“no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

Carrying a side arm is part of my job.

However when I'm off duty I still carry on the advice of my old man, a twenty year veteran of the New Mexico State police.
That advice, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

Truthfully in all the years I have carried I've never had to draw my side arm in response to a threat and I count myself lucky. Still the real advantage is thanks to all my training and constant practice to maintain my proficiency I have a piece of mind that comes from knowing I can defend and protect myself and family.

Let us not forget the words of Japanese Marshal Admiral and the commander-in-chief of the Combined Fleet during World War II 'Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto' -

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

“no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

I dare ya to go walking around on the South-West side of Chicago without a gun on you, see how long you make it. I say... 2 blocks... Good luck

I can't wait for the day when people try to defend the "extreme" weapons folks....

"I only feel safe walking around with my surface to air missile on me"

Hahahaa

Originally posted by region331

Negligent or not the potential to shoot yourself is always there.
Here's a policeman 'educatiing' a class of school kids on the dangers of handling guns, immediately prior to shooting himself in the foot.
www.youtube.com...

The potential for anything to happen to anyone at any time is always there. That's life.

However, it is disingenuous of you, the media or anyone else to ever say a gun "went off."

Wordplay is important in the social programming of dullards and every time somebody says a gun "went off" the viewer/reader imagines firearms are just popping off all all by themselves like angry dogs snapping at joggers.

reply to post by region331

first you say ...

Negligent or not

NO, that is a clear example of negligence, period.
you immediately dismiss the simple fact that by not being negligent, guns do not EVER just 'go off' by themselves.

then, you say this ...

shooting himself in the foot

which is exemplary of negligence, so where is the evidence of what happens when one is NOT negligent ??

btw, the potential to die exists from the very moment you open an eye.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

the same ronald reagan who perpetuated the arming of the contras by money obtained through illegal weapons sales

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by region331

 

first you say ...

Negligent or not

NO, that is a clear example of negligence, period.
you immediately dismiss the simple fact that by not being negligent, guns do not EVER just 'go off' by themselves.

then, you say this ...

shooting himself in the foot

which is exemplary of negligence, so where is the evidence of what happens when one is NOT negligent ??

btw, the potential to die exists from the very moment you open an eye.

I'm fairly open-minded on the whole gun thing and I'm trying to be as objective as I can possibly be. I think there's room for people to own a variety of guns.

BUT we just saw a policeman shoot himself in the foot. Not only that we saw a policeman shoot himself in the foot in front of a class full of children. We saw a policeman whom, I can only assume, is fairly competent in the use of firearms, take a loaded weapon out, in a classroom in front of class full of kids and shoot himself in the foot.

If a good police officer can be negligent then a second police officer can be negligent and so can a citizen. A gun is not very forgiving when it comes to negligence.

reply to post by ComeFindMe


But let me tell you something, the USA is a war machine.

But only the people can take it down from within, no outside source can penetrate it's defenses and get away with it. If you attack, you'll be labeled as a terrorist. How about every person that has ever held a gun much less looked at one, be labeled as a terrorist?

If your anti-2nd amendment, then why bother with someone who is pro?

I have quite a few friends who love guns and with everything that's going on they are beginning to act a little fanatical. It's honestly kinda creepy. They're making a bigger deal about guns then the state of our own economy.

reply to post by region331

first, that is a rather old video (i believe)
can't view them currently, but i don't believe such an event has occurred multiple times.

idiots come in all forms and many of them wear uniforms.

negligence is negligence or are you suggesting the uniform should magically prevent his negligence ??

nothing i can think of that has the potential to be deadly is very forgiving when it comes to negligence ... cars come to mind, hammers, power tools, bicycles, boats, chainsaws, axes, how many more do we really need to list ?

Knives and swords have taken more lives than any gun ever has.
what's your point here ?

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
Well, I think you will find my view is shared by most of the developed world as well as a growing number of Americans themselves.

Other nations can piss off.
Americans???They have a voice, but there is still the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Regardless how much they want to disarm the AMERICAN public.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
The violent crime figures here are oft-sited, but little care is taken in distinguishing what is constituted as violent crime in the figures. Gun crime, on the other hand, is fair easier to label and is quite definitive.

Not really. The stats are pretty detailed, and only seem skewed in the eyes of an Anti when arguing for Gun restrictions.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
In any case, i'd still rather get beaten up five times in my life than shot once.

I don't see an issue on this, as I will have the means to shoot and stop those 5 from beating on me.

Stay in your victim mentality.

Originally posted by Gargamel
I would just like to say that I find Americans telling people from other countries to stay out of their politics extremely hilarious and somewhat hipocritical.

How so???
I don't comment here on topics as to rights and going ons in other countries.
I am not in politics and don't EVER to proclaim I know what is best for OTHER countries.
But, keep marching on to that BS idea though.

Originally posted by Gargamel
Anyways more on topic, I don't think the issue is really "they are going to take away my guns and my right to bear arms" rather than it is an issue of "should you be able to so easily get them" and "what type of guns do you REALLY need to protect yourself"

2nd Amendment states otherwise, and since you are not a US citizen, your opinion sits below that of that white stuff you get on the side of your mouth when you are yelling/angry.

Originally posted by Gargamel
*disclaimer - I am Canadian,

Well geez, I didn't see that coming.
Another comment about how America should bow down and allow firearms restrictions from a NON US citizen????? I never saw that one coming.

Originally posted by Gargamel
have never owned a gun, have never held a handgun, shot a rifle a few times when I was a kid in the Scouts. I have never felt the need to have a gun, I have never been in a situation where I felt that a gun would have helped me and I grew up in a rough neighbourhood in one of the larger cities in Canada. This is just to point out that my life experiences may have been very different from others and that is where my view point comes from

So, your life experience is limited, and does not reflect that of the American experience.
That is all fine, but it still means ZERO.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
Well, I think you will find my view is shared by most of the developed world as well as a growing number of Americans themselves.

Other nations can piss off.
Americans???They have a voice, but there is still the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Regardless how much they want to disarm the AMERICAN public.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
The violent crime figures here are oft-sited, but little care is taken in distinguishing what is constituted as violent crime in the figures. Gun crime, on the other hand, is fair easier to label and is quite definitive.

Not really. The stats are pretty detailed, and only seem skewed in the eyes of an Anti when arguing for Gun restrictions.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
In any case, i'd still rather get beaten up five times in my life than shot once.

I don't see an issue on this, as I will have the means to shoot and stop those 5 from beating on me.

Stay in your victim mentality.

edit on 4-1-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)

Yes you would be able to use yor gun to stop the 5 would be assailants BUT most likely (in America) at LEAST one of those five assailants will also have a gun and you just escalated a beating into a fire fight which in this scenario would most likely leave you dead. Great plan.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by region331

 

first, that is a rather old video (i believe)
can't view them currently, but i don't believe such an event has occurred multiple times.

idiots come in all forms and many of them wear uniforms.

negligence is negligence or are you suggesting the uniform should magically prevent his negligence ??

nothing i can think of that has the potential to be deadly is very forgiving when it comes to negligence ... cars come to mind, hammers, power tools, bicycles, boats, chainsaws, axes, how many more do we really need to list ?

Knives and swords have taken more lives than any gun ever has.
what's your point here ?

I suppose I was making the point that a police officer accidentally discharging his firearm appears not to be uncommon. Three times seems excessive though. We are all guilty of negligence everyday and guns aside, it always comes from over-confidence. We've all seen it many times in every walk of life.

I would say it was negligent to point a loaded gun in a classroom full of kids. I don't know if you'd agree with me on this? I don't know how common It is for Officers on these educational visits to do this. I never went to school in the US.

I can absolutely see the wildlife argument for owning a gun. I don't see why that would ever change.
The same goes for sport and hunting.
I can see how the home protection argument holds currently but I'd like to think that could change. I sort off see this as a circular argument.
Personally I don't understand the Tyrannical Government argument at all. We saw the Arab Uprising happen so there is an argument there but they weren't facing the Might of the American Forces I don't think you could stop the American Government if they wanted to enslave you (Ghandi had the right idea and pretty much single handeldy started the distruction of the British Empire) but then I personally see governments as disorganised and incomptent aka YES MINISTER/YES PRIME MINISTER www.imdb.com... I think a lot of people give governments too much credit to organise conspiracies, they can barley organise themselves without stabbing each other in the back.

Can I say though I'm not expecting you to convince me otherwise and I'm not expecting to change your mind either. I've said it before but I'll say it again. We come from different cultures. I'm pretty sure that had I been brought up in your culture I'd probably see things your way. Vice versa you'd probably see things my way in the same way that you'd probably be watching Cricket and I'd be watching Baseball.

reply to post by Gargamel


Oh I get it, we are playing "what ifs'.
How very childish.

Ok, I see your "one has a firearm", and raise you "I kill all 5 and live for the next fight".
Your approach is all wrong and very ridiculous.

You go ahead and take your beating from the 5.
I will take my chances while being armed and being able to level the field, and hopefully STOP those wanting to harm me.

Gun ownership is very much like auto insurance. I my personal case I am 51 years old, I have NEVER had a speeding ticket in my life, and the three car accidents I have been in where the other persons fault, each time.

Yet, I am required to pay monies out that I do not ever have a need for, so I SHOULD be able to drive my car without insurance, cause I'm a good driver, correct?

a Gun is the same thing, it's not for "killing" it's "insurance" you may never ever need it but if that day comes, you'll want it.


(Personal disclaimer) I do not own a weapon other than my body, I'm a dual black belt in Moo du kwan tan su do and Aikido and I'm 6'4 with 35 inch reach

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Gargamel

 

Oh I get it, we are playing "what ifs'.
How very childish.

Ok, I see your "one has a firearm", and raise you "I kill all 5 and live for the next fight".
Your approach is all wrong and very ridiculous.

You go ahead and take your beating from the 5.
I will take my chances while being armed and being able to level the field, and hopefully STOP those wanting to harm me.

Not playing anything. It's a logical conclusion to the situation. Five guys try to jump you, you pull out your gun, they pull out theirs and people get shot, most likely you. Life isn't a movie and you are not Charles Bronson in Deathwish.

Anyways, was there a point you were trying to make with your reply because I don't see one?

Originally posted by jhn7537
I have quite a few friends who love guns and with everything that's going on they are beginning to act a little fanatical. It's honestly kinda creepy. They're making a bigger deal about guns then the state of our own economy.

It's only because so many politicians are doing the same.

When they stop attacking we'll stop defending.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by jhn7537
I have quite a few friends who love guns and with everything that's going on they are beginning to act a little fanatical. It's honestly kinda creepy. They're making a bigger deal about guns then the state of our own economy.

It's only because so many politicians are doing the same.

When they stop attacking we'll stop defending.

How are they attacking you and what exactly are you defending? Would like to get your take on both points, because I feel that most have differing views and understandings when it comes to this subject as a whole

reply to post by Gargamel


Yes, the point is simple.
I do have training for such things.
Usually the producing of a firearm in such an instance will have most running away, as opposed to beating a victim without a shot fired.
You are playing what ifs, so I played along.

You sound and come across as being very educated in Hollywood and Liberal drivel. That is nice and all, but not real world.

Again, you go ahead and take your beating from the 5.

I, will be armed and will work to stop the threat.

But, since you aren't even a US citizen, your opinion of OUR gun laws means even less.