Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Robert, they could just be going to THEIR car, or asking you if you happen to have a cigarette. I still get asked about cigarettes--but I simply tell them that I do not smoke. I get approached occasionally for things like this, but I merely stay aware of what they are doing. When I did smoke, however, I did not make the assumption automatically that they were going for a gun. I made the assumption that they were digging in their pocket for a lighter--and I have been correct thus far. Since I no longer smoke, this particular situation no longer comes up.
That's fine for you but I will keep my distance and preferrably something between us. I hope your lucky streak keeps going but I'm going to rely on preparation.
Except there is rational thought or experience wouldn't matter.
Whats your point anyway in this regard?
My point is that even though chefs do not use measuring cups when making a recipe, they have an intuitive awareness of what works and what does not work. But only in that field. They cannot translate that intuitive knowledge to some other field. Same with your person loading ammunition--it does not make him a chemist. He can "know" just how much powder to include without actively thinking about it, but he cannot apply such knowledge to any other area.
That's fine for you but I will keep my distance and preferrably something between us. I hope your lucky streak keeps going but I'm going to rely on preparation.
-Robert
Or fear. I do not believe showing fear or apprehension is a wise avenue to take. I would rather see the other person crossing the street as I approach, instead of doing that the other way around.
Or fear. I do not believe showing fear or apprehension is a wise avenue to take. I would rather see the other person crossing the street as I approach, instead of doing that the other way around.
I didn't mention fear. I might not even look directly at you but I know exactly where you are. Once on the radar, you are on it until I am sure there is no threat.
Violence is a fact of life around Memphis. Recently a man was walking his dog in a very nice neighborhood when a someone in a car stopped and asked for directions. The man started to reply when the driver decided to gun him down for no apparent reason. There was no robbery. The police think it was a gang initiation. Yes, the chances of that happening to me are miniscule. But that isn't enough for me. I take the steps to make the chances of being a victim almost non-existant. And in the unlikely case someone escalates a situation, I will be prepared.
A gun is not going to protect me when I have a gang of people surrounding me with guns of their own, and whose intent is to kill me.
You sure about that?
If none of them care about losing their own life, then you're right. But if they understand that one or two of them will likely die during their attack, how motivated do you think each of the individual attackers will be to make the first move?
I do like your use of outrageous scenarios that are exceptionally uncommon in real life (or outright fantasy) to try to make your case, though. It's a very common tactic with gun grabbers, and it (surprise) never works.
If none of them care about losing their own life, then you're right. But if they understand that one or two of them will likely die during their attack, how motivated do you think each of the individual attackers will be to make the first move?
I do like your use of outrageous scenarios that are exceptionally uncommon in real life (or outright fantasy) to try to make your case, though. It's a very common tactic with gun grabbers, and it (surprise) never works.
Explosives would be an even BIGGER deterrent. Instead of MAYBE getting shot, it is a 'You shoot me and you automatically die' deal.
Ahh yes, so we should just ignore 'exceptionally uncommon' scenarios altogether then, correct? What would be the purpose of carrying guns be then? Would it not be to defend yourself in 'exceptionally uncommon' scenarios?
Having your life threatened by another human being with a weapon is an 'exceptionally uncommon' event. Maybe not as uncommon in America (there are reasons for this) as other developed countries, but 'exceptionally uncommon' nonetheless.
Watch a lot of movies, do ya? You really shouldn't let Hollywood do your thinking for you.
Tell ya what - find one - just ONE report of this scenario actually happening and I'll send you a $25 Starbucks card. Really.
I do watch a fair bit of films, but I am pretty sure we watch different types of films, you and I. I have a large disdain for Hollywood, and rarely watch movies that come out of the big studios there. I am quite sure that your perceptions of the world are more affected by Hollywood/American media than mine.
Find ONE report of an instance where multiple attackers with guns killed ONE person? Gee, this might be hard....
Not as far as I can see. But it sure apears as if he wants to be taken seriously.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
