Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I just needed to point this out...no matter if there were strict gun laws, or loose ones, those situations will still exist. The evil people of the world will still ignore them and find way to own those guns.

Yes. Absolutely true.

For that very same reason, however, gun ownership does not guarrantee safety nor does it neccessarily enhance one's personal safety.

Given that the existence or non-existence of strict gun laws (or enforcement of the same) has no effect on whether or not evil people will use guns, the ownership of guns will not deter those same evil people intent on inflicting harm. I suggest to you, that those intent on doing harm with guns or those who could care less if they cause harm with guns will do so whether or not those around them are armed.

While owning a gun for home defense may protect you from injury in certain limited circumstances (A break in occurs, it does so in such a manner as to allow you sufficient warning to retrieve your weapon, avoid discovery and safely confront the burglar (i.e. make sure you don't harm those whom you would protect)). At the same time, I would argue that the inherent danger posed to residents and visitors by a readily available weapon with readily available ammunition is not insignificant.

As others have pointed out, however, it seems unlikely to me that someone intent on doing you harm by waylaying you will be deterred by thought you might be carrying a gun. It seems to me that, if someone is intentionally carrying a gun with intent to cause harm despite the possibility of governmental reprecussion, those people are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of you being armed. Rather, they will be more careful in their actions and, essentially, kill you before you have a chance to retaliate.

Further, for those who carry guns with a complete lack of concern as to whether or not they do good or evil with the weapons, the fact that you are armed will, again, be of no concern to them. In these cases you may see the danger approaching and prevent it prior to being shot by using a weapon (in this scenario, it doesn't even matter whether or not the weapon is concealed because the individual creating the danger is unconcerned as to anyone's safety including his). Given the unpredictability of these types, the greater danger is to those unaware that this person is present. You will simply be an innocent bystander dead without even knowing what hit you.

As I said, I got no problem with guns. They are simply tools -inherently dangerous, powerful, efficient with limited purpose - but tools nonetheless.

I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause - are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.

I believe that, generally, carrying a gun (and I have just so we're clear), rather than heighten one's personal security, actually dulls it by creating a false sense of security and, thus, lessening the truly important factors of personal safety - self and situation awareness.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. Absolutely true.

For that very same reason, however, gun ownership does not guarrantee safety nor does it neccessarily enhance one's personal safety.

Given that the existence or non-existence of strict gun laws (or enforcement of the same) has no effect on whether or not evil people will use guns, the ownership of guns will not deter those same evil people intent on inflicting harm. I suggest to you, that those intent on doing harm with guns or those who could care less if they cause harm with guns will do so whether or not those around them are armed.

While owning a gun for home defense may protect you from injury in certain limited circumstances (A break in occurs, it does so in such a manner as to allow you sufficient warning to retrieve your weapon, avoid discovery and safely confront the burglar (i.e. make sure you don't harm those whom you would protect)). At the same time, I would argue that the inherent danger posed to residents and visitors by a readily available weapon with readily available ammunition is not insignificant.

As others have pointed out, however, it seems unlikely to me that someone intent on doing you harm by waylaying you will be deterred by thought you might be carrying a gun. It seems to me that, if someone is intentionally carrying a gun with intent to cause harm despite the possibility of governmental reprecussion, those people are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of you being armed. Rather, they will be more careful in their actions and, essentially, kill you before you have a chance to retaliate.

Further, for those who carry guns with a complete lack of concern as to whether or not they do good or evil with the weapons, the fact that you are armed will, again, be of no concern to them. In these cases you may see the danger approaching and prevent it prior to being shot by using a weapon (in this scenario, it doesn't even matter whether or not the weapon is concealed because the individual creating the danger is unconcerned as to anyone's safety including his). Given the unpredictability of these types, the greater danger is to those unaware that this person is present. You will simply be an innocent bystander dead without even knowing what hit you.

As I said, I got no problem with guns. They are simply tools -inherently dangerous, powerful, efficient with limited purpose - but tools nonetheless.

I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause - are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.

I believe that, generally, carrying a gun (and I have just so we're clear), rather than heighten one's personal security, actually dulls it by creating a false sense of security and, thus, lessening the truly important factors of personal safety - self and situation awareness.

If I knew how to speak/write intelligently this is what I would say. Nicely done, Joe!

[love them hogs]

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin

I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with most of what you posted this statement is just plain wrong.Predators always pray on the weakest and pay very close attention to whom they prey upon.If you need proof just observe every living creature on the planet.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by love them hogs

While I agree with most of what you posted this statement is just plain wrong.Predators always pray on the weakest and pay very close attention to whom they prey upon.If you need proof just observe every living creature on the planet.

Human predators may or may not be animalistic in their pursuit. But I would agree with you that predators pay very close attention to there prey. It is for this reason that gun ownership likely does not prevent an attack.

For example, if the human predator is simply looking to waylay a weakling for a quick score, certainly they would chose someone who "appears" weak. In such a situation, only an unconcealed weapon will prevent an attack. Otherwise, the predator will likely pick based on the appearance and may be unlucky to draw someone who has a gun.

Even in the "prey upon those who appear weak" situation, however, a concealed weapon does not guarrantee safety. As long as we are doing the animal analogy here - How many predators announce their presence to the prey prior to the strike? Not many successful ones. (The cheetah stands up and shouts across to plain to the gazelle "Hey buddy - I'm on my way and your dead meat"). The "prey on the weak" type of human predators will use stealth and will likely have some type of weapon for intimidation purposes. Again, by the time the predator is upon you, you may or may not have time to draw your weapon and disable them. I would suggest that, generally, this is not a given and, depending on the situation, may result in the serious injury of those you are trying to protect. Okay, you killed the bad guy but he managed to kill/maim your wife/child during the exchange. A risk you're willing to take? Maybe. It all depends on how "good" a "predator" he is.

Quite frankly, the only way to ensure protection from this kind of "find a weakling" predator is to permit people to openly carry weapons. Not sure how I feel about that.

Also, I would suggest to you that not all human predator's seek the weak. Many are very human with very human desires and capabilities for thought. Thus, many human predators, the truly dangerous ones, seek a specific thing (money, to rape your wife or daughter, to exact revenge, to inflict pain upon you, etc.). These predators are more along the lines of hunters and they know that they need not attack the weak to succeed, attacking the strong at a weak moment will work just as well. You have a gun? Or you may have a gun? I don't care if you have a gun b/c I will attack you (again with surprise) at a point in time when you will be unable to use it. Hell, I will assume you are armed and plan my attack accordingly. (Your putting your wife's coat on her, I can see both your hands and will kill your wife if you move them out of my sight). In such a case, the fact that you may be armed has already been factored into my attack and is of no deterrent value.

In each of these scenarios, the only time a gun offers protection is when the predator is looking for a weakling, surprises someone who, instead, has a gun, AND the predator was dumb enough to let the prey access and use the gun. In this situation, if you do kill the predator, you are actually reducing the long term effectivenes of your gun by culling out the dumb predators and leaving more of the smart ones out there.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. Absolutely true.

For that very same reason, however, gun ownership does not guarrantee safety nor does it neccessarily enhance one's personal safety.

I am not saying it guarentees safety, just that it should not be taken out of my hands. If I think it makes me safer, then it does. I have an alarm system and it makes me feel safe, and I have a .45 automatic next to my bed...those two make me feel incredibly safe. To this point I haven't had to use either of them, and I hope it stays that way, but the point still remains those laws were put in place to allow me that safety...it shouldn't be taken away.

As others have pointed out, however, it seems unlikely to me that someone intent on doing you harm by waylaying you will be deterred by thought you might be carrying a gun. It seems to me that, if someone is intentionally carrying a gun with intent to cause harm despite the possibility of governmental reprecussion, those people are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of you being armed. Rather, they will be more careful in their actions and, essentially, kill you before you have a chance to retaliate.
I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause - are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.

Well, I do think it would deter the simple criminals...the "rookies" if you will. The harden criminals it won't deter, you are right. But when it comes to the guy that has no intention of using the gun other than to use it as a "fear" device, it will be a great deterant. But that's my opinion. Again I say, don't take the thought of safety or actual ability for me to be safe out of my hands by taking a gun out of my hand.