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.
So it's ok to carry in a place you're not likely to need your gun, but it's crazy to carry in the places where you're much more likely to need it? Is that REALLY what you're saying?
Wow.
Again, he mentioned earlier he's quite well versed martial arts so confident he could defend himself against an armed assailant.
He studied in in high school and used it against bullies just like that Karate Kid movie.
Not relevant. A firearm is not the only option for self defense for most people. I am reasonably confident in my ability to defend myself in situations which have a reasonable chance of happening.
Not relevant. A firearm is not the only option for self defense for most people. I am reasonably confident in my ability to defend myself in situations which have a reasonable chance of happening.
I'm so happy for you.
Too bad for the elderly, handicapped or
anyone else who ain't badazz like you.
That is not what the supreme court said. They said the police are not responsible for every single individual. In no way does that mean you should not call them.
Who said that you shouldn't call them? I certainly never wrote nor implied any such thing.
What I ACTUALLY wrote is that you can't RELY on them to protect you. That's YOUR job. THEIR job is cleaning up the mess after a crime has been committed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
Eh, maybe if you live in Somalia. Not in the USA.
There needs to be a new version of Godwin's Law, but rather than Hitler or Nazis, it would reference Somalia as the triggering phrase.
In other words, your bringing up that country automatically loses you the debate. If you have to resort to that kind of idiotic comparison, then you simply don't have a position to defend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
That just means you passed their standard for issuing one.
For example, do they require a test to detect personalities prone to violent behavior?
What would that test be comprised of? Who would administer it? How would it be scored? Who makes the final determination? Are they elected or appointed?
And the most obvious question of all: Why on earth would you willingly cede your Constitutional rights to a system which uses a subjective test to determine whether or not you're eligible to exercise them?
Would you subject yourself to such a test in order to obtain a permit to speak your mind? Should we have you psychologically evaluated before we decide whether or not a warrant will be necessary to search your home? Are you a religious person? If so, we need to give you a test before you're allowed to practice. After all, throughout history, religion has been used as justification for countless murders, and is therefore FAR more dangerous than any one person who happens to carry a gun for defense.
Just to pull the moral high ground out from under you, you are just as paranoid as the guy carrying the gun.
More so, IMO.
A person that carries is preparing for a potential surprise situation. A person who won't go near their friend after discovering that they own a gun is afraid of a single, specific individual that has done nothing whatsoever to deserve that response. THAT is true paranoia.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,027 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speleothem
I'm so happy for you.
Too bad for the elderly, handicapped or
anyone else who ain't badazz like you.
Many elderly people are highly adept in martial arts. The instructor of my instructor in high school recently passed away but was still practicing martial arts the year he died. He was 88 and I believe he was an 8th degree black belt. He certainly had no problem defeating teenagers from other studios who were using mma. As far as handicapped, if they are disabled to the point that they can't use their limbs, it is unclear how useful a firearm would be to them.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,027 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
More so, IMO.
A person that carries is preparing for a potential surprise situation. A person who won't go near their friend after discovering that they own a gun is afraid of a single, specific individual that has done nothing whatsoever to deserve that response. THAT is true paranoia.
It wouldn't necessarily bother me if I learned a friend carries a firearm if I lived in a place where it was common. San Jose and the bay area are not such places.
Many elderly people are highly adept in martial arts. The instructor of my instructor in high school recently passed away but was still practicing martial arts the year he died. He was 88 and I believe he was an 8th degree black belt. He certainly had no problem defeating teenagers from other studios who were using mma. As far as handicapped, if they are disabled to the point that they can't use their limbs, it is unclear how useful a firearm would be to them.
You really expect the elderly to take on a young, fit offender, possibly armed?
How about multiple offenders. Are you Jackie Chan?
...........such as when I travel, it's with my USP at the ready. If I am spending overnight at some place at someplace, one can probably bet their money on it that there is a rifle with me as well.
Now, boy or girl, what's the reaction to that?
Now for me, the pistol is part of life. Whether it is USP or a suitable substitute for the mission, it's the way I am. And, if I am far from home and something were to go down, I'd rather have the rifle with me than to be thinking how I an fight back to the armory to get it.
But let's expand the gun question just a little bit more where one knows that if away from home, their boy(girl)toy will be packing...............what's the reaction?
It's not just for me.............but overall. What's the response?
I don't own any guns, but my neighbor does (maybe all my neighbors). I think everyone should have guns to protect their families. I have thought about this a lot, and a friend from church told me I needed one. I'm not quite there yet (maybe too old now). I have nothing against guns. Just never got interested in them myself, but I did fire some guns, including a .44 Magnum that a friend had bought in Hong Kong (Navy days) OMG!!!! That thing had power! I always thought it was for show in the movies when the shooting arm wound up pointed at the sky!!! It isn't.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,027 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
What I ACTUALLY wrote is that you can't RELY on them to protect you. That's YOUR job.
No, self defense is your right. Defending the public is the job of the police.
Quote:
THEIR job is cleaning up the mess after a crime has been committed.
No, their job is to protect the public. If they are in a position to prevent a crime they certainly will do so as it is part of their duty.
Quote:
What would that test be comprised of? Who would administer it? How would it be scored? Who makes the final determination? Are they elected or appointed?
And the most obvious question of all: Why on earth would you willingly cede your Constitutional rights to a system which uses a subjective test to determine whether or not you're eligible to exercise them?
So, basically, the ccw permit doesn't tell me anything about your fitness to carry a concealed firearm. Thank you fit confirming my suspicions.
Quote:
Would you subject yourself to such a test in order to obtain a permit to speak your mind? Should we have you psychologically evaluated before we decide whether or not a warrant will be necessary to search your home? Are you a religious person? If so, we need to give you a test before you're allowed to practice. After all, throughout history, religion has been used as justification for countless murders, and is therefore FAR more dangerous than any one person who happens to carry a gun for defense.
The obvious difference is that religion is not designed to cause damage to a target. A gun is designed as a weapon. That means it affects the rights of others.
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.
