Which is a bigger threat to your family? Two men holding hands, or two men holding guns?

Question

Which pair would you rather encounter with your family walking down the street?

Brad the Fox:

Apparently, some people make a ridiculous assumption that people holding hands are intent on harming random families.

Intent and circumstance are for your own interpretation by design of this question. Let's assume that you don't have time to ask them if they are police officers or pedophiles before evaluating the safety of your family.

I might remind everybody that the armed men might also be pedophiles, and that the gay men might also carry concealed weapons (sexual innuendo intended).

Answer 1

Circumstantial.

Are the two men with guns legally allowed to have them? I.E. concealed carry permits? If so, i'd not be worried. Or, are they murderers? If so, of course I'd not want near my family. But, if they are criminals, LAWS aren't going to stop them from getting guns. Gun control only prevents LEGAL citizens from having guns. Just like a pad lock will only keep an honest man out.

Are the two gay men just enjoying a walk? If so, I'd not even take notice nor care if they approached my family. Or, are they pedophiles? If so, I'd most certainly not want them near my children (in no way is this statement meant to infer that all homosexuals are pedophiles).

You see, what you are getting at is also a matter of interpretation. If you are alluding to Gay Marraige, you are forgetting that most of those who oppose gay marriage to so on a religious basis. To me, marriage is a religious function, not a civic function. Your State Marriage License is secondary to the oathes you take before God. Christianity does teach that homosexuality is a sin and I therefore can not accept gay marriage.

HOWEVER!!!! Allow me elaborate before you pass judgement.

While my religion teaches me that homosexuality is a sin, it also teaches me love, tolerance, acceptance and to be non-judgemental. I AM A SINNER! The same as everyone else. I am in no place to judge ANYONE for their sins, whatever those sins may be. I drink, I used to smoke, I have taken the Lord's name in vain and I have had premarital sex. These are just off the top of my head. Again, I am in no place to judge anyone for being homosexual or to call it SOCIALLY unacceptable.

Therefore I support civil unions. Gay couples should recieve the same rights and privilages that straight couples recieve. They should be bound by the same civic duties and obligations and should enjoy the same benefits. To say otherwise goes against logic AND the American way of life. Civil unions can also be for any couple who may not be religious and therefore do not want to get "married".

Banning firearms, however, only inhibits law abiding citizens from having or brandishing firearms. Criminals are criminals because they break the laws. Are "No Gun Zones" at schools ever going to stop someone from bringing a semi-automatic into class and murdering the students? Is this person going to make it all the way to the school with the intent of committing murder, see the "No Gun Zone" sign and turn around, deterred? Of course not. Just like "Drug Free Zones" don't keep drugs or drug dealers out. Criminals don't care for laws.

There were two students in the dorm at VT where the massacre took place that were lawfully allowed to carry concealed weapons but couldn't because of the schools "No Firearm Policy", had they been able to carry them, that tragedy may have ended much sooner. Those laws did not stop that man from murder dozens of people though, did they? How will more restrictive laws do a better job?

As I previously stated, Gun Control only prevents law abiding citizens from possessing and carrying firearms.

Answer 2

Depends. Are the two men holding guns police officers? Are they military members? Are they security guards? Are they just a couple of guys that are carrying their licensed firearms back from hunting or the firing range? Herein lies the problem with your logic -- you're making a comparison between a group where situational ethics apply and a group where situational ethics don't. Some people who carry guns are bad, but some aren't. When it comes to homosexuality, however, either all gays are bad or all gays are not bad, depending on your moral or religious beliefs about gays. See the difference?

P.S.: For those who think gay men are passive and would never hurt anyone, did you hear about the 11-year-old boy who was found dead in Louisiana in 2000 after he had been kidnapped, repeatedly sodomized, and finally strangled by two gay men? Didn't think so -- the mainstream media didn't carry the story outside the state of Louisiana. You have to wonder why not...

Answer 3

As a man who owns many guns, a pair of men holding hands is much more dangerous to my family than people with guns. To think otherwise you would have to make a ridiculous assumption that people holding guns are intent on harming random families. Men holding hands in public make it appear that it is nothing to be ashamed of, when some parents would like to raise their children to know that it is wrong.

Answer 4

Neither is a threat. On one hand I would expect the police and the army if necessary to defend me with guns and on the other I couldn't care less if two men were holding hands and neither would my children. They grew up watching rated R movies with the family.

Answer 5

Neither. I live in a state where most people are armed and we allow concealed carry. I pass people with guns every day. And not all conservatives are anti-gay. One of my oldest and dearest friends is gay - doesn't bother me a bit. Her girlfriend is really nice, too.

Answer 6

"Holding hands" ...?

How naive can you be!?!

When two gay men meet each other in a bar and they say, "you're place or my place" and then they go together, do you think that they are just going to hold hands?

I am not the slightest bit "threatened" by homosexuality, but I do understand that for a large segment of this society, the fact that one of your threats is a physical threat and the other one is a moral threat is no reason for you to treat the moral threat as if it is immaterial.

Answer 7

Did someone say guns?!

Two men holding guns better be good with their aim because my wife is lethal with a 44 MAG revolver!

Answer 8

The two men holding hands will end long before the two men holding guns, and 200,000,000 of the opposition holding guns, and the "sands of the sea" in the coalition holding and firing every armament known to man, both on the land, in the air and on the sea.

Answer 9

mixing apples and oranges, i believe in the 2ND amendment the two with guns could be cops g.is hunters or two gay target shooters

Answer 10

To my family? Neither. We have no problem with gay people and almost everyone we know is carrying a firearm of one form or another. That's why we don't have as much fear as those who don't believe that honest citizens should be allowed to possess firearms.

An armed man is a citizen

An unarmed man is a subject.