If one chooses not to carry a gun for 'self defense' and may use reason or avoidance to get out of a 'situation', one is 'allowing' crime to happen, one is 'enabling' crime - causing it, one does not have empathy with the victims of crime but rather the criminal, etc.
Wow... even for the MT, this is quite low.
I'm still in shock over that.
but you cant be surprised it turned that way, right?
actually, cate, I was surprised at that.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It is a logical conclusion, the one holding the gun has the upper hand in a situation.
Those who are proactive and own a gun realize this is their fighting chance,
as the case of my neighbor and the home invasion. If he had not had a gun,
his wife and kids would have been terrorized or worse.
He also saved many future victims with his bravery.
Can anyone argue that?
there are just as many examples of guns actually making the situation worse for the potential victim as there are examples of them saving the potential victims, so it's pointless to draw conclusions based on one specific scenario.
in this particular situation, yes, it looks as if the gun saved him and his family from potential harm.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,428
It's that love thing you talk about so much but sorry, I thought you had that Jesus connection and I was trying to point out some irony here. The point is I don't see any love here.
I'm not the only one that thinks your statement about some of us "allowing crime to be B.S. but you don't want to address this. That was a personal attack as well.
But the bottom line is this whole thing has degrading into a typical derailment. The rule is not personal stuff on the train and this is going nowhere but personal so it's time for me to move on.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
It's that love thing you talk about so much but sorry, I thought you had that Jesus connection and I was trying to point out some irony here. The point is I don't see any love here.
I'm not the only one that thinks your statement about some of us "allowing crime to be B.S. but you don't want to address this. That was a personal attack as well.
But the bottom line is this whole thing has degrading into a typical derailment. The rule is not personal stuff on the train and this is going nowhere but personal so it's time for me to move on.
it is an opinion of mine and it appears perhaps others here as well,
it is not an attack it is a opinion
that we must fight we have the right and in the case of my neighbor a must
and a duty because if we don't then we do nothing to stop the criminal from future attacks.
As far as love ...
no, I do not love people who prey on innocent people they are parasites.
Many here have shared personal situations experiences, including you,
that is not derailing and believe that is ok when discussing bearing arms
because it influences our opinions on the subject.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,428
Moving on, moving on, moving on, moving on, moving on, moving on.... :fp: ...
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
comes down to if you are willing to die to save someone or if you are willing to kill to save
someone some of us are willing to do that some are not thats cool those not can hope a hero is around
when they need one
comes down to if you are willing to die to save someone or if you are willing to kill to save
someone some of us are willing to do that some are not thats cool those not can hope a hero is around
when they need one
so am I reading this correctly that you equate carrying a gun with being a hero?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm not going into a debate as to whether guns should be banned/more controlled, etc. and looking up statistics and all because that has been done ad nauseam in the numerous 'gun' threads.
What I am flabbergasted at are the propos held by some in this thread - quite shocking really....
If one chooses not to carry a gun for 'self defense' and may use reason or avoidance to get out of a 'situation', one is 'allowing' crime to happen, one is 'enabling' crime - causing it, one does not have empathy with the victims of crime but rather the criminal, etc.
Wow... even for the MT, this is quite low.
Thank you, redrock! I'm rather amazed and quite miffed myself. I suspect when I go into work this afternoon there will be wanted posters all over Main St:
WANTED
For allowing crime to happen:
brianlux
Warning, this man is unarmed
And should be considered
A danger to society.
i have been away from this thread for a few days. mostly because of the blatant accusatory posts from some posters that somehow unarmed people allowed crimes to happen. there may be no greater outright judgement that i have read on this forum, and i have been here a long time. to assume that i am allowing a crime to happen by choosing to remain unarmed and fight with the weapons god gave me, my fists, elbows, knees, and my mind, is the same thing as saying i am somehow guilty of allowing war crimes when i did not participate in the war and i did not sit in a chamber of congress and push the button to vote "aye" on the resolution authorizing pre-emptive war...it is frankly fucking offensive...where is the tolerance and love with this line of thought??? i think said posters have exposed themselves for who they are. and i am not surprised.
i did not want this thread to turn into this, rather i wanted to debate the absurdity of allowing real guns into a convention and determine when does the second amendment trump the first amendment of the protestors??
i only came back to give brianlux's post a and a
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
not fighting back and being a victim the asshole is free to victimize
the next guy this is a fact a consequence of the outcome of being submissive the criminal is not stopped this is not brain surgery and yeah it is an opinion thats what everyone is doing telling their opinion :roll: men should step up girls are carrying guns to protect themselves does the anti gun club think they shouldn't or is that ok?cause that would be even more pathetic if a guy said yeah they should but i won't
we got a name for that
comes down to if you are willing to die to save someone or if you are willing to kill to save
someone some of us are willing to do that some are not thats cool those not can hope a hero is around
when they need one
so am I reading this correctly that you equate carrying a gun with being a hero?
nope just being responsible and not a submissive i am willing to do both die or kill
to save someone or myself are you?
not fighting back and being a victim.....
......being submissive....
While you're fumbling for a gun that you will, most probably, not even get to, your brains will be blown out by the person mugging/attacking you.
Not brandishing (or trying to) a gun DOES NOT make you a victim or submissive or the 'cause' of future crime - that is quite offensive what you are saying. As gimme said...
not fighting back and being a victim the asshole is free to victimize
the next guy this is a fact a consequence of the outcome of being submissive the criminal is not stopped this is not brain surgery and yeah it is an opinion thats what everyone is doing telling their opinion :roll: men should step up girls are carrying guns to protect themselves does the anti gun club think they shouldn't or is that ok?cause that would be even more pathetic if a guy said yeah they should but i won't
we got a name for that
what name is that? what am i for not wanting to carry a gun? what am i?
fighting back does not equal shooting someone...
when does the second amendment trump the first one? you can't shoot someone for not liking what they say...that is why the second amendment is not the first one...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i did not want this thread to turn into this, rather i wanted to debate the absurdity of allowing real guns into a convention and determine when does the second amendment trump the first amendment of the protestors??
i only came back to give brianlux's post a and a
you're in the antigun club we all know why the thread was started lol
you guys want to take guns away wtf and like another great poster said
thank you forefathers for the second amendment and the right to protect myself my property my loved ones
other citizens too like you lmao
nope just being responsible and not a submissive i am willing to do both die or kill
to save someone or myself are you?
not carrying a deadly weapon does NOT equal being submissive. there are way more people in this world that are quite capable of disarming someone without brandishing a gun and then kicking the living shit out of them.
I wouldn't call that being submissive, would you?
If I was being attacked, yes, I would do what I had to do to save my family. but I'm not going out to buy weapons in case that might happen.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i did not want this thread to turn into this, rather i wanted to debate the absurdity of allowing real guns into a convention and determine when does the second amendment trump the first amendment of the protestors??
i only came back to give brianlux's post a and a
you're in the antigun club we all know why the thread was started lol
you guys want to take guns away wtf and like another great poster said
thank you forefathers for the second amendment and the right to protect myself my property my loved ones
other citizens too like you lmao
you don't know why i started this thread.
can you answer my questions?
why is it the first amendment is being trampled? the protestors are going to have to be moved to a "free speech zone" way away from the convention. but they can have a shit ton of real guns inside the convention.
i will not give up my right to speech and my right to protest the fact that somehow toys are a threat when the only reason guns exist are to hunt and kill people and animals...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
not fighting back and being a victim the asshole is free to victimize
the next guy this is a fact a consequence of the outcome of being submissive the criminal is not stopped this is not brain surgery and yeah it is an opinion thats what everyone is doing telling their opinion :roll: men should step up girls are carrying guns to protect themselves does the anti gun club think they shouldn't or is that ok?cause that would be even more pathetic if a guy said yeah they should but i won't
we got a name for that
what name is that? what am i for not wanting to carry a gun? what am i?
fighting back does not equal shooting someone...
when does the second amendment trump the first one? you can't shoot someone for not liking what they say...that is why the second amendment is not the first one...
fighting back does equal shooting someone not for you you're going to knee them lmao again
did anyone say that shoot someone over words wtf are you talking about you can shoot someone
to protect yourself your property and another human life and should so they do not go hurt someone else
nope just being responsible and not a submissive i am willing to do both die or kill
to save someone or myself are you?
not carrying a deadly weapon does NOT equal being submissive. there are way more people in this world that are quite capable of disarming someone without brandishing a gun and then kicking the living shit out of them.
I wouldn't call that being submissive, would you?
If I was being attacked, yes, I would do what I had to do to save my family. but I'm not going out to buy weapons in case that might happen.
i did not want this thread to turn into this, rather i wanted to debate the absurdity of allowing real guns into a convention and determine when does the second amendment trump the first amendment of the protestors??
i only came back to give brianlux's post a and a
you're in the antigun club we all know why the thread was started lol
you guys want to take guns away wtf and like another great poster said
thank you forefathers for the second amendment and the right to protect myself my property my loved ones
other citizens too like you lmao
you don't know why i started this thread.
can you answer my questions?
why is it the first amendment is being trampled? the protestors are going to have to be moved to a "free speech zone" way away from the convention. but they can have a shit ton of real guns inside the convention.
i will not give up my right to speech and my right to protest the fact that somehow toys are a threat when the only reason guns exist are to hunt and kill people and animals...
yeah messed up to conveniently move protestors where no one can see or hear them
this for occupy what that got us now could see that coming
but yeah real guns are here to stay get over it you might need them to protect your first amendment hell all of them someday unless you submit
to having your rights taken away i'm not gonna i'm ok with dying for what i believe in thats how i was raised
not fighting back and being a victim.....
......being submissive....
While you're fumbling for a gun that you will, most probably, not even get to, your brains will be blown out by the person mugging/attacking you.
Not brandishing (or trying to) a gun DOES NOT make you a victim or submissive or the 'cause' of future crime - that is quite offensive what you are saying. As gimme said...
....choosing to remain unarmed and fight with the weapons god gave me, my fists, elbows, knees, and my mind...
Your body and your mind are your first 'weapons' and often your best.
you must know nothing about carrying or training no brainer a responsible gun owner knows when to use the gun duh i guess me and some others got to the antigun club with our opinion on their part in the crime cycle
i guess it makes ya think don't it
not fighting back and being a victim the asshole is free to victimize
the next guy this is a fact a consequence of the outcome of being submissive the criminal is not stopped this is not brain surgery and yeah it is an opinion thats what everyone is doing telling their opinion :roll: men should step up girls are carrying guns to protect themselves does the anti gun club think they shouldn't or is that ok?cause that would be even more pathetic if a guy said yeah they should but i won't
we got a name for that
what name is that? what am i for not wanting to carry a gun? what am i?
fighting back does not equal shooting someone...
when does the second amendment trump the first one? you can't shoot someone for not liking what they say...that is why the second amendment is not the first one...
fighting back does equal shooting someone not for you you're going to knee them lmao again
did anyone say that shoot someone over words wtf are you talking about you can shoot someone
to protect yourself your property and another human life and should so they do not go hurt someone else
what happens when you discover that person you shot was carrying an unloaded gun? that they only ever intended to intimidate you and that in a very sad and ironic way it worked cause you shot that fucker dead, didnt you? i pity the society that measures its strength by the barrel of a firearm. its a false strength and leads to nothing but paranoia and weakness.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Just me, but an unloaded gun :wtf: that would be really a dumb thing to do :?
surprise surprise I guess that criminal never thought someone would fight back
but we can and we do.
you must know nothing about carrying or training no brainer a responsible gun owner knows when to use the gun duh i guess me and some others got to the antigun club with our opinion on their part in the crime cycle
i guess it makes ya think don't it
go back and read redrocks conversation with a cop.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
you must know nothing about carrying or training no brainer a responsible gun owner knows when to use the gun duh i guess me and some others got to the antigun club with our opinion on their part in the crime cycle
i guess it makes ya think don't it
Check out my post regarding the opinion (rather more than an opinion - based on facts and every day workload) of a 'man of the law' about how more often than not a 'responsible' gun owner (what is that anyway? A person who has a licensed gun?) - like most carrying guns - is more likely to 'react' in a sudden and traumatic situation (ie being attacked in the street, etc.). 'Training', ie having a few sessions at a shooting range DOES NOT prepare you for 'real life' situations at all.
Edit: I see Hugh was quicker than me (good thing I didn't want to shoot him! ).
go back and read redrocks conversation with a cop.
When one thinks that, even amongst these highly trained (with continued training, being followed psychologically, etc.) there are so many 'mishaps'/hesitations/'accidents' when confronted with armed 'perps', one can only wonder how many more of these issues there are with the layperson. It's just logical reasoning. Unless, of course, those that 'push' carrying so much and are so intent on a 'shoot to kill' policy are better trained than the professionals.
you must know nothing about carrying or training no brainer a responsible gun owner knows when to use the gun duh i guess me and some others got to the antigun club with our opinion on their part in the crime cycle
i guess it makes ya think don't it
go back and read redrocks conversation with a cop.
ha lets not go off topic and talk about cops i've seen my share of inept damn some shoot dogs
as soon as look at them
you must know nothing about carrying or training no brainer a responsible gun owner knows when to use the gun duh i guess me and some others got to the antigun club with our opinion on their part in the crime cycle
i guess it makes ya think don't it
go back and read redrocks conversation with a cop.
ha lets not go off topic and talk about cops i've seen my share of inept damn some shoot dogs
as soon as look at them
um, if you read it you'd know it wasn't off topic at all, it was in direct relation to what you and some others are saying about carrying a gun and how it protects you.
so is this part of your issue, that you don't trust the police, so you think you need to do their job?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
you must know nothing about carrying or training no brainer a responsible gun owner knows when to use the gun duh i guess me and some others got to the antigun club with our opinion on their part in the crime cycle
i guess it makes ya think don't it
Check out my post regarding the opinion (rather more than an opinion - based on facts and every day workload) of a 'man of the law' about how more often than not a 'responsible' gun owner (what is that anyway? A person who has a licensed gun?) - like most carrying guns - is more likely to 'react' in a sudden and traumatic situation (ie being attacked in the street, etc.). 'Training', ie having a few sessions at a shooting range DOES NOT prepare you for 'real life' situations at all.
Edit: I see Hugh was quicker than me (good thing I didn't want to shoot him! ).
don't mess with him his hands are registered man no anyone gets a license thats a must training is different
now i know you don't get it and ya think gun enthusiasts are irresponsible don't you or not?
Comments
actually, cate, I was surprised at that.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
there are just as many examples of guns actually making the situation worse for the potential victim as there are examples of them saving the potential victims, so it's pointless to draw conclusions based on one specific scenario.
in this particular situation, yes, it looks as if the gun saved him and his family from potential harm.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It's that love thing you talk about so much but sorry, I thought you had that Jesus connection and I was trying to point out some irony here. The point is I don't see any love here.
I'm not the only one that thinks your statement about some of us "allowing crime to be B.S. but you don't want to address this. That was a personal attack as well.
But the bottom line is this whole thing has degrading into a typical derailment. The rule is not personal stuff on the train and this is going nowhere but personal so it's time for me to move on.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
it is not an attack it is a opinion
that we must fight we have the right and in the case of my neighbor a must
and a duty because if we don't then we do nothing to stop the criminal from future attacks.
As far as love ...
no, I do not love people who prey on innocent people they are parasites.
Many here have shared personal situations experiences, including you,
that is not derailing and believe that is ok when discussing bearing arms
because it influences our opinions on the subject.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I wonder why the need to do this to others ... a little superior :nono:
but yes we agree to disagree on the bearing of arms and the result of that on crime
someone some of us are willing to do that some are not thats cool those not can hope a hero is around
when they need one
telling someone they are directly responsible for crime rates because they choose not to carry a gun is an opinion and not a personal attack.
someone saying they are moving on from a thread is then considered a personal attack.
:fp:
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
so am I reading this correctly that you equate carrying a gun with being a hero?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i did not want this thread to turn into this, rather i wanted to debate the absurdity of allowing real guns into a convention and determine when does the second amendment trump the first amendment of the protestors??
i only came back to give brianlux's post a
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the next guy this is a fact a consequence of the outcome of being submissive the criminal is not stopped this is not brain surgery and yeah it is an opinion thats what everyone is doing telling their opinion :roll: men should step up girls are carrying guns to protect themselves does the anti gun club think they shouldn't or is that ok?cause that would be even more pathetic if a guy said yeah they should but i won't
we got a name for that
to save someone or myself are you?
While you're fumbling for a gun that you will, most probably, not even get to, your brains will be blown out by the person mugging/attacking you.
Not brandishing (or trying to) a gun DOES NOT make you a victim or submissive or the 'cause' of future crime - that is quite offensive what you are saying. As gimme said...
Your body and your mind are your first 'weapons' and often your best.
fighting back does not equal shooting someone...
when does the second amendment trump the first one? you can't shoot someone for not liking what they say...that is why the second amendment is not the first one...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
you're in the antigun club we all know why the thread was started lol
you guys want to take guns away wtf and like another great poster said
thank you forefathers for the second amendment and the right to protect myself my property my loved ones
other citizens too like you lmao
not carrying a deadly weapon does NOT equal being submissive. there are way more people in this world that are quite capable of disarming someone without brandishing a gun and then kicking the living shit out of them.
I wouldn't call that being submissive, would you?
If I was being attacked, yes, I would do what I had to do to save my family. but I'm not going out to buy weapons in case that might happen.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
can you answer my questions?
why is it the first amendment is being trampled? the protestors are going to have to be moved to a "free speech zone" way away from the convention. but they can have a shit ton of real guns inside the convention.
i will not give up my right to speech and my right to protest the fact that somehow toys are a threat when the only reason guns exist are to hunt and kill people and animals...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
did anyone say that shoot someone over words wtf are you talking about you can shoot someone
to protect yourself your property and another human life and should so they do not go hurt someone else
this for occupy what that got us now could see that coming
but yeah real guns are here to stay get over it you might need them to protect your first amendment hell all of them someday unless you submit
to having your rights taken away i'm not gonna i'm ok with dying for what i believe in thats how i was raised
seeing where it came from, it didnt surprise me in the least.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i guess it makes ya think don't it
what happens when you discover that person you shot was carrying an unloaded gun? that they only ever intended to intimidate you and that in a very sad and ironic way it worked cause you shot that fucker dead, didnt you? i pity the society that measures its strength by the barrel of a firearm. its a false strength and leads to nothing but paranoia and weakness.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
surprise surprise I guess that criminal never thought someone would fight back
but we can and we do.
go back and read redrocks conversation with a cop.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Check out my post regarding the opinion (rather more than an opinion - based on facts and every day workload) of a 'man of the law' about how more often than not a 'responsible' gun owner (what is that anyway? A person who has a licensed gun?) - like most carrying guns - is more likely to 'react' in a sudden and traumatic situation (ie being attacked in the street, etc.). 'Training', ie having a few sessions at a shooting range DOES NOT prepare you for 'real life' situations at all.
Edit: I see Hugh was quicker than me (good thing I didn't want to shoot him!
When one thinks that, even amongst these highly trained (with continued training, being followed psychologically, etc.) there are so many 'mishaps'/hesitations/'accidents' when confronted with armed 'perps', one can only wonder how many more of these issues there are with the layperson. It's just logical reasoning. Unless, of course, those that 'push' carrying so much and are so intent on a 'shoot to kill' policy are better trained than the professionals.
as soon as look at them
um, if you read it you'd know it wasn't off topic at all, it was in direct relation to what you and some others are saying about carrying a gun and how it protects you.
so is this part of your issue, that you don't trust the police, so you think you need to do their job?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
now i know you don't get it and ya think gun enthusiasts are irresponsible don't you or not?