[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Would you like first hand knowledge? As most of you know, I’m a felon. 25 years ago, I was a stick up kid and ran with a gang of criminals that had taken me in when my own family put me on the street. We made SURE that our targets were unarmed. If I knew someone was armed or seemed like a “hard target”, I would NOT consider them a candidate. That’s common sense. No one wanted to “hurt” anyone, we just wanted to relieve them of their property quickly. Pains were taken to ensure that there was not likely to be anyone with a firearm present during a mission.
We were smart enough to know how to avoid the police. We were smart enough to avoid many common mistakes. We all got caught because of a snitch - not because of any operational mistakes.
We avoided business and citizens that were armed. Firearms are a very effective deterrent to crime. Why risk getting shot robbing someone who is a “wolf”, when there is a “sheep” right down the street?
“Sheep” were easy. “Sheep” were safe. “Sheep” got hit again and again until they got a gun and then we moved on to softer targets.
I’m not making shit up, Nick. I did four years of hard time for armed robbery. I have since seen the error of my ways and turned my life around, but I still remember how I used to think and how I used to operate. And speaking from that perspective, the BEST thing an average citizen can do to protect themselves against crime is own a firearm, know how to use it and let it be known that you are carrying.
When it comes to choosing targets, most criminals are not stupid. They’ll take an easy, unarmed victim every time and twice on Sunday.
Oh, and by the way, we had NO problems getting guns. Back then I could get any kind of gun I wanted. Even today, I’m pretty sure it would take me less than three phone calls to put my hands on a gun if I wanted one bad enough. It’s simply not that hard to get. [/quote]
You avoided armed citizens because of what a firearm can do. The PRIMARY PURPOSE of a firearm is to injure and/or kill. Did you respond to the correct post? [/quote]
I don’t have a whole lot of time, but I’ll play. Below is the post which you conveniently left out after you questioned whether or not I replied to the right post:
How does a firearm provide defense? Visual deterrent? Get a realistic-looking toy.
No, the primary purpose(not USE-that would be training, or sitting in the drawer/closet/case) of most(those not owned by competitive shooters and/or used solely in competition/training) firearms is to injure and/or kill(not always humans, of course). There is absolutely no reason to try to sugarcoat it. There is nothing wrong with it. However, when firearms supporters deny it, it makes them look like police officers telling some guy who is obviously no longer any threat to them to “Stop resisting!”
“Stop the threat” crap is legal mumbo jumbo that the majority of people can see right through(and it makes them feel as though you have something to hide). Have to justify shooting someone? Use it all you want(talk to your lawyer first). Trying to defend the legal right to bear arms? Honesty is a better policy.
Yes, I responded to the right post.
Of course the primary purpose of a firearm is to kill. DUH… Why else have one? If someone is going to attack you or attempt to rob you, a person has a natural right to defend themselves and their property with deadly force. A gun accommodates this nicely. What is the problem with that?
The point I was illustrating is that when I was in my law breaking days, I AVOIDED people who were likely to try and kill me while I was robbing them. A “toy gun” would not have cut the mustard, buddy.
So, why are you engaging in this crazy twisting of words? I don’t think anyone is silly enough to argue that guns aren’t for killing people. A far better line of argument is whether or not we have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force. I, and the majority of people with any modicum of intelligence, would argue that we do.