You’re right. He was looking for an excuse to show how “manly” he is and how he “stands up for his rights.”
That’s how it is with his type. It’s always “my rights.” It’s never anybody else’s rights. With them it’s always “mine, mine, mine.” They’re like 3 year olds who got stuck on that word and never grew out of it.
But without a gun how will you protect yourself from the scourge of mask oppression? 
/S
In other words ‘the way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun’
Which is basically the NRA creed.
I’m not saying your theory is incorrect, these days, but it is very uncomfortable.
Many concealed-carry types likely have a fantasy of intervening during a mass shooting in a public place. What they fail to admit is that most mass shooters fall into their demographic: white, middle-aged paunchy guy who collects guns.
Yep. So it’s no surprise that Trump is their leader.
I was raised in a pro-gun household and used to have a concealed-carry permit. A lot of what went into the decision to get said permit was the idea of being able to “defend myself” from “bad guys”. It really is a form of brainwashing.
Fast forward a few years, I experienced an attempted break-in. It was 2 AM: I bolted awake grabbed my pistol, and camped out by the door. After it ended - they didn’t get in, just rattled my inner door like crazy - I had so many conflicting feelings about whether or not I had the capacity to kill someone. I’d never been in a position to actually use my gun for self defense until that moment; I got rid of it later that week.
Yeah, there isn’t a huge difference between fantasizing about killing a bad guy who is committing a mass shooting in public and fantasizing about killing a whole bunch of people that the fantasist considers to be “bad guys” in public.
I am just looking for the right medal to pin on his chest. This one says “for not being as much of a deranged lunatic as he possibly could have been”. Is that close enough?
Not exactly what I was thinking more like ‘deterrence via mutual self assured destruction’. But that only works when neither side is willing to avoid, or fails to understand, the self destruction part of that argument.
Being into guns is one thing, a hunter, collector, sport/competition shooter or for self defense makes sense to me. I own firearms and I fall into one or two of those categories. But a person who is not LEO and carries (especially open carries) a riffle or handgun for simple things like shopping is definitely special case.
Compared to the pistol-packin’ Karen in St. Louis, the trigger discipline was admirable. But I’m pretty sure “tucked into the waistband of your shorts” is a gun safety no-no.
I can see the point you are trying to make but I cannot agree, as I see no difference between ‘deterrence via mutually assured destruction’ and ‘the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun’. The only difference is scale and whether one opens fire or not; the principles are identical.
LMAO, I hit that part… arms instantly flew up, of course Florida.
This person gets into a verbal alteration with someone and his first choice to handle it is to pull out a gun and threaten to kill the guy. That act alone could have gotten him killed.
Felony = He’ll not be buying and carrying legally again.
Low Genital Esteem. The gun helps compensate. Or they think it does anyway.
It should be noted that LGE syndrome does not actually indicate anything about the sufferer’s actual genitals, but rather simply that they believe they’re too small. Or misshapen. Or otherwise undesirable.
It is. Conceal carry permits are too easy to obtain in too many US states.
But play that out to the logical conclusion. I’ve been on the receiving end of casual gun threats three times. If I had been armed, too, what could have happened?
I’m not sure what other outcomes were possible in the situations I was in. That’s why I think the whole “good guy with a gun” scenario is such harmful hogwash. Both parties having guns makes violence much more likely and gives the advantage to the party with the poorest impulse control, not the party that’s “right.”
Why are you excepting LEOs here? They’re not special founts of stability and good judgement.
LEOs in Canada can’t carry their weapons off duty. They are always sworn police officers though.
