Jump to content

CCW Gun Safety Debate?


Recommended Posts

Seems to me the challenger doesn't understand that statistics aren't disproved by a number of contradictory outcomes.


Are you safer wearing a seatbelt? Yes.


Are there instances of people dying because they were caught up in a seatbelt during a crash and burned/drown? Yes.


Does that mean that you are safer not wearing a seatbelt? Nope.




You are safer with CCW. Are there instances of CCWers getting bested by criminals? Yes, but that doesn't invalidate the vast wealth of statistics in our favor.


Does this guy even math?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They talk about designing an experiment. What a joke. I'm sure they'll design something like that simulated school shooting video where the "bad guy" has all the advantages and the "good guy" is set up to fail. Then they'll say, "See this proves that you can't defend yourself."


They want an experiment, I say give them one. Set up a scenario like the school shooting video, but without all the obvious slant to the bad guy winning. Put a couple TRAINED good guys in the crowd and don't let the shooter know who/where they are. Then we'll see who wins....oh, and run a control experiment. Same scenario with NO GOOD GUYS and see how many folks get shot.


In order to have honest results, no person can be in any scenario twice.


Never saw them try it like that, did we? I'd happily volunteer to be a crash test dummy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're already winning.... Getting tangled up with idiots isn't a good move...


On the other hand, for $50,000 I'd consider debating the guy. My second response would be to issue loudly Ron White's famous debate point, collect my money, and go donate it to Appleseed.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll offer a comment when I get home, but underneath that victim mantle is a naive person who truly believes that if we removed guns from society we'd see fewer deaths, and I have to acknowledge that he might be correct, as long as you carefully define and delineate what segment of the population we're discussing.


What the total disarmament people fall to include (whether intentionally or out of ignorance) are the new category of victims who, lacking their own lawfully owned firearm, were unable to prevent their own injury or death.


That mindset also completely dismisses the absence of affirmative duty on the party of the government, and imparts a degree of cultured sensibility to criminals that assumes that, instead of reverting to less efficient means of committing their crimes like knives or clubs, they will have a mass epiphany about the nature of their own existence and suddenly abandon their lawless ways.


As someone who's been responding to 9-1-1 calls for over 20 years and has seen a lot more of man's inhumanity to man than most people should, all I can say is they need to come out of the ivory tower and the rarified air of academia and smell the 'hood before I believe a word of what they're selling.


Edit to fix mobile spelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's to debate man? The article reads like it was written by a 4 year old. He calls Pearson a coward and a bully, all while ranting through an insult laced article which does nothing more than repeat ridiculous rhetoric. I particularly love the piece about the Diane Sawyer garbage "which proved guns don't save lives".


lol...you can't make up this kind of stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If carrying a gun actually kept someone safe, no police officers would ever be killed."


More officers are killed in ambush than in a shootout. Nonetheless, the actual statistics are about 10 to 1 against the bad guys. It is the nature of police work to look for trouble, whereas a responsible armed citizen does everything possible to avoid it. However in a debate of this sort, a single bad example outweighs a hundred good ones. With nearly 16 million citizens legally carrying firearms, the memorable failures are vanishingly few, notably George Zimmerman (justified), Michael Dunn (loud music, not justified) and Curtis Reeves (theater texting, retired cop). Oh the horror!


Of course, good examples are hard to come by. Most justifiable shootings occur in home break-ins, almost none on the street. Perhaps one reason is that criminals prey on the weak and unsuspecting, and armed citizens tend to walk with confidence and be aware of their surroundings. Secondly, criminals are wary, and flee at the first sign of armed resistance. It's a good idea to call the police if you have to show a weapon, but few people do. Do you call them if you merely brush your coattail aside and the potential bad guy beats an hasty retreat?


Florida instituted concealed carry in the mid 80s, when car jackings were at a peak, especially near airports. Carjacking became a federal crime in 1993. In Florida, 1990, It helped that rental cars are no longer clearly marked as such. As a result, carjackings were cut in half by 2002. Florida also granted the same "castle" status to automobiles as homes in 2005, and the incidence of carjacking outside of metropolitan areas has almost vanished.





Violent crime rates have dropped about 20% in the last ten years in the US, but 32% in Florida during the same time period. The rate decreased nearly twice as fast (23%) between 2005 and 2010 as between 2000 and 2005 (12%). Coincidence?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't win with idiots like this. Look at the language in that post. totally irrational.


it's like teaching a pig to sing,


1. Doesn't work

2. Stresses you

3. Annoys the pig ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I left this comment:


Sounds to me like you are mad that he won't come and argue with you. What would be the point of this. you are obviously steeped in your feelings about the issue as is the Firearms community. If either side lays out a fact, it will be dismissed as skewed by the other. For Mr. Pearson to accept your invitation would be nothing more than agreeing to an argument. no matter what the outcome, the "losing" side would NEVER admit defeat. I suspect that Mr. Pearson knows this and understands that arguing does no one any good. Therefore he has dismissed it like an adult. Then you turn around and stomp your feet like a.....anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who ever believes not having a gun makes you safer they should be mandated to live 1 month on the south side of Chicago (like Englewood) and they cannot just huddle in a corner in the house but go out and work and play in the neighborhood. It drives me nuts when people don't understand everyones circumstances are not the same and that is why we have the freedom to choose. What may work for you may not work for the next guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did too and after the picture post yesterday and repeated reminders about our family friendly content, I'm sure that's as far as he will take that comment.


Right BD?


Just meant I've mastered the art of debating. Not sure what you're getting at. :D


Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk


you are cracking me up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“IT’S THE GUNS, STUPID” NGVAC’s bimonthly hour-long radio show originating from Washington D.C. on WPWC 1480 AM.

The NRA has a radio show too. Only it's nearly three hours long and it's daily.


Wow, an hour long show once every two months on an AM station. That's some heavy exposure...er uh, yeah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are millions of people who own and carry defensive firearms. There are victims who have and use their firearm while being attacked, and still lose their life. It's an unfortunate truth. We will never legislate or regulate evil.


There are many cases where a defensive firearm is used with success. There is a vast number of documented cases to support that. The recent off duty sheriff video taped dispatching his attacker at a gas station comes to mind. The fact that this person automatically dismisses these truths is evidence that no one could have a fair debate with the person.


His verbal attacks of Pearson and NRA members is true to form, of his kind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the PAGunBlog:


  • Elliot Fineman is a senior member of the Brady PAC–Illinois, the group that makes endorsements on behalf of the Brady Campaign in Illinois.
  • Andrew Goddard is the President of the Richmond Chapter of the Million Mom March, a division of the Brady Campaign.
  • Lori O’Neill is the past President & Vice President of the Million Mom March of Cleveland which she calls the “grassroots arm of the Brady Campaign.”
  • Jeanne Bishop has served as President of the North Suburban Chicagoland Million Mom March Chapter and lists herself as a general Brady Campaign volunteer.
  • Griffin Dix was Chairman of the Brady Campaign’s Million Mom March National State Presidents Council and the chapter-elected member of the Brady Campaign Board of Trustees.
  • Bill Jenkins is married to the National Program Director for Victims and Survivors for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and represents the organization with his wife at public events.
  • Thom Mannard is a founding member of the Brady PAC-Illinois.
  • Alice Thomas-Norris is the President of the Million Moms March Chicago Chapter of Survivors for the Brady Campaign.
  • Tom Vanden Berk is a board member of the Brady Campaign/Million Mom March.
  • Amanda & Nick Wilcox are Legislative Co-Chairs of the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign as well as leaders of the Sacramento Valley Chapter and the Nevada County Brady Campaign Chapter.
  • Willie Williams works with the Brady Campaign to target pro-rights lawmakers in Illinois during election years.
  • Heidi Yewman is the Washington state president of the Million Mom March/Brady Campaign.



I posted this, but if they follow the standard "open and honest discussion" rules of the left nobody else will ever see it:


The ABC Entertainment show you cite as authoritative is a joke. Let's provide our concealed carry holders with clothing that doesn't fit, holsters and sidearms they've never used before and require that they have to sit in the same overstuffed chair, while their attacker, who knows exactly where his "victim" will be gets to enter from the door of his choice.


Yep - sure sounds like neutral conditions for an experiment made to actually offer facts, and not promote an agenda behind the guise of pseudo-science...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

There is no way to debate with people like this. There are no measures that will ensure you are protected 100% of the time while you are in public. This man uses the example of a police officer being murdered and Chris Kyle being murdered as examples of guns not providing self-defense. Of course there will be circumstances where it does not matter whether you are armed or not. For these circumstances there is nothing we can do. For the other 99.99% of the time we should choose to have to ability to fight back. His example is akin to the thought of " well some people die in car accidents while they are wearing seat belts so obviously seat belts offer no safety and should not be allowed to be put into vehicles."


Worse than the thought of this moron making statements like this is the myriad of followers that will cheer him along. You cannot debate with closed minded people. Let them keep their $50,000 and their lies.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...