TexasCHLforum.com

Instead of arguing or trying to win over others with facts when their beliefs are closely held and emotion-based, I try to offer up a question that leads them to think.

One that I remember quite vividly was a dinner conversation with a group of co-workers in New York City, one of whom lost a brother in one of the World Trade Center towers. They were steering the coversation towards the "cowboy" attitudes in Texas and were deriding (fairly politely) many of our regional and cultural idiosyncracies when eventually the conversation turned to guns and permits to have guns and how it must be so easy to get a permit in Texas (if one was even required), not needing to register a gun, etc. One of the people said they would feel in great danger if they had to spend much time in Texas because of the prevalence of guns in gun rack in pickups, in people's pockets, etc. What question did I ask?

If each person boarding those four airplanes on 9/11 was acually issued a loaded pistol to carry with them while they were on the plane, how many of those planes would have gone down that day?

I couldn't get a rebuttal from anyone after that.

SlickTX wrote: If each person boarding those four airplanes on 9/11 was actually issued a loaded pistol to carry with them while they were on the plane, how many of those planes would have gone down that day?

I couldn't get a rebuttal from anyone after that.

That is a great strategy and I'm glad that you were successful with it. I have not been. The antis that I talked to don't accept that it is the right of people to protect themselves under any circumstances. Within the Liberal group are some (many?) who carry the pacifist line of thinking to an illogical extreme. They would much rather accept anarchy than to fight back. Try talking to some of the Code Pink group and I think that you will understand. They, like our President, simply believe that we can "absorb" things like 9/11.

SlickTX wrote:Instead of arguing or trying to win over others with facts when their beliefs are closely held and emotion-based, I try to offer up a question that leads them to think.

One that I remember quite vividly was a dinner conversation with a group of co-workers in New York City, one of whom lost a brother in one of the World Trade Center towers. They were steering the coversation towards the "cowboy" attitudes in Texas and were deriding (fairly politely) many of our regional and cultural idiosyncracies when eventually the conversation turned to guns and permits to have guns and how it must be so easy to get a permit in Texas (if one was even required), not needing to register a gun, etc. One of the people said they would feel in great danger if they had to spend much time in Texas because of the prevalence of guns in gun rack in pickups, in people's pockets, etc. What question did I ask?

If each person boarding those four airplanes on 9/11 was acually issued a loaded pistol to carry with them while they were on the plane, how many of those planes would have gone down that day?

I couldn't get a rebuttal from anyone after that.

I approve of your First Amendment Airlines. Then we can get rid of the TSA and their useless multi billion dollar body scanners

psijac wrote:
I approve of your First Amendment Airlines. Then we can get rid of the TSA and their useless multi billion dollar body scanners

Its kind of fun to turn the whole "accepted" world on its head to see if a better result can be found. I submit that air travel would be MUCH safer if, instead of disarming us at the checkpoints, they armed us instead. How could one, or even a few, armed people take on a plane with 100-300 armed passengers and crew?

SlickTX wrote:

psijac wrote:
I approve of your First Amendment Airlines. Then we can get rid of the TSA and their useless multi billion dollar body scanners

Its kind of fun to turn the whole "accepted" world on its head to see if a better result can be found. I submit that air travel would be MUCH safer if, instead of disarming us at the checkpoints, they armed us instead. How could one, or even a few, armed people take on a plane with 100-300 armed passengers and crew?

They would have to buy every seat on the plane. Make the pilot and flight crew carry. Give them a raise from the money you save by not hire tsa agents

drjoker wrote:P.S. TAM will probably want to know if I've converted my wife. Well, yes and no. She now believes that the freedom to bear arms is important to democracy and liberty. It is a good thing, but she also believes that freedom means the right to choose and she chooses NOT to have guns in the house. She's gotten a CHL to show her legislators that she supports the 2nd amendment, politically, but we still don't have guns in the house because she believes that they're more trouble than they're worth, personally. She also never carries. I wonder how many people have a CHL but never carry? I was at a local range this weekend and all the guys I spoke with have a CHL but none of them carry regularly, myself included.... I'm beginning to think that most people who have a CHL almost never carry.... We just get 'em to let our legislators know not to mess with the constitution. Do you think that's a fair statement?

It sounds like you've made some progress. Since you've broached the subject, I'll take that as permission to respectfully address my perceptions of it....

I guess the next step is to get her to see that A) you are the head of your family; and B) she can choose for herself not to keep and bear arms, but it is not her right to make that choice for you - unless you are on life-support.

You've mentioned in the past that your wife is a very religious person, if I remember correctly? I assume that she practices some denomination of Christianity? If so, then (A) is not just a joke, it is a biblical precept that she is commanded to obey, as are you too. I mention this because, while a wise man listens to his wife's counsel, in a Christian home where the man is the head of the household, the words of Paul have meaning. Yes, men are supposed to love their wives as they love themselves, even as Christ loved the church, but wives are supposed to obey and respect their husbands. If she is devoutly religious, she must believe this - assuming that you are worthy of her obedience and respect. If I am not remembering about her correctly, please forgive me, and ignore what I've written above.

Item (B) applies whether or not your wife is a religious person. Your free exercise of your RKBA is your choice alone to make, and for her to usurp that right is inappropriate. I love my wife without reservation, but I would not hesitate to tell her that her choice not to exercise a right does not give her authority to usurp my own exercise of that right. The title to our home has both our names on it, mine first, followed by hers. Therefore, the exercise of my rights does not stop when I walk into the house - unless I choose not to exercise them.

Now I'm not a complete idiot, and I strive for harmony in my marriage. Sometimes that means not doing something I would like to do, or doing something that I would rather not do; but I don't let my wife ride roughshod over my civil rights. But to be perfectly fair, I don't have to worry about that stuff too much. My wife has no problem with guns in the house.... the more the merrier. But I can also tell you that if she tried to lay down the law and tell me we couldn't have guns in the house, my answer to her would be "just watch me." If she sold my guns out from under me, like your wife did to you, I would sell some of her jewelry and use the money to buy myself new guns. That would lead to a huge fight. My answer would be, "now you know how I feel when you do it to me. Howabout tomorrow we go buy you some more jewelry, and from now on you leave my guns alone?"

In answer to your original point... I remember reading elsewhere in this forum that a majority of CHL holders rarely or never actually carry a gun. I don't know how true that is, but like others, all the CHL holders I know do carry regularly if not 24/7. I'm a 24/7 guy, myself.

The Annoyed Man wrote:she can choose for herself not to keep and bear arms, but it is not her right to make that choice for you - unless you are on life-support.

Your body, your choice.

chasfm11 wrote:

SlickTX wrote: If each person boarding those four airplanes on 9/11 was actually issued a loaded pistol to carry with them while they were on the plane, how many of those planes would have gone down that day?

I couldn't get a rebuttal from anyone after that.

That is a great strategy and I'm glad that you were successful with it. I have not been. The antis that I talked to don't accept that it is the right of people to protect themselves under any circumstances. Within the Liberal group are some (many?) who carry the pacifist line of thinking to an illogical extreme. They would much rather accept anarchy than to fight back. Try talking to some of the Code Pink group and I think that you will understand. They, like our President, simply believe that we can "absorb" things like 9/11.

And that is one of the biggest problems with the anti-gun crowd, and I believe it is also the attitude fueling a lot of ant-gun and anti-self-defense law. I see the UK and Canada as an example of this mentality. It doesn't really matter if you can own a gun in the UK or not, since the law treats anyone defending himself as a criminal and treats the thugs and criminals as "victims." The people with this liberal mentality are full of sympathy for the predators and enraged when any of the prey defend themselves. I had a female lefty once tell me she'd rather let a predator kill her than to kill him defending herself or someone else. They actually believe this is a sign of their own nobility instead of the moral depravity it truly represents.

SlickTX wrote: If each person boarding those four airplanes on 9/11 was acually issued a loaded pistol to carry with them while they were on the plane, how many of those planes would have gone down that day?

I couldn't get a rebuttal from anyone after that.

I fully agree with this and am glad to see I'm not alone. Just look at flight 93, the underwear bomber, and the Times Square bomber - all averted a greater disaster due to the action of individuals. A vigilant and armed populace is more effective and more virtuous than any police force.



Lan, great job with the waitress, and good for her for being able to think.

chasfm11 wrote: A lady screamed at me for being an "environment wrecker" because we drive an RV. I asked her what she drove and her answer was a Prius. Her Prius gets 50mpg (or so she claimed - she had no evidence to support it.) I asked her how many miles she drove each year and she told me that it didn't matter. I tried to show her that our 10mph RV, driven 4K per year could use less fuel than her Prius, depending on how many miles she drove. She dismissed the argument. Since she got 50mpg, the number of miles wasn't relevant.

40-43 MPG is a solid average in cool weather, depending on how much highway involvement there is. In good moving traffic on the highway, they don't do so well. In the summer in Texas your doing well to average 38-39 MPG because of AC use. I know of some people who are getting around 50 in flat, cooler climes where they never run an AC, average less than 50 MPH and are never on an expressway or open road.

Next time ask her what impact that 400# heavy metal and caustics battery under the seat will have on the environment when its replaced. At $3500 by the way. Don't ask me how I know.

OP, well done. I recall a conversation with a DPS officer one time. He was anti-gun except for LEO and by the time we were done, he had turned 180 degrees. Its kind of a long story how we got there, but patience on my part and a willingness to listen on his part played a heavy role.

Adopting an opinion with no knowladge other than the socially engineered response has made victims out of men and women of that age group for a very long time. Good job on pointing her in the correct direction and giving her a chance to educate herself.

Please encourage anyone who is open to learning the truth to look for the information given by Dr Lott and every source. Check the government reports and crediable studies. We have the facts and truth on our side and any person that goes into a search for the facts with an open mind will never be hostile to our Second Amendment reflected rights again. Some will even take up guns. "Don't believe anything I say but check for yourself." is always what I tell people.

I would much rather see our youth act out roles as delegates to the first writing of the constitution. Rather than, being U.N. emissaries.

i find most people who know nothing about guns totally surprised how easy and quickly you can go buy one.

SlickTX wrote:<snip>

If each person boarding those four airplanes on 9/11 was acually issued a loaded pistol to carry with them while they were on the plane, how many of those planes would have gone down that day?

I couldn't get a rebuttal from anyone after that.

SlickTX, you are so right.

Let me see if this link will work. It is from February 2000 - more than a year before 9/11.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.guns ... ae1b60b0f4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can't believe I was able to find it again after 10 years. Note - I am not the author or related to him, just liked his short story.