life that are non-negotiable.

            Yes, avoiding the situation all together is always the best solution when possible. That is what is taught in self-defense and in situational awareness. And I understand your point about having seen enough hurt and death to not want anymore of it. I personally have not experienced that, except the loss of many family members. Not quite the same thing, but I understand your point of view.

            I also believe that if I needed to, I could kill for sustenance; however, I still get all my meat from stores; though when I was a kid I did do a lot of fishing. both parents worked and the creek was across the street. If I wanted to eat, that was what was available. Also, as a teen, I opened thousands of pounds of scallops at my father’s shop. My father was a bayman and we ate seafood frequently. I avoid the seafood I ate when I was a kid, sick to the gills of it (pun intended). Ate much too much of clams, crabs, scallops, and lobsters.

            1. Donald, the idea of self-defense is not to kill. Stopping the threat may result in that, but it isn’t the intent. Even one punch can kill, and that has been in the news several times recently. Even stun guns and pepper spray are called less lethal, not non-lethal. Almost anything that you do to defend yourself has lethal potential. One needs to be willing to protect oneself and family knowing that injury or death may result, and it might be one’s own self that endures that result. That is why avoiding the conflict to begin with is always the wiser, safer choice. But if one needs to, make sure you are in it to win it. Second place wins no trophies.

    6. The question I got;

      Why do you need a gun?

      My answer? Because of people like you. When he gave me a shocked “what do you mean?” I just dismissively waved him off and got back to work. It bothered him the rest of the week and he would try to get me to explain it to him at every turn. Finally on Friday he cornered me in the break room and demanded an explanation. Since I’m a good bit older than he is, I just gave him that grandfatherly smile you give a petulant child and patted him on the shoulder and said, “you really can’t understand son.” I hope it ruined the snowflake’s weekend.

    7. I don’t suffer idiots, morons, or liberals well, I tend to refute their bad logic or just call them a dumb a** and move on. That tends to really piss one of my sisters off, even after I tell her I love you anyway.

        1. Hey Bill, this one is certainly running around the block and back. I was trying to figure out a way to get an email address to you without the “Gil’s” of the world getting it also but haven’t come up with a way yet.

          1. Vanns40, create a temporary email account, after he replies to you, close the account and use your regular one.

            1. Ya just never know who’s gonna reply with a false name. I did think about that and may try the throw away route.

            2. @Vanns, I did not see this until just now. I may have a local business that would receive a snail mail letter on my behalf. You send me a email address in the hard copy letter. I email you. I don’t think any modern person would be interested in going to all that work, expense, and old technology to get a hold of one email address. What are your thoughts?

            3. @Vanns, attempted to send email. Message: address rejected or not fully qualified. I’ll try again tomorrow.

            4. Okay, got “Heed the call_up”, sorry, was looking for Bill.

              @Wild Bill, it does work. Check and make sure you didn’t have a typo.

    8. Ex mother in law came home and found 3 individuals in her home. She lived in “nice and quiet” part of town here in southern comifornia. Luckily for her when she opened the door and made eye contact with them they ran off through back door and did not assault or kill her. When police arrived 15min later one officer asked if she owned a firearm and she replied no. Said officer said she should really consider upgrading home security and purchasing a firearm. He also said if she chose to buy one and was home when being robbed that dead bodies tell no tales.

      1. Dead bodies DO tell tales . . . through the interpretation of a forensic pathologist.

        However, dead bodies do not get up on the witness stand and perjure themselves as live criminals habitually do.

        1. That’s what I said up above – there are times when it’s no longer sensible to let the other person live because of the legal ramifications.

    9. My older sister, in disdain, asked, “Why do YOU need more than one gun?” I replied, “Why do YOU need 60 some pairs of shoes?” Another time she asked, “Just how many guns do you own?” I replied, “Why? Would you like to borrow one?”

      1. That is in the line of questioning a stamp collector why they would need more than one stamp in the collection. It all comes down to the level of ignorance of the collection.

    10. Good article, and I agree with everything you say here … except the implication of your title. You’re equating pacifism with anti-gun stance.That’s just silly. I’ve been a lifelong pacifist who happens to love guns, have all kinds of guns, and is not fond of war. Does that last bit make me “anti-gun”? Even as a pacifist, I will fight (and have fought) when called upon to do so. That doesn’t mean I love fighting, or warfare in general. And here’s a newsflash for you: I know of many others like me, many of whom have served and/or continue to serve in the military who also consider themselves pacifists. Hopefully, that’s not too complicated for those seeking black-and-white answers to understand. If we’ve cleared that up, let’s get on with the business of defending the Second Amendment, to the death, if need be.

      1. Ahem. Pacifism refers to someone who renounces violence even in self-defense. Using violence in the course of self-defense doesn’t requires a special -ism.

        1. Gil, that isn’t necessarily true. One can be against war and violence, but still believe in the right of self-defense. I fit into that category. I will never act violently toward anyone, but I sure as h- will protect my family and myself from anyone attacking them or me.

          1. Nope. Look it up. Simply saying there times when violence is wrong and other times when violence is the correct course of action isn’t pacifism.

            1. Gil, you need to look at the definition of pacifism. One can be a pacifist, but still believe in protecting oneself and family. I don’t believe in outward aggression, meaning I will not be the one becoming violent, but that doesn’t mean I will allow my family or myself to be attacked. Self-defense is not aggression nor violence.

            2. That’s the use of reasonable force in self-defense not pacifism. Rather reasonable force tends to also have a legal definition too.

            3. Gil, correct, self-defense isn’t pacifism, however, one can employ self-dense and still be non-violent and against violence (pacifistic). One does not preclude the other.

            4. @Heed the Call-up, You obviously labored through philosophy 101 and understand the art of reason.

            5. Don Bailey, labored through it? No, but I did read a lot of it when I was a kid. My father had a lot of books on the Ancient Greek philosophers – very interesting reads, but I understand why some believe the material is to “dry”. I also loved Poe. However, I just dabble with sophistry, it’s more fun to use against the Gils of the world, their weak minds can’t grasp logic.

    11. (Aussie here) since gun control went nuts in 1996 after the port Arthur massacre (30 odd deaths) only 40 people die a year here in Australia due to illegal firearms.. Its funny though because 1994-5 both only had 38 deaths by gunfire.. however since 96, stabbing and aggravated assult takes 70-100 people in a month… They took our guns and now look at us, we’re a controlled state, you guys n gals hang on to your freedoms, especially your 2nd Amendment. Only our crook cops and crims have guns and we’re all suffering because of it…

        1. @ Wild Bill … Went spelunking back into the dark ages, about two stair passage ways below and behind the wine cellar deep into my archives. There I found an article from Guns& Ammo magazine dated March 1975 By one Bob Steindler titled “Reduced Loads Pros and Cons” . In it he specifically notes a load of IMR 4350 / 45 gr. / 150 gr bullet in a .270. He shows a photo of an arisaka action blown to pieces. To make a long story short, he states another writer named Mattern suggest filling the air space with Corn Meal, and later Kapoc. He specifically states to stay away from IMR 4350 & 4320 slow burning powders in loads having an air space in the cartridge . He says corn meal became the product of choice. He mentioned facial tissue but said nothing about how it would have been prepared. Unfortunately he did not tell what powder he used, he was working with the .270 & 30-06 though. Now the disclaimer This was a magazine article I would take it with a grain of salt ! I know from burn rate charts that H4350 is fairly close to IMR 4350.

            1. @WB I would that Hodgdon would have an idea to help you. I know they bought up some of the other companies.

          1. That kind of blowup is a known phenomenon with reduced charges in artillery . . . it results from the wave fronts colliding after dual ignition.

            If the case is reasonably full, the charge can only ignite at one end, but if it’s not full, then the primer flash ignites the powder near the primer and the powder at the front end and the two flame fronts slam together in the middle, with an absolutely insane pressure spike.

            Don’t use reduced charges of slow powder . . . always at least a 75% fill.

            1. @WL Thanks that was my gut feeling when Wild Bill first ask his question. I had remembered reading something on it years ago. I started reloading around 1972 so I had a habit of collecting articles on it . My areas of interests were fairly narrow only four or five calibers or problems. This just happened to be one.

            2. No, I’ve never been to Fort Sill, though that was a possible career path at one point.

              I actually ran across the reference to the phenomenon in a book I was reading on artillery development, then to its presence in handloads later.

              BTW, that’s closely related to the Munroe Effect, which is how shaped charges work, so it’s seriously bad juju in a rifle’s chamber, especially if the propellant detonates high-order instead of burning in an orderly fashion.

              it’s also closely related to a demolition technique used for cutting steel . . .

    12. if im out some where and an attack occures, i might just sit and wait till he comes after me and watch what he does to you 🙂

    13. I’ve had a lady tell me she has the right to not be afraid to go out in public so no one should be allowed to carry concealed. It was in the comment section of a local paper. I didn’t tell her that if she’s walked by me in the local grocery store she’s been very close to a concealed firearm. Didn’t want to scare her.

    14. “I couldn’t kill someone.”

      I have no problem with this statement. Just like we don’t think people should force us to be without guns, we shouldn’t force other people to own them that don’t want them.

    15. What does the need to fight off the inevitable zombie infestation have to do with our ability or any reasonable person’s possible desire to own automatic weapons?

      Not right to dismiss wanting such things with the slur and hyperbole.

      Somebody really needs to take US v Miller to task. It established that only weapons suitable for real military use are protected, and they mistakenly said short shotguns had no military history or utility. By that, we damn well should have anything an infantry unit might deploy with.

    16. A few weeks after moving into their new home, my sister-in-law pulled me aside when she noticed me ‘printing’. Her explanation was they didn’t want a gun in the house, I didn’t need one; because nothing was going to happen there, they lived in a safe area.
      I went out to my car, transferred my gun in my pocket, and walked back in; she was none the wiser. I then asked her if she would like me to get rid of their fire extinguishers…
      My brother had burned their last house to the ground… And they had three unused fire extinguishers…

    17. My favorite comment from a liberal about owning guns was that he was afraid to own them, because he knew that he would get angry and kill someone. He asked me how I didn’t kill people? I told him that I don’t draw a gun in anger.

      1. As far as I can tell that’s the real issue with a lot of antigun people: their own lack of control frightens them, and they believe that everybody is just like they are, so nobody can be trusted with a gun.

        A minority has simply been brainwashed.

          1. Gil, self-defense isn’t about anger. It’s astounding how you ignore reality. Nowhere has anyone, nor any of these stories, ever suggested acting in anger.

          2. If they haven’t done it in thirty years they aren’t going to.

            Not even the whacko screaming death threats at me for daring to drive down the street in front of her, nor the one screamign death threats at me for NOT blindly running a red light. ( saw him in action a number of times and was sure we were going to be seeing him in the headlines for his constant roadrage.)

            Project much?

          3. Gil, I have been carrying concealed for over 15 years now and I have been in situations that had me absolutely enraged a few times while being armed. The difference between you and I is that I have self control, and even though I may be angry enough to consider smacking someone in the mouth, I have enough self awareness to realize that escalating a situation while I am armed could result in life changing (or life ending) consequences. If you truly feel like someone could make you angry enough that you would pull out a gun and shoot them then you are right to never carry a gun. You should also consider therapy.

      2. Actually thats why I DON’T own a gun. I have a temper I have done many irrational things when in the process of losing said temper. (my lack of discernible knuckles on both hands is testament to how many times i have blown my top and punched something innanimate)

        1. Joe, you remind me of one of my nephews. Glad that you know your limits. He is unemployed, 31 years old, still lives with his parents, and has destroyed the interior of their home due to his violent temper. They stopped repairing the damage because it got too expensive. However, he does own a handgun, but would never use it in anger. He’s into martial arts, and doesn’t ever want to hurt anyone, but feels the training helps with his anger management. Unfortunately, he still looses his temper often enough. He probably needs therapy and possibly drugs to help him. He, like me, just enjoys target shooting, and as with me, finds shooting relaxing.

            1. Gil, conveniently? I guess you would prefer that he beats someone or destroys someone else’s property? It’s his home. He doesn’t work, so he doesn’t go anywhere.

              He lives in a suburb where one needs to have a vehicle to get anywhere. Where else would he be? So, I guess one could call that convenient, since he would have to walk several miles to go somewhere else. He isn’t a criminal. He is a decent person. When he gets angry, he doesn’t attack anyone, he vents his frustration on the walls and doors of his home. Not good, but he isn’t physically attacking or hurting anyone.

            2. Yes I would prefer he did so he would get his comeuppance. The fact he chooses safe targets for his violence proves he doesn’t have a problem at all rather he’s just selfish git.

            3. Gil, comeuppence? You are one sick individual. It’s better that he destroys someone else’s property? What about that property owner that suffers damage to his/her property? You do realize that he would be unable to pay for the damage, and insurance only covers replacement value less a deductible? Then there is the issue that certain items might not be able to be replaced. As far as destroying his parents’ home, they could have him prosecuted, since he is destroying their property. The other issue with that is that the damage is usually minor each time, so the criminal consequences would be minimal. Then there is the issue that since he doesn’t have a job or money, they would be paying for his defense or the taxpayers would be paying for his defense. Then there is the cost of arrest, prosecution, trial attorneys, etc. To what end? He is doing it because he is not able to control his emotions. Prosecution will not change that.

            4. You said he lives with his parents hence it’s his parents’ house not his. Even paying board to his parents doesn’t give him the right to trash the house. How long would he last if he did that to a rental? Shame on his parents for their soft touch and raising a Special Little Snowflake.

    18. Ooh this is such a good one.

      I was dating a girl for almost 4 years and midway through that I got my first gun (Glock 19). Then I got an AR, then it was a 1911. I eventually got my concealed carry license and started carrying my Glock. She knew I had a CCH but didnt know I carried. I knew she didnt like me carrying a gun but I did anyway for self defense. She really hated guns and wanted to basically disarm me, saying if we ever move in together she wants all the guns locked in a safe in the garage… Makes a gun for self defense very pointless. I told her that wasnt possible because it defeated the purpose of having a gun.
      One thing she told me is that she “A gun is though is a deadly weapon. all it does is kill.”

      “You think you will become invincible and protect everyone if you whip out your gun in some situation. ”

      “You are forcing me to accept the fact that someone i know has a deadly weapon and will use it whenever they want and i dont accept that. ”

      I really wish I was making this up but its all true and there is ALOT more where that came from. She hated guns so much we would avoid the conversation completely. I carry a firearm for personal protection of myself and my loved ones. She never really understood that part. Most of the time when I carried around her I was careful not to give away that I had a gun. Eventually she did catch me carrying around her and she got upset. But at that point we were done. Much happier now without her! YAY!

      1. Hi ov! You misunderstood my post. I was merely adding to the list of ridiculous comments made by antis.
        Personally, I subscribe to the saying: “Kill ’em ALL (those attempting to kill or do great bodily harm to me, my family or other innocents) and let GOD sort ’em out”!!!

        1. @BJI I stand corrected. We are having heavy weather here tonight. this page just now up dated. I see you posted at 5:26

    19. @BJI your comment has not come up yet. Who is the attacker attacking? You ? If he kills you do you get your fair trial, what were you being tried for? If someone else are you prepared to let someone else be injured or killed just so the attacker can get a fair trial?

    20. I learned a long time ago, don’t get into a conversation with a liberal professor who asks you, “Why do you need a machine gun that holds a hundred bullets?” The answer was that he didn’t want a logical answer, but he did want to let the world know that every kind of gun was evil.

      1. I asked one like that “Why do you need a car that goes 160 mph?”

        “That’s completely different!”

        “Sure . . . kills far more people every year.”

        He didn’t talk to me after that, which was just fine.

          1. Gil, that isn’t true. It’s just as legal to use as any other firearm. If one is hunting, there are already prohibitions on types of weapons and ammunition that is allowed to be used. If one is defending one’s life, any firearm is legal. Many ranges allow automatic weapons and rent them.

            Due to the cost of automatic weapons, since the 1986 ban on the sale of new automatic weapons to the public, and the extensive FBI background check needed, automatic weapons are not readily available, and would generally not be wise to use in self-defense because police typically confiscate weapons used in self-defense. It can be literally years before one gets his/her weapon returned. And police do not store those weapons in proper environments, nor take care of them. Then there is the issue of the prosecutor claiming that use of the automatic weapon meant that you intended to do more than just stop the threat, which is all we are legally allowed to do.

            Most of my forearms are solely for target shooting, not for personal defense. I shoot because it’s fun. I don’t hunt and don’t have the desire to. If I ever got an automatic weapon, it would probably just be a display piece, and that would be a huge waste of money, which is why I don’t have one. Ammunition gets expensive real fast with automatic weapons. If the ban is ever overturned and automatic weapons become more reasonable in cost, I might reconsider my decision.

    21. How about:
      If you kill an attacker you are depriving that person of a fair trial before a jury of their peers!!!

      1. @BJI, The law of self defense does not require one to consider his attacker’s right to a fair trial. That does not enter into the analysis. Perhaps the attacker should stop and consider his own right to a fair trial.

          1. NOT silly you, Wild Bill!!!
            I wasn’t PERFECTLY clear. I should have written something like: Add THIS to the list of idiotic antis reasons for not owning a gun.
            By-the-way, guys, I ALSO am a 78-1/2 year “old vet” altho I really am not NEARLY as much of one as many of you folks. I DID volunteer for the US Army immediately after graduating college just before our heavy involvement in Viet Nam. I DID serve for 2 years, 11 months and 18 days from 1962-1965. As a member of Headquarters company 1st Armored division I was present when the division moved to Fort Stewart Georgia during the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, closest I ever got to getting shot at in combat was when, in basic training, we got to crawl under barbed wire with live machine gun fire 3 feet above us.
            MANY THANKS for your service ALL OF YOU who serve and currently serve in ACTUAL war zones or as active law enforcement!!! You have my UNBOUNDED respect, admirationt and gratitude!!!

        1. I think what he meant to say is when a confrontation turns bad make sure the jury only hear one version of the story.

          1. @Gil, The jury only hearing one side will never happen in our legal system. The prosecutor will always tell the state”s side and your attorney will always tell your side. I am sure that you knew that when you made your statement.

            1. Au contraire. There was only one witness to testify in the Trayvon vs Zimmerman case. Could you suppose what would be like if Trayvon lived to tell his side of the story and put on an innocent victim act? Hence in a similar situation you’re better off making sure there’s only account of what happened to the jury.

            2. Gil, and the decedent’s girl friend testified he was going to attack the person following him.

            3. But there was only one direct witness to actual event in question. As having been on a jury having a one-sided account beats a two-sided account. Hence in some extreme cases there’s no incentive to let the crook survive.

            4. Gil, however, as Zimmerman was getting his head bashed into the found, I am quite sure he was thinking let me make sure the one shot I shoot kills him so there are no witnesses to my getting my head cracked open. Even though the assailant would *not* be a witness to his crime. It’s unlikely Zimmerman beat his head into the ground after shooting his assailant, so as to have justification for shooting his assailant.

              You are allowed your opinion, but you can’t use your opinion as fact. The facts made it clear that the decedent attacked Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot him one time while on his back getting his head beaten into the ground. I believe his girlfriend’s statement that the decedent was going to beat Zimmerman is quite relevant and telling of whom the assailant was in that attack, regardless of whether or not Zimmerman was the only survivor from that attack. Your posts are at best blaming the victim for surviving the assault.

            5. You’d be surprised as the story Martin would have come up to say how he was acting in self-defense against someone trying to murder him. There’d be a pretty good chance it would made the jury uncertain which way to rule.

            6. Gil, again, your opinion is not fact, and that is extremely unlikely as his girlfriend stated he was going to give Zimmerman a beating – that’s not self-defense, and once that is entered as evidence, it precludes any self-defense aspect. That is in addition to the decedent being on top of Zimmerman, bashing his head into the ground, which, again, is not self-defense. The trial is over and Zimmerman was acquitted – that is the fact and the reality.

            7. And as said Zimmerman had it a lot easier in the courts ending Martin’s life than seriously wounding him and letting him live.

            8. Gil, no, Zimmerman was in court being tried for murder *because* Martin died.

          2. Gil, we are not responsible for a criminal’s poor choice of victim. You would be a safe choice for a criminal, except there literally would be no monetary reason to select you as a victim, and criminals can tell that.

    22. I know a man who emphaticly says he would not use deadly force to stop a man from rapeing and killing his wife and children

      1. Merciful HEAVEN dose that peace of hot air really think that would make them proud of him???! To some people FORCE is the only language they understand. You really need to speak it fluently, all the way from hand to hand stuff (check out Target Focus Training) out to the point where any other tool is appropriate!! I didn’t worry too much about, it until got a bit crippled up. We’ve always rural, so I guess I was naïve, and lucky, but luck isn’t something I like COUNTING on especially with my little ones!

    23. Todd, not to just be “that guy,” but I have you beat.
      When my mother found out I owned a gun, her comment was, “They you’re a murderer.”

    24. I don’t care who doesn’t like guns, as long as they are willing to LET ME HAVE THEM!
      It’s the idea they should tell me how to live based on their likes and dislikes that is the problem.

      1. Mike murray, I’ve got a few friends who are vegan or vegetarian… strange, but we have some strong common interests. I DO NOT LIKE tofu, But I have no problem with THEM eating the stuff.. just don’t sneak it into MY supper and tell me its chicken. None of those folk have ever tried to dissuade me from my avid love of meat, any kind fixed any way just about any time. Nor do I argue with them that they likely are not getting enough of ALL the amino acids they need…..

        1. I’m not a vegetarian either, but I do like vegetarian burgers (as opposed to veggie burgers). After all, cows are vegetarians aren’t they?

    25. I just wanted to say, Great Article. I’ve bitten my tongue to at least 3/4 of those at least once. I used to defend the reasons everyone that can Should own and know how to use guns. All the while never admitting to gun ownership. I’ve found in my 50 something years that sometimes you just can’t fix stupid. I never thought my sister would buy a handgun but she did and now we’re working on teaching her. Good for her. My Daughter has already had to use the gun safety and common sense she was raised with to defend a sleeping husband and their little children. She didn’t have to fire the weapon but I know my kid and she would have to defend her family. It’s a shame everyone should have guns but I’m very thankful that all my loved ones do.

    26. I’ve said it before I’ll probably say it again. My kids were taught “Every gun in my house is always loaded, (even if it wasn’t) so you don’t have to check! You don’t get it out to ” play with “. now there has to be a reward just like training an animal. So if you ask we will take them out to shoot together . You don’t tell other kids about what we have, your friends may be trustworthy but all it takes is someone to hear or tell someone about a neat old gun resulting in a burglary . Never had a problem .

      1. And about FB just too much personal info on it, just for fun see what kind of info you can compile about a friend. there was a article on the local news that said after 150 likes FB knew as much about you as your parents, and they do collect it !

      2. oldvet, love your comment about ‘reward just like training an animal’. Most everyone I know here in VT are gun owners, hunters, and a shotgun behind every kitchen door. But we have to re fight the battle every year with the snowflakes trying to ‘improve the gun laws’. They have one little problem with that, our state constitution has the 2A as one of articles of our state constitution. They aren’t living in a vacuum, they just have their own agenda.
        Thanx, I’ll remember that catchy phrase, I love it.

        1. If you like catchy phrases, here’s one for you: “What’s dumber than bringing a knife to a gun fight? — Bringing a sign* to a gun fight.” (*gun-free zone) or, to an anti-gunner: “Gun controls don’t protect anybody except criminals and tyrants, which one are you for?”

        2. @VT Patriot be my guest it was not ment to be catchy just statement of fact, just something to enforce that there are correct ways to do things.

    27. I have an ultra leftist cousin that claims gun owner status due to having a shotgun in the closet. He frequently spouts the “armed self defense is a fantasy” claim as well as the tired old “common sense, reasonable gun control” crap. He’s also used the “guns are just for killing” and “You’re more likely to be shot with your own gun” line of reasoning. He also thinks you can talk your way out of needing to use a firearm because he talked his way out of a situation once that obviously wasn’t life threatening. For good measure, he’ll throw in a few links to stories about kids shooting themselves with an unattended firearm that they got hold of as proof that people don’t need firearms.

      Luckily, I don’t know any other folks with the same misguided views.

      1. Probably at least one or two out of nine people you know might have those views, and you just aren’t aware of it. Hopefully the other seven match up like the seven in the given example. After all, how many liberal politicians and media persons are out there? Your ultra leftist cousin sounds as hypocritical as most liberals. So does he expect to meet his own demist from his closet shotgun, or is he going to be “an exception?” Ask him if he’s proposing to disarm cops, since suicide stats show law enforcement as one of the most stressful and suicide likely professions, so are one category that most falls into his theory of being more likely to be shot with their own gun. That’s not counting when a criminal disarms a cop and uses it against him. If he claim ignorance ofthose stats, tell him he’s ignorant of alot of other stts as well, especially concerning felonies stopped by armed citizens. Arm yourself with a few facts, it doesn’t sound like it would take many to have your couson outgunned. It wouldn’t take much logic to overtake him either.

        1. We live in NJ and are members of an Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Bishop of NJ sent all the Churches his anti gun screed stating every lying antigun factoid from Brady, Bloomberg and other morons. Unfortunately NJ is one of those deep blue antigun States. We can’t carry anything, not a baton, pepper spray, stun gun, taser, slingshot, BB gun or a crossbow. NJ also has two ghetto cities in the FBI top ten gun murder cities. Camden 5th and Newark 6th in a tiny State with 8 million population. Every one of the top ten cities are in deep blue States without legal carry, why is that? Rhetorical question.

            1. Wild Bill we hear Texas calling. Believe it or not I was born in NJ in 1949 and there is much history, beauty and diverse areas to be found here that has keep my wife and I here. Seashore, forests, mountains and pinelands with bird watching, fishing and hunting abound. As re-enactors we are involved with Rev War and Civil War here. Much of the Rev War battles took place in NJ. We are torn between leaving and staying. A friend of mine was originally from Texas and moved to Pennsylvania many years ago. He finally is returning to Texas with his family.

      2. On Mother’s Day I sent a text message with photo of the family (wife, daughters, grandkids) to the rest of the family unfortunate enough to not live in Texas. The photo was of all of them lined up shooting .22 rifles.
        The “Kalifornia” cousin sent back the comment “Oh, practicing killing people”.
        She has since been deleted from the group list. I will send her a card for special occasions with pictures of the range we have built on the ranch and us using it.

        1. Send her a picture of a bulldozer with the caption “in Texas we know how to bury the bodies where no one will find them!”.

    28. I too have had many friends and relatives say things like why do you need a gun we live in a safe town. A couple of years ago I posted a picture of a new gun that had just been released that I wanted on FB and a family member posted something to the affect of “Why do you want that? All that will do is that you’ll end up in jail or something will happen to your two beautiful daughters with one of those around”. Needless to say I schooled her on why I owned firearms, that I would NOT end up in jail for owning one unless I did something illegal which I didn’t intend on, and that nothing has nor will it happen to my kids as they have been properly taught firearms safety. I also wen ton to say I preferred not to just sit back and hope the cops arrived in time to keep us from being killed and my daughters and wife from being rapped should someone break in, that’s if I even had time to call, I also told her I refused to be a victim outside of my home or while traveling. Her response was something like “Oh okay I see”.

      I amazed me that a family member thought I would either end up in jail just because I owned a firearm or that my kids would be harmed by it. I guess all the liberal news media has worked on the uninformed masses.

      1. @Todd, Why do you have anything on FB at all? FB is anti Second Amendment Civil Rights. FB is really poor Opsec. Everything you put on FB can be used against you in court or by a regulatory agency.

        1. Wild Bill
          Right on re: FB! Too much info, accessable by too many people, usually about too little!
          And I might add for people to into themselves or are to insecure.

    29. They really are scary. Fire and metal things fly out of the front of the thingie, then the area is contaminated by unhealthy smoke and the noise–oh the noise–it is terrible and it scares away song birds. Guns are scary things! We have a sign outside our house saying there is a mean lady in here with a broom–so far no one has attacked us. I think every house should have a mean lady and a broom–crime would drop.

      1. I’m with you. Guns are scary and they might just go off. Also why does anyone need more than ten rounds? If they would just learn to hit what their shooting at while they are being ambushed by two thugs and they are moving around and zigzag zag going! GEE, when I’m at the range I hit the bullseye everything with just one round on that peace of paper that I know is just hanging there! People who own and carry guns are just wishing for something to happen and most of them are backwoods hillbillies who walk around wearing gun shirts and camouflage jackets and most of them wear hats that say Glock. Why would anyone need a gun or a tactical pen or knife. Just call the police. LOL!

        1. Just a dadgum minute thar pardner, I DO NOT have a hat that says Glock. Might have a shirt or two stashed away though, but that’s a different story.

          1. I don’t know what happened to my Glock shirts. I used to shoot the Glock meets and got a shirt for my entrance fees each time. I should have three or four somewhere around here.

            I was never good enough to win one of the guns, but I came close.

        2. @Jack The only shirt I have other than Harley Davidson (what ever town) says “I love my country its the government I can’t trust”. You have any extras you could send me? My hat has N W T F, no that’s National Wild Turkey Foundation. Really officer I didn’t know!

      2. Hah hah.. when I was a kid the other kids on the block all thought MY mom was the nasty old lady with the broom, which she used for daily tramsportation. making US sweep the floor!!!
        They did not know my Mom. (she never did like guns, though, fought hard to prevent Dad giving me my first twennyritoofle on my twelfth birthday (he got his first on his sixth….) Four years later I did get it…… my next younger sister inherited Mom’s disgust at guns and their ownership, and HER son is one of the most pro gun guys I know anywhere, and he is an excellent shot. They have some interesting “discussions”.. she finally relented and thought maybe HE was one of the very few who, I supoose, COULD be OK with a gun. She has no idea I carry everywhere, including in her house if she’d ever invite me over……

    30. I suppose I should count myself lucky, that I have not ran into an anti-gun person at all, living in small town central Illinois, (yes, Illinois), the area seems to be very pro-gun.

      1. Once you get out of cook and lake counties most of Illinois is quite normal, even at that I had a HUGE customer base from those areas (gunsmith) the real problem lies with the carreer politicians and crooked cops.

    31. Police are very good at preventing crime by their presence – you’re unlikely to be the victim of a crime if there’s a uniformed cop standing next to you or parked in front of your house. (Unless they’ve been ordered to stand down because of political reasons – which is a whole different discussion.)

      But by the same token, if a criminal DOES target you, your home, or your business, it means he’s already checked to make sure there are no police nearby.

      If you’re unarmed . . . THEN what do you do? With today’s violent criminals, meek compliance no longer guarantees your safety. (If it ever did.)

      1. There is a Milwaukee Police station on the far west side of town. The neighborhood has gone down hill to the extent that the apartments right down the block, and in fact right next door are a regular crime scene of robbery murder and drug related assaults.

    32. When I’m on a table at a gun show I tell people “need” is the “N-word.” I’ve also always liked the cartoon of the sign in front of the house that reads to the effect that you’re armed, you next door neighbor doesn’t own a gun, and you promise not to intervene if the burglar/robber goes there instead. As to the police, I’ve always liked the sayong “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

    33. I had someone at work brag “I don’t know anyone who owns a gun!”

      He was very offended when the four of the eight other people present laughed at him . . . I knew three of them were owners and when I inquired, the fourth was too . . . as was one who didn’t laugh.

      Six out of a total of nine . . . that’s a little higher than usual.

      1. If there was just one more gun owner, we could have Seven Of Nine, then we could really be safe. 😀

        1. Maybe so, but we will never know… *but* what we do know is that with over 80k gun owners in Atlanta recently, there was *no* violent crime.

        1. And I own a compact 9mm Baby Desert Eagle polymer which was distributed my Magnum Research in the late 90s. It was made by IMI and it is one of my favorite guns. If NJ ever lets us carry it will be on my hip.

      2. two thirds… hey, thats enough to pass a bill veto proof in the Senate!!! How bout one says anyone lawfully able to possess a gun can carry it anywhere, any time, any way they choose. Maybe even ammend that Second Article of Ammendment to say something like that, just to clarify the meaning intended by our Framers……

        SO.. what was the reaction of this guy who claimed he’d never known a gun owner but learned he’d been working with six of them for a long time and never knew it? Any interest in learning more about them on this guy’s part?

        1. I do not believe he understood what was funny – I certainly didn’t tell him! (I disliked the pompous donkey.. He got fired after getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar a year or two later.)

          There have been others who were stunned at that discovery . . . including one who discovered that he was the only person in the room who wasn’t a gun owner. . . I was rather startled that it was THAT lopsided and by some of the people who were owners!

          And see I wasn’t adding too well up there: it was only five out of a total of nine, though that’s still a majority.

        1. NO…That’s NOT who we ARE!!!!
          But to see how HIGH he could JUMP that’s a whole ‘nother ball game!

      3. I was at an event at a liberal friend’s house. She was on and on about the open carry in Texas debate. We’re in Colorado.
        She says “But now you can carry a gun ANYWHERE!” and looks at me. I’m carrying, but she doesn’t know. I look at our other friend, the cop, and raise my eyebrows. He knows I’m carrying (it’s his job to look for black belt clips) and I know he’s carrying. SHE should know he’s carrying, It’s his job…
        We shrug, tell her “I guess you’re right,: and change the subject. Some people are too clueless to bother with.

        1. I guess she doesn’t realize that Colorado has been an “Open Carry” state since 1876, eh? Truely clueless.

          1. Sabel – You could both be right. Colorado is open carry EXCEPT in Denver and any other location that want’s to ban it! Amazing how liberals can take a law and change the entire outlook of a state!

    Leave a Comment 176 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *