Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

Wow. It must really suck to have to go through life afraid of everybody all the time.

 

Couple things I notice all these armed 'heroes-in-waiting' don't seem to consider:

Supposing somebody does shoot up the next Luby's or Jack's you are in...

What if you're one of the first ones shot and killed?

  What if you're not and you shoot the wrong person?

 

Either one is likely to happen first. Specially since prolly every yahoo in the place is likely to be packin'.

 

________________________________

Always a silly argument, especially if the alternative is no one is armed -- then many die.  Odds are of several are armed, then more will be available to take out the criminal.

 

___________________

 

And up the odds of even more innocent people being killed in the crossfire. Not to mention the confusion the police will have trying to figure out who the real bad guy is. 

 

Why are those things not of more importance to some of you? I will say again that I support the 2nd Amendment, and I own a gun that I ccw from time to time. Yet I completely understand the danger of so many people walking around on a daily basis with guns strapped to their side just waiting on a chance to use it. The majority are not trained to use it in a mass shooting type scenario. Which is the argument that is used to support their carrying of the weapon at all times to all places. 

 

__________________________________________________________

Problem is that reality doesn't match your scenario.  There are several studies showing when civilians fire to stop crime, innocent bystanders are much LESS likely to be shot, than if the police were involved.  Most likely reasons are that the civilians are first on the scene and know who the criminals are and the civilians are better shots, than the police.

A few examples of such studies"

http://www.redstate.com/cmndr4...-or-armed-civilians/

"With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that's an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that's an average of 2.33."

  

https://mrc.daveramsey.com/modules/fusetalk3/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=113811&threadid=433475

 

"On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%)."

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/la...gun-control-lobby/2/

 

While reviewing police shooting of innocent bystanders and mis-identification of persons wrongfully shot, I was surprised at the number of rounds fired.  There appears to be little fire discipline amongst the police.  My drill sergeant would have reamed me a new one for some what I've read.

There's been a lot of BS slung in this thread. Personally, I had a CCW in Atlanta and Huntsville. I let it lapse when I moved to Florence and will renew when I've lived here 4 or 5 months.  Rarely actually carry, but wish the ability to do so. I usually obtain a CCW to ensure when I target shoot, I'm fully legally covered.  I have one belt and holster capable of open carry, but probably would never use it,  Told my son it was in case of zombies. 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Question for Captain.

 

We both agree with protecting the 2nd amendment. What I am wondering is why do we split when it comes to guns being present in public? I guess what I am saying is this. It is one thing to rightfully own guns for your protection, but it seems like a different argument to want to have them in every aspect of life. 

 

The entire reason I, and most every other person who carries, carry is for my protection.  At home, at Walmart, church, local gas station, etc, etc.  No different  than in my home.  I have that constitutional right.

 

Guns serve a purpose. We have the right to own them. Do we not have a moral obligation to control the use and impact they can have on our society? 

 

What impact are you referring to?  You are attempting to 'control' the use of guns by criminals.  By definition, criminals are going to break the law.  Morally and legally.  The ONLY way you could remotely prevent it is to do away with EVERY GUN IN CIRCULATION.  Its not possible and, even if it was, it would not be morally right either.

 

I had a talk with my 4 year old grandson a few months back about being in a situation where someone starts shooting. I told him to run if he could, hide if he couldn't run. He was visiting me last week and we were in downtown Florence and he saw a man in a store with a gun strapped to his side, not concealed. He started pulling me and I said what is wrong and he said "We have to run, before he shoots us"  He was terrified. The problem it presented me was trying to figure out a way of telling him when to be afraid and when not to. I couldn't think of any good way of doing that, because I would rather him run away before someone starts shooting than to wait and find out if they are up to no good or not. 

 

Your mistake was to teach your grandson to fear guns, instead of teaching him to respect them and fear criminals.  Do you teach your grandson to fear strangers to the point that he cowers in fearevery time  someone he doesn't know says 'hello' on the street?  Teach him to respect guns and to fear people who misuse them.  Teach him to run and hide if gunfire erupts if you feel the need, but also teach him that guns are not bad, they are a tool that requires care and respect to use.

 

I never faced this issue with my children, they are all in their 20's now. I can't remember seeing one person in a store (other than police) with a gun on their hip. Today children have to somehow live in a society where the only way they are going to know when to run is when the bullets start flying and hope they don't get hit in the crossfire.

 

Why? 

Maybe you should be asking criminals why they show so little respect for life anymore.  Why is it easier for a criminal to kill someone they are mugging than 20 years ago?  Why do criminals have so little respect for human life anymore?  Maybe its the criminal justice system?  Maybe its the way kids a raised today (lack of 2 parents, etc).  Either way, you are asking the 'law abiding gun owner' why they carry to defend themselves instead of asking whats driving society to feel the need to do so.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Question for Captain.

 

We both agree with protecting the 2nd amendment. What I am wondering is why do we split when it comes to guns being present in public? I guess what I am saying is this. It is one thing to rightfully own guns for your protection, but it seems like a different argument to want to have them in every aspect of life. 

 

Guns serve a purpose. We have the right to own them. Do we not have a moral obligation to control the use and impact they can have on our society? 

 

I had a talk with my 4 year old grandson a few months back about being in a situation where someone starts shooting. I told him to run if he could, hide if he couldn't run. He was visiting me last week and we were in downtown Florence and he saw a man in a store with a gun strapped to his side, not concealed. He started pulling me and I said what is wrong and he said "We have to run, before he shoots us"  He was terrified. The problem it presented me was trying to figure out a way of telling him when to be afraid and when not to. I couldn't think of any good way of doing that, because I would rather him run away before someone starts shooting than to wait and find out if they are up to no good or not. 

 

I never faced this issue with my children, they are all in their 20's now. I can't remember seeing one person in a store (other than police) with a gun on their hip. Today children have to somehow live in a society where the only way they are going to know when to run is when the bullets start flying and hope they don't get hit in the crossfire.

 

Why? 


Well said!!  That is what I am trying to say.  Kids hug teachers all the time, and the older kids catch things we adults think they don't.  No, I don't think kids are fine with hugging their beloved (or feared) teacher and finding a gun there.  No, since most adults can't tell who the band and good guys with guns are, how are kids supposed to tell that?  It changes a relationship with a student in a classroom if the kids know teaching is packing a gun.  My kids love their sweet teachers and they look up to them, and they would be horrified and confused if they saw a gun on someone in school.  They see bits about shootings all the time and hear things kids shouldn't have to hear even though ours don't watch news or shows with people shooting each other.  They know there is pain and blood and they deserve to go to school knowing they aren't going to have to figure out if Mrs. Whoever is going to shoot them like that man did in the game or on tv or some movie some parents let their kids watch where people blow each other away.  The bad guys often look just like the good guys in real life, and teachers and coaches don't go into the fields of study because they want to be security guards.  

 

They don't deserve to have to wonder who has a gun and who might shoot them, and the fact is that if we can't tell when people are carrying to harm someone any minute or just because they happen to be on the way to the shooting range, how are kids supposed to?  In schools there is no need for guns beyond any police who are assigned there as resource officers...there just isn't.  The chances of even the officer needing his gun while there are very small, and adding guns to that situation isn't going to make anyone more secure.

 

And for those of you who think those without guns are sheep who are going to run, think again.  I had had a gun pointed at me more than once and known a person had a gun in his bag while threatening me, and I didn't run, scream, bleat, or wait for some hero to come rescue me.  I basically talked the three people out of using the guns (not saying that always works, of course).  What you don't seem to understand is that  no one asked any of you to carry guns to protect those who don't.  If you legally keep one at home to protect your house that is your business, but I don't expect or want you to be protecting me and my family.  I have no idea who you are, what training or common sense you have, and if I catch a glimpse of your gun not knowing you are law enforcement, who I do pay taxes to train and protect me as best they can (no, I know no one is perfect and they can't be everywhere at once), I am not taking the risk to assume you are a great person with peaceful intent.  I'm not going to be afraid of you, but I'm not going to have a clue if you are a nut or a good guy.  If I want and am legally able to I will protect my own home as I see fit, but no one asked you to be a sheepdog, and if fact I would prefer personally that you didn't assume you have that right or responsibility.

 

It is a legitimate question.  How are we supposed to know that some guy in WalMart or at a school (if you say they should and can carry there) is someone we need to report or some nice guy who happens to carry a gun?  How are kids supposed to know that?  All those good old days weren't as the world is now.  Now guns are all over the movies, tv, and in real life, and they are exposed to shows where supposedly sheepdog people took out guns and suddenly blew people away.  Look at the violence around and please explain how kids are supposed to know it isn't a guy like one on the movie last night or the video game?  Or the guy on the news who blew away the kids or broke in the house to blow people away?  If they see a gun on some fellow or woman at a game or in the halls, how should they automatically know it isn't someone who will hurt them?  How are they not to be afraid of the situation and have flashes of those horrible events?  I sincerely want to know, please.

 

Mind you, I'm not saying every gun carrier will hurt someone, but why shouldn't I be afraid if I see someone I don't know with one or someone I know who has a short fuse or is weird?  How do I explain to my kids who is the good guy if so many insist they must carry everywhere on the very off chance someone "might" do something where they might absolutely need to shoot someone?  I am not being facetious here, but honestly asking.  If you can't tell who is okay with a gun when s/he buys one (sometimes people are legal and then kill people), it's okay to sell to anyone you want who hasn't been screened or trained, then how can I tell my kids they are safe around the general public if they see a gun on someone?  

 

I am interested and ready to learn 

 

 

 

Frog,

It seems you are more fearful than the supposed gun nuts!  I have a CCW permit and yes like dog I am trained to act if something happens.  I am the exact opposite of roads stereotype of looking to get involved I avoid it at all cost unless backed into a corner.  Also, I would be very hesitant to intervene in someone else's conflict unless I can clearly know who the bad guy is.  This is because I have simply too much to loose if it goes bad.   I would rather have a gun and never have to use it than need it and not have it and my loved one get killed.

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:

Frog,

It seems you are more fearful than the supposed gun nuts!  I have a CCW permit and yes like dog I am trained to act if something happens.  I am the exact opposite of roads stereotype of looking to get involved I avoid it at all cost unless backed into a corner.  Also, I would be very hesitant to intervene in someone else's conflict unless I can clearly know who the bad guy is.  This is because I have simply too much to loose if it goes bad.   I would rather have a gun and never have to use it than need it and not have it and my loved one get killed.


No, I actually am not afraid of many things, actually.  You can assume that, but it just isn't true. I feel really calm in emergencies and deal with whatever.   I am very glad you feel how you describe.  I have met more of the opposite extreme than how you describe yourself, but I recognize that people aren't a bunch of stereotypes and fall all the way across the spectrum.  

Originally Posted by Kate Colombo:

This could be considered slightly off topic, but it does involve guns in the workplace (not in vehicles necessarily, but in offices as well). I now work at a company were almost everyone has several degrees. One of my three bosses has a gun in his office even though it is against company policy. I'm not concerned about this since all those who work in our building are college educated and mentally stable engineers, etc.

 

However, early in my business career, I've worked in places where customers, some irate, would enter to conduct business. Some employees were related to each other and very much the cowboy type. Several times I've witnessed someone come in angry and be observed by those who had no contact with the "front of the house" employees, but usually these same employees would say to someone (or almost anyone), "Do you think I should get my gun?"

 

No, I'm pretty sure irate customers can be handled without a gun 99.99% of the time. It bothers me that these cowboy types had guns to begin with. What's going to happen now that these types can run to their cars and arm themselves in seconds?

So are you saying that people in the building you work  in  "are college educated" and therefore college educated are not capable of maybe shooting someone, but if you are not college educated you are a shooter and should not be allowed to have a gun?

So far, the thread contains mostly opinion about presence of firearms in preventing or causing crime and violence. However, there are a number of studies showing that civilians carrying firearms reduce crime -- as much as 2 to 2.5 million instances annually.  Please note that its the presence, not always the use of firearms that cause a crime not to happen.  IAW, a person may inform another that he is armed, let his coat drift back to reveal a firearm or draw the firearm causing the would be miscreant to change his mind and leave. 

 

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University

University Study Confirms Private Firearms Stop Crime 2.5 Million Times Each Year
By J. Neil Schulman
4-20-7

 

… “Our results ended up indicating, depending on which figures you prefer to use, anywhere from 800,000 on up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive uses of guns against human beings -- not against animals -- by civilians each year.”

 

http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

  

John R. Lott, Jr.

School of Law

University of Chicago

 

“Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly.”

http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gunslott.html

“Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens

By Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett 

February 2, 2012 “

 

http://object.cato.org/sites/c...WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

 

From jmm: So are you saying that people in the building you work  in  "are college educated" and therefore college educated are not capable of maybe shooting someone, but if you are not college educated you are a shooter and should not be allowed to have a gun?

 

_______________________________________________________

 

I'm saying the people I work with are mainly engineers who don't have a sense of humor, much less tendencies toward violence.

 

Second, most individuals who have the self control to finish up masters programs (as in actually do it and not pay someone else to do it), don't usually feel the need to flash a gun every time someone raises his or her voice. I think you'll find most studies will bear this out.

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Question for Captain.

 

We both agree with protecting the 2nd amendment. What I am wondering is why do we split when it comes to guns being present in public? I guess what I am saying is this. It is one thing to rightfully own guns for your protection, but it seems like a different argument to want to have them in every aspect of life. 

 

Guns serve a purpose. We have the right to own them. Do we not have a moral obligation to control the use and impact they can have on our society? 

 

I had a talk with my 4 year old grandson a few months back about being in a situation where someone starts shooting. I told him to run if he could, hide if he couldn't run. He was visiting me last week and we were in downtown Florence and he saw a man in a store with a gun strapped to his side, not concealed. He started pulling me and I said what is wrong and he said "We have to run, before he shoots us"  He was terrified. The problem it presented me was trying to figure out a way of telling him when to be afraid and when not to. I couldn't think of any good way of doing that, because I would rather him run away before someone starts shooting than to wait and find out if they are up to no good or not. 

 

I never faced this issue with my children, they are all in their 20's now. I can't remember seeing one person in a store (other than police) with a gun on their hip. Today children have to somehow live in a society where the only way they are going to know when to run is when the bullets start flying and hope they don't get hit in the crossfire.

 

Why? 

------------

Hmmm... That IS a good question.

 

+++

 

Question for Jank

 

Having two grandsons who were introduced to firearms since birth by a LEO grandfather who explained to them early on the history of the 2nd Amendment and how it related to the reason for the good guys Constitutional right to defend themselves and their family through open/concealed carry was in response to the murders committed by bad guys, I would have loved to respond to your public PM to the Capt.  But out of respect to my BFF, I didn’t.

 

So let me ask you a pubic PM question instead.

 

If you had first hand knowledge that your grandchildren were being transported daily to their school by a bus driver, a self confessed bad azz wannabe yet who had no defense against an armed attacker who would take your grandchildren entrusted to his care hostage except carburetor cleaner and possibly a can of hair spray  and whose self professed published death wish was to die in a pile of twisted chrome and burning gasoline, would you be okay with that?

 

You know something Jank.  The major difference between you and Pup is you with your firearm, you would defend your family to your last round to the death.  I have no doubt about it.

 

Pup regards that mentality as a gunslinger.  His tactic would be to surprise the shooter by stacking as many bodies between himself and the shooter as possible. Your grandchildren included.  And run like hell.

 

Originally Posted by Capt James T:

 

The entire reason I, and most every other person who carries, carry is for my protection.  At home, at Walmart, church, local gas station, etc, etc.  No different  than in my home.  I have that constitutional right.

 

Yes, we already established that we have the right. I just don't understand why you feel the need to carry everywhere you go. I don't understand why some people think they should display it on their hip. I have no fear of guns. I fear strangers with guns. Any sane person should. 

 

 

What impact are you referring to?  You are attempting to 'control' the use of guns by criminals.  By definition, criminals are going to break the law.  Morally and legally.  The ONLY way you could remotely prevent it is to do away with EVERY GUN IN CIRCULATION.  Its not possible and, even if it was, it would not be morally right either.

 

 

I'm not talking about the criminals. Of course they don't respect the laws. I am talking about the so called "responsible gun owners" To me that responsibility comes with a certain amount of discretion and common sense. I know you have seen the pictures, and videos from around the county that show these "responsible gun owners" walking down side walks in their town with a gun slung over their shoulder or a pistol in plain view on their hip. I watched a video recently where people called the police because a man in a fast food restaurant had a gun laid on the table. The family that called the police had small children and were scared that their family and everyone else in the place was in danger. Why should they not? This was a total stranger. How stupid and irresponsible would those people be to just blow it off and continue eating and then minutes later he opened fire and killed several people, possibly their own children? That is the impact I am talking about. The confusion and danger of putting guns in public in a way that makes it impossible to know who the crazy nut job is and who the "responsible gun owner" is. 

 

Your mistake was to teach your grandson to fear guns, instead of teaching him to respect them and fear criminals.  Do you teach your grandson to fear strangers to the point that he cowers in fearevery time  someone he doesn't know says 'hello' on the street?  Teach him to respect guns and to fear people who misuse them.  Teach him to run and hide if gunfire erupts if you feel the need, but also teach him that guns are not bad, they are a tool that requires care and respect to use.

 

At 4 he is not old enough to be able to pick out a criminal vs a "responsible gun owner" What I told him was that if he were somewhere and someone started shooting he should run away from the gunfire. That conversation was not even geared towards the gun, but to the shooter. Since he is a very intelligent child when he saw a stranger carry a gun on his hip he immediately had a very natural reaction and wanted to get away from him. I personally am proud that he was that observant and knew that it could be a dangerous situation. What p i s s e d me off was that this man who felt compelled to show off his gun didn't care that he confused a young child and might make it more difficult for him to know what the right thing to do the next time he sees a man with a gun. Will that one be a bad guy or a good guy? How will he know? We as adults and "responsible gun owners" don't need to put others in that situation. If you are going to carry hide it. However I see people all the time that have half a s s ed concealed their weapon and even as an adult I am suspicious and wary of that person. If you and others who say you carry for your protection see someone with a gun, shouldn't that be the person you are most leary of? If not, whats the point?

 

If you are not talking to your children about what to do if they are somewhere and someone starts shooting, then that would be your mistake. I would recommend that conversation. It has nothing to do with being afraid of guns, its about helping them understand who they can save their lives in that situation. In today's society with so many guns its as important as telling them what to do if a stranger approaches them or tries to take them. Talking about those kind of things are never a mistake. It's a mistake not to. 

 

 

Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
 

Question for Jank

 

Having two grandsons who were introduced to firearms since birth by a LEO grandfather who explained to them early on the history of the 2nd Amendment and how it related to the reason for the good guys Constitutional right to defend themselves and their family through open/concealed carry was in response to the murders committed by bad guys, I would have loved to respond to your public PM to the Capt.  But out of respect to my BFF, I didn’t.

 

You are welcome to respond. I was just trying to continue a discussing me and Capt had been having and there had been so much trolling by Roland that it was hard to wade through the crap he spews and stay on topic. I just addressed it to Captain hoping he could find it in the pile of garbage.

 

So let me ask you a pubic PM question instead.

 

If you had first hand knowledge that your grandchildren were being transported daily to their school by a bus driver, a self confessed bad azz wannabe yet who had no defense against an armed attacker who would take your grandchildren entrusted to his care hostage except carburetor cleaner and possibly a can of hair spray  and whose self professed published death wish was to die in a pile of twisted chrome and burning gasoline, would you be okay with that?

 

I actually know Road Puppy personally and I would have no fear of him driving my grandchild anywhere. He takes his responsibility to those kids extremely seriously. He is concerned with his driving and takes every precaution to ensure they arrive safe. I think you have mistaken his confidence to defend him self, and his ability to stay away from and out of confrontation, as him saying he is a bad ass. Knowing him as I do I understand that he is actually a very non confrontational and calm individual. He has a very easy way about him that conveys a sense of friendliness and peacefulness. As for how he prefers to die....that in no way means he would take a bus full of children with him. I know people who prefer to die doing the things that they love doing. He loves automobiles, and motorcycles. Why should he not want to go out doing what he loves? I would like to leave this world at the beach, its my favorite place to be, doesn't mean I want everyone else on the beach that day to go with me.

 

You know something Jank.  The major difference between you and Pup is you with your firearm, you would defend your family to your last round to the death.  I have no doubt about it.

 

Pup regards that mentality as a gunslinger.  His tactic would be to surprise the shooter by stacking as many bodies between himself and the shooter as possible. Your grandchildren included.  And run like hell.

 

As I said, I know RP. If he had to defend his family he would do whatever was necessary to do it. He is not anti gun. I actually think we have very similar ideas about guns and their danger and their usefulness. Contrary to the idea you have of him, I see him as the type that would stand in front of a man with a gun to put himself between the shooter and others. He really is a very nice and stand up guy. Just because he disagrees with some here, doesn't make him some kind of horrible person that would hide behind innocent people to save his own life. That's a pretty unfair and serious accusation to make. Don't you think?

 

Yes, I would defend my family at all cost. As I am sure you would too. RP would not hesitate to defend his family as well. Luckily we live in a country where we can have different opinions and ideas. I have seen him say more than once that he is not anti gun, and supports the 2nd Amendment. He just sees a lot of people that carry weapons that aren't necessarily level headed gun owners and it is very concerning to not just him, but me too.  

 

 

Originally Posted by Kate Colombo:

No grandchildren yet. Just a son and daughter.

 

+++

 

Just you wait.  Grandchildren are something special.  Hard to explain without it sounding trite.  But I think its grandchildren more than children that bonds liberals and conservatives alike.  We all want the best...and the safest.  I just hope logic prevails.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
 

Question for Jank

 

Having two grandsons who were introduced to firearms since birth by a LEO grandfather who explained to them early on the history of the 2nd Amendment and how it related to the reason for the good guys Constitutional right to defend themselves and their family through open/concealed carry was in response to the murders committed by bad guys, I would have loved to respond to your public PM to the Capt.  But out of respect to my BFF, I didn’t.

 

You are welcome to respond. I was just trying to continue a discussing me and Capt had been having and there had been so much trolling by Roland that it was hard to wade through the crap he spews and stay on topic. I just addressed it to Captain hoping he could find it in the pile of garbage.

 

Yeah.  I've got this image of QD sitting on a stool for hours watching men's sixes.

 

Loved your comment about gun p o r n...  I subscribe to the American Rifleman and I still had to laugh.  Too funny.

 

 

So let me ask you a pubic PM question instead.

 

If you had first hand knowledge that your grandchildren were being transported daily to their school by a bus driver, a self confessed bad azz wannabe yet who had no defense against an armed attacker who would take your grandchildren entrusted to his care hostage except carburetor cleaner and possibly a can of hair spray  and whose self professed published death wish was to die in a pile of twisted chrome and burning gasoline, would you be okay with that?

 

I actually know Road Puppy personally and I would have no fear of him driving my grandchild anywhere. He takes his responsibility to those kids extremely seriously. He is concerned with his driving and takes every precaution to ensure they arrive safe. I think you have mistaken his confidence to defend him self, and his ability to stay away from and out of confrontation, as him saying he is a bad ass. Knowing him as I do I understand that he is actually a very non confrontational and calm individual. He has a very easy way about him that conveys a sense of friendliness and peacefulness. As for how he prefers to die....that in no way means he would take a bus full of children with him. I know people who prefer to die doing the things that they love doing. He loves automobiles, and motorcycles. Why should he not want to go out doing what he loves? I would like to leave this world at the beach, its my favorite place to be, doesn't mean I want everyone else on the beach that day to go with me.

 

Seriously?  So if a guy you know tells you his dream is to go out in a blaze of glory and then drives off with your grandchildren you're okay with that?  Know something.  You're not alone.  Hannah Anderson's parents thought the same thing.  Her "uncle" gave blaze of glory a whole new meaning.

 

 

You know something Jank.  The major difference between you and Pup is you with your firearm, you would defend your family to your last round to the death.  I have no doubt about it.

 

Pup regards that mentality as a gunslinger.  His tactic would be to surprise the shooter by stacking as many bodies between himself and the shooter as possible. Your grandchildren included.  And run like hell.

 

As I said, I know RP. If he had to defend his family he would do whatever was necessary to do it. He is not anti gun. I actually think we have very similar ideas about guns and their danger and their usefulness. Contrary to the idea you have of him, I see him as the type that would stand in front of a man with a gun to put himself between the shooter and others. He really is a very nice and stand up guy. Just because he disagrees with some here, doesn't make him some kind of horrible person that would hide behind innocent people to save his own life. That's a pretty unfair and serious accusation to make. Don't you think?

 

Nope.  Its not a conclusion I came to.  He presents himself that way.  What other conclusion could I or anyone else come to.  You can't possibly think I'm the only one.  I think you need to have talk to your buddy.

 

Remember that school bus driver killed and that boy taken hostage?  Go back and read the forum comments and quote me what our resident bus driver bad azz expert wrote. 

 

Yes, I would defend my family at all cost. As I am sure you would too. RP would not hesitate to defend his family as well. Luckily we live in a country where we can have different opinions and ideas. I have seen him say more than once that he is not anti gun, and supports the 2nd Amendment. He just sees a lot of people that carry weapons that aren't necessarily level headed gun owners and it is very concerning to not just him, but me too.

 

Sure.  Like I would say bikers are Hell's Angles wannabes.  "No offence intended." 

 

Sorry, Jank.  Weak argument.

 

Since you know so much about him, how would Pup defend his family, exactly?  I mean by his definition without coming across as a gunslinger.

 

That is if he as a means of defense.

Last edited by budsfarm

Originally Posted by budsfarm:

Seriously?  So if a guy you know tells you his dream is to go out in a blaze of glory and then drives off with your grandchildren you're okay with that?  Know something.  You're not alone.  Hannah Anderson's parents thought the same thing.  Her "uncle" gave blaze of glory a whole new meaning.

 

I have never heard him say he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. Maybe he can clear this up for you. I have had to put my children on buses where I knew very little about the bus driver, I just had to trust that they would do their job. Same with leaving them in the care of teachers at their school. However, since I personally know RP and know that he truly takes his job seriously and his responsibility to the children extremely seriously, I would most definitely trust him to drive the bus my grand child was on. You are now comparing RP to this sicko that killed Hannah Anderson's mother, and little brother, before kidnapping her? Really Bud? Dang... I think you have really gone too far now. Nothing RP has ever said on these forums deserves to be interpreted in that manner. I know him, I don't know you outside this forum. If I do I would be surprised. I can't think of anybody I call friend that would make such a statement about someone without some real evidence to back it up. Not just a difference of opinion on gun control. 

 

Remember that school bus driver killed and that boy taken hostage?  Go back and read the forum comments and quote me what our resident bus driver bad azz expert wrote. 

 

I went back and found 2 threads about **** and the kidnapping of the boy in south Alabama. In the two I found, RP made no comments. If you have some ****ing evidence then you quote it. I can't find where he even discussed that particular incident on here. I actually talked to him in person about what happened. You could see in his face how he felt about the safety of his kids on the bus. I have no doubt he would have given his life just as that driver did trying to save those children. 

 

Why have you turned this thread into a personal attack on RP? Were my questions too hard to answer? How do you teach small children to tell the difference between those that open carry and the bad guys? Do you think those that open carry should be allowed to put all of society in that dilemma of trying to know who is a real threat and who just wants everybody to know they have a gun? 

 

 

Originally Posted by Bulldog63:

So this is the Liberal answer to gun control. Let the Police handle the situation. I wonder if this was your daughter or grand daughter would you feel the same way?

 

http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/;_ylc=...news-topstories.html


SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that '....law enforcement officers HAVE NO DUTY to protect individuals, but rather the public at large.' 

 

Remember, '....when seconds count, cops are only minutes away...'.

Originally Posted by Bulldog63:

So this is the Liberal answer to gun control. Let the Police handle the situation. I wonder if this was your daughter or grand daughter would you feel the same way?

 

http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/;_ylc=...news-topstories.html

 

 

I'm not sure what your asking me? My heart goes out to the family of Jennifer Martel. I really feel bad for the child that is left behind. I have a very close family member who has lived in an abusive relationship for years. Its really hard on the family to see all the warning signs and not be able to convience the woman to leave and stay away. Just like Jennifer my family member has had her abuser arrested and then he would be back out and home in less than 48 hours. When women see stories like this one it just reinforces their fear that if they report the abuse and call the police, he will kill them. I wish the law was tougher. Remy should have never been back out of the streets so fast, he had been arrested for assault 15 times! Imagine if that had been drug arrest? There is no way anyone can be arrested for drugs that many time without going to prison. Beat your wife and you can just keep getting out till you kill her. THEN the system will finally do something about it. 

 

If I had seen this happening to my neighbor I would have killed Remy. I would have no problem killing scum like him. 

Wellnow, Bud...

 

That was a pretty cheap shot, but since you've decided to attack me personally-let's us continue down that road and see where it goes to, shall we?

 

You seem to think that you have me all figured out.  Lemme tell ya that s#!t works both ways, cowboy.

Your description of your idea of me tells me more about how your head works than you'd ever want me to know. Put that together with the obvious fact that you seem to have the same mentality as Dog in that anybody who doesn't carry a gun everywhere is somehow 'less than a man' or 'shirking his responsibility' as a man to be able to kill people at a moment's notice. 

 

This gives me the idea that you have been conditioned to believe that daily life is not possible unless you're carrying a gun because you're a coward who can't interact with people unless you've got backup for your mouth on your hip. Either that or you're just plain *paranoid.*

 Like I keep saying-*Everybody's* a tough guy when they've got a gun.

 

THAT'S 'gangsta' mentality right there. Having a gun makes you 'somebody.'

 

So, Bud....Hypothetically..... What kind of man would you be if your right to carry a gun was abolished and you couldn't carry it anymore? 

 

Huh? What kind of man are you without a gun? I'd really like to know.

 

I can bet that you would be the kind that stops and thinks before shooting your mouth off at people strange to you. Maybe.  Maybe not. After all-stopping and thinking past the moment and considering all the possibilities before opening your mouth and being able to interact with people without fear is a skill acquired through trial and error and years of experience.....Something that a guy who's been behind a gun all his life probably has never had the opportunity to learn,

 

 Driving is *my* religion. I am a professional. I take it seriously-both procedurally and ethically and I can say with certainty that YOU are not even *remotely* qualified to judge my competency as a professional driver. Only those who I've worked with and the customers I've served over the past 27 years can do that.

 

As far as what kind of man I am? I've made no bones about it.  

 

I fear no one, and as hard as it apparently is for you to believe- I don't need a gun to feel that way.

It is not as you say, "my dream" to go out in a blaze of glory, although, like Jank said-I'd rather go out doing something out in the world (riding motorcycles) that I love doing than to die whimpering and scared, hiding in a dark corner behind reinforcements with a gun.

 

I live life. I go out and take big bites of it. I got a lotta livin' to do before I die and I don't have time to waste being afraid of all the muggers or the burglars or the gun nuts in the restaurant. 

That's no way to live as far as I'm concerned.

 

Like I said before, if not carrying a gun makes me a badass-then so be it. I'm a badass then.

You could only hope to have balls that big and round.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Dog: 

"This ain't the wild west, muh&*&&er! We aren't squaring off in the middle of main street at high noon!"

 

 

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:

  I am the exact opposite of roads stereotype of looking to get involved I avoid it at all cost unless backed into a corner.  Also, I would be very hesitant to intervene in someone else's conflict unless I can clearly know who the bad guy is.  This is because I have simply too much to loose if it goes bad.   I would rather have a gun and never have to use it than need it and not have it and my loved one get killed.

---------------------

Now THAT I can respect.

+1 to ya.

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

Wellnow, Bud...

 

That was a pretty cheap shot, but since you've decided to attack me personally-let's us continue down that road and see where it goes to, shall we?

 

You seem to think that you have me all figured out.  Lemme tell ya that s#!t works both ways, cowboy.

Your description of your idea of me tells me more about how your head works than you'd ever want me to know. Put that together with the obvious fact that you seem to have the same mentality as Dog in that anybody who doesn't carry a gun everywhere is somehow 'less than a man' or 'shirking his responsibility' as a man to be able to kill people at a moment's notice. 

 

This gives me the idea that you have been conditioned to believe that daily life is not possible unless you're carrying a gun because you're a coward who can't interact with people unless you've got backup for your mouth on your hip. Either that or you're just plain *paranoid.*

 Like I keep saying-*Everybody's* a tough guy when they've got a gun.

 

THAT'S 'gangsta' mentality right there. Having a gun makes you 'somebody.'

 

So, Bud....Hypothetically..... What kind of man would you be if your right to carry a gun was abolished and you couldn't carry it anymore? 

 

Huh? What kind of man are you without a gun? I'd really like to know.

 

I can bet that you would be the kind that stops and thinks before shooting your mouth off at people strange to you. Maybe.  Maybe not. After all-stopping and thinking past the moment and considering all the possibilities before opening your mouth and being able to interact with people without fear is a skill acquired through trial and error and years of experience.....Something that a guy who's been behind a gun all his life probably has never had the opportunity to learn,

 

 Driving is *my* religion. I am a professional. I take it seriously-both procedurally and ethically and I can say with certainty that YOU are not even *remotely* qualified to judge my competency as a professional driver. Only those who I've worked with and the customers I've served over the past 27 years can do that.

 

As far as what kind of man I am? I've made no bones about it.  

 

I fear no one, and as hard as it apparently is for you to believe- I don't need a gun to feel that way.

It is not as you say, "my dream" to go out in a blaze of glory, although, like Jank said-I'd rather go out doing something out in the world (riding motorcycles) that I love doing than to die whimpering and scared, hiding in a dark corner behind reinforcements with a gun.

 

I live life. I go out and take big bites of it. I got a lotta livin' to do before I die and I don't have time to waste being afraid of all the muggers or the burglars or the gun nuts in the restaurant. 

That's no way to live as far as I'm concerned.

 

Like I said before, if not carrying a gun makes me a badass-then so be it. I'm a badass then.

You could only hope to have balls that big and round.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Dog: 

"This ain't the wild west, muh&*&&er! We aren't squaring off in the middle of main street at high noon!"

 

 

Careful Bud. I think you caused the pup ta' blow  a gasket...

Jank -

 

correct me if i am misreading this, but it seems your issue with open carry is that you cant tell a good guy from a bad guy.

 

If that is the case, let me ask you this - how many criminals walk into a store, bank, etc, with a gun on their hip?  It almost every case, they keep the weapon concealed until they commit the crime.  So, wouldn't it make more sense that if you can see the weapon on their hip (open carry), chances are pretty slim that you should be worried about them committing a crime with the weapon?

 

It just seems to me that, by your comments, you should be more concerned about concealed carry. 

 

 

Jank,

Some say Zimmerman should not have "profiled" Treyvon and that we should not profile anyone by how they dress or look.  Why would you "profile" someone as being bad just because you see a gun on them and it's being carried properly?   I mean if I am told I should not watch closely a guy who looks like a thuglet or banger because that is profiling what is difference?

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:

Jank,

Some say Zimmerman should not have "profiled" Treyvon and that we should not profile anyone by how they dress or look.  Why would you "profile" someone as being bad just because you see a gun on them and it's being carried properly?   I mean if I am told I should not watch closely a guy who looks like a thuglet or banger because that is profiling what is difference?


This isn't about that case since he didn't have a gun and there was no mention of  thinking there was a gun.  No one said anyone shouldn't be aware of surroundings, and that includes everyone around...not fear, but awareness.  I hate tell you this, but men in nice clothes and light skin commit nasty crimes, too.  But anyway, if you have been in America for any length of time do you really have to ask why people might be a bit wary of people carrying guns.  Seriously?  You have to ask?  I can promise you that I will not ever be shot by a person who doesn't have a gun with him or her.  I wouldn't say most people carrying one would shoot, but I really don't know that.  

 

But then, I walk with my head up aware of my surroundings, I park under lights at night, and I lock my doors.  If someone strange comes to my door I am ready with a frying pan next to me on my stove..but I am not expecting to have to whack anyone or be mugged.  There has to be a level of trust that people go out, to school, stores, church, and so forth every day without getting hurt, and I refuse to live in fear.  I prepare, but I don't go around waiting for everyone to jump me.  On the other hand, when I see a gun under a stranger's jacket in a store I am not so sure it's a good guy.  I don't have all the information upon which to judge that, so it would be silly to assume everyone is awesome, just as it is to assume everyone is about to shoot me.  

 

And yes, if I see a person in a hoodie with face covered I notice the person because s/he is covering the face.  You really wouldn't want us to walk around naively like targets, would you?  It seems as is some who want guns everywhere think that people who don't carry are targets and sitting ducks who can't take care of themselves.  That is just as silly to assume as assuming that every single person carrying is a drunk cowboy about to shoot the place up.  Profiling says that because you are black, young, white, poor, or some other group I automatically assume you are guilty of something and will until you prove you are innocent.  Being aware and prepared says I know the word isn't perfect, some people are violent, and many aren't.  Rich white guys in suits can shoot me just as dead as a black guy in a hoodie, so I go more by the feeling I get from a person and his/her behavior than color or dress.  This isn't about profiling, but about noticing a person near you with a lethal weapon and not really knowing what his intention is.  It's about my kids asking if they are going to be shot if they see it, and no, they don't know just as none of you do whether a person is okay or not, no matter how many guns they are around.

Frog,

I am sorry you are afraid if you see someone carrying, I see people fairly regularly who are carrying and I do not get concerned of scared.  This largely depends on the setting and how the person looks, acts and the way they are carrying the gun " ie properly in holster or stuck in waist band etc" I still say its a form of profiling and guess what I say that is ok just as its ok to do the same if you see a group of thuglets approaching you.

 

BTW I do not live in fear either nor do I carry all the time but I do want the ability to do so if I choose.  I tromp all around this planet and cannot be armed and go to work so I do the same thing you do "good safety choices".

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:

Frog,

I am sorry you are afraid if you see someone carrying, I see people fairly regularly who are carrying and I do not get concerned of scared.  This largely depends on the setting and how the person looks, acts and the way they are carrying the gun " ie properly in holster or stuck in waist band etc" I still say its a form of profiling and guess what I say that is ok just as its ok to do the same if you see a group of thuglets approaching you.


Well, I would say I am automatically afraid.  I would say that I see a risk or threat that I didn't see there before, and while a gang of kids/men/people walking toward me might also be a risk, I don't have a reason to wonder directly about lethal intent or a lethal accident the same way with people simply walking toward me...I would read the situation as you said you would and yes, if a group of people (whatever color or clothing) are coming toward me and I read ill intent I wouldn't be hanging around and waiting to see what they were doing.  But profiling isn't the same as reading the situation based on that body language you mentioned.  That is street smarts and common sense.  Profiling assumes that if you are black or Hispanic you are pretty likely to be a thug or dealer or whatever, but if you are white and especially female you are probably not a thug or dealer.  It labels people before there is a solid reason and isn't based on anything but color or something similar.  White females can shoot you just as dead as young black males with their pants hanging.  That is my point, but I do see what you mean and why you think that.  

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×