Do you drive with a gun?

[Thai]

I'm NOT a liberal, I DIDN'T type them with intent to push anti-gun laws on anyone. I have no issue with using guns to protect yourself and loved ones, again I was merely curious on how people would justify it, that is actually also why I started this poll.

If you are not a liberal, then you are a conservative...if you are not anti-gun, then you are pro-constitutional right to carry one. Correct? Well, the fact that you watch that idiotic Moore guy proves to me that you are not telling us the truth about where your beliefs lie....

So, going back to the point that you brought up earlier...you actually think that a woman withOUT a weapon is less a victim against a very determined rapist/attacker or that she will be harm less than a woman who is armed?? So, should she just spread her legs and let the attacker do his deeds...and pray that he won't do more harm to her? Or her infant child that is in the car? So, you want a woman who is submissive and defenseless...and just hope that the attacker is the kindly type??

 

[TRDCal]

If you are not a liberal, then you are a conservative...if you are not anti-gun, then you are pro-constitutional right to carry one. Correct? Well, the fact that you watch that idiotic Moore guy proves to me that you are not telling us the truth about where your beliefs lie....

So, going back to the point that you brought up earlier...you actually think that a woman withOUT a weapon is less a victim against a very determined rapist/attacker or that she will be harm less than a woman who is armed?? So, should she just spread her legs and let the attacker do his deeds...and pray that he won't do more harm to her? Or her infant child that is in the car? So, you want a woman who is submissive and defenseless...and just hope that the attacker is the kindly type??

Why do I have to be either liberal or conservative? FYI I didn't vote last election but if I had, I would have voted for the Green party or NDP, so it's not as cut and dry as liberal or conservative, there's more than 2 choices out there! (you know I'm Canadian right?) AND just becuase I watch something for entertainment doesn't mean thats my beliefs, hell if I watch lesbian porn it doesn't mean I'm gay, it's just entertaining. Just like if I watched a movie on the holocaust it doesn't mean I hate jews...get my point? I just find Mr. Moore and his facts entertaining, nothing more nothing less and as I said above, I know he is bias so it's not like I live by his every word.

And please stop bringing up the women with or without a gun thing, I thought we beat it to death already but I'll try and explain again. I brought that up as an example to help you all understand the question I was gonna ask. "Is it better to have a gun and have it turned on you or just not have the gun in the first place". I asked this question in hopes to spark a debate on that subject, not on the subject of wheither or not i'm a liberal. The reason I used a women in my example was because I didn't want a bunch of male hot heads replying to my statement saying "well I bench press 500lbs so no one could turn my gun on me" (again, just an example, not trying to start a debate on wheither or not bench pressing helps someone handle a gun). Again Thai, i'm not trying to insult you or you believes, I think your misinterpretting my intentions here. I just wanted a friendly debate on wheither people carry guns with them. And with that debate would come side debate like the one I attempted to start above but hasn't gone well so far. Can we not just agree to disagree on our opinions?

 

[Thai]

And please stop bringing up the women with or without a gun thing, I thought we beat it to death already

Actually, we have not beaten it to death because you have not explained yourself.

Again, you actually think that a woman withOUT a weapon is less a victim against a very determined rapist/attacker or that she will be harm less than a woman who is armed??

You have not answered...you've been jumping around the question, but not answered it yet.

Why have a gun at home? Aren't you scared that a robber will turn it against you too?

The whole point about a gun in a car or home is that it gives you a chance to either kill the attacker or scare them away. The element of surprise is on your side. Most attackers would not proceed if they see that you have a weapon...as stated above, they attack folks that are defenseless because it is safer and easier for them.

 

[KidVermicious]

And please stop bringing up the women with or without a gun thing, I thought we beat it to death already but I'll try and explain again. I brought that up as an example to help you all understand the question I was gonna ask. "Is it better to have a gun and have it turned on you or just not have the gun in the first place".

Thing is, TRD, you're getting dogpiled because that's a misdirecting question frequently used by anti-gun activists. Not to say that you're an anti-gun activist, just that's where that question comes from.

The reason it isn't a valid hypothetical is because is artificially limits the scenario. Any conclusion drawn by answering it is automatically faulty. Better to ask, "Is it better to be a trained firearms user and have a gun and have risk having it turned on you or just not have the gun in the first place". Of course, an anti-gun activist isn't going to ask that question for obvious reasons, hence the corrupt version you've heard and are asking.

 

[IanB]

I can't imagine feeling like I need to carry a concealed weapon to ensure my safety or that of my family.

I recently obtained my PAL (possession and aquisition licence), but I don't have any guns yet. When I do they will be for hunting and recreational use, not for protection of any sort. Gun laws here are such that guns need to be locked up, and ammo stored in a seperate part of the house, so that doesn't work very well for home protection either.

 

[Thai]

I can't imagine feeling like I need to carry a concealed weapon to ensure my safety or that of my family.

Desparate times means desparate measures by those who want to trespass on our property/rights. Poor economy + high unemployment rate = desparate measures.

Even in good neighborhoods nowadays, you hear of break-ins in DAYLIGHT hours...you hear restaurants being robbed during their busy hours...and this is why i have stayed away from luxury cars for the time being. I sure hope that i will NEVER use my weapon, but at the same time, i train with my weapon to ensure that i am capable of using it if that rare event ever happened. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Basic rule that i live by nowadays.

And...wow, Canada law sucks.

 

[IanB]

And...wow, Canada law sucks.

In many respects, I agree. It often seems like the victim gets a harsher sentance for using lethal force to defend themselves or their family than the criminal gets for attacking them in the 1st place. Faced with those consequences, those with the most to lose are better off not arming themselves it seems.

 

[TRDCal]

Actually, we have not beaten it to death because you have not explained yourself.

Again, you actually think that a woman withOUT a weapon is less a victim against a very determined rapist/attacker or that she will be harm less than a woman who is armed??

You have not answered...you've been jumping around the question, but not answered it yet.

The whole point about a gun in a car or home is that it gives you a chance to either kill the attacker or scare them away. The element of surprise is on your side. Most attackers would not proceed if they see that you have a weapon...as stated above, they attack folks that are defenseless because it is safer and easier for them.

Sorry for jumping around I thought I explained myself but I'll try again. I'll start by answering your question, NO I don't think an unarmed women is more or less a victim than an armed women. When faced with an VERY determined attacker, obviously it would be better to have a gun than no gun. But thats where this statement came in:

I brought that up as an example to help you all understand the question I was gonna ask. "Is it better to have a gun and have it turned on you or just not have the gun in the first place". I asked this question in hopes to spark a debate on that subject, not on the subject of wheither or not i'm a liberal. The reason I used a women in my example was because I didn't want a bunch of male hot heads replying to my statement saying "well I bench press 500lbs so no one could turn my gun on me" (again, just an example, not trying to start a debate on wheither or not bench pressing helps someone handle a gun).

I just put that out there as an example of the debate I wanted to start. The reason I used a women was because if I had of used a male, I thought that I would get replies saying "No one could ever take my gun from me because I have a penis".

Again, the women with or without a gun was an example, to help understand my question, I didn't mean for it to make you think that I'm anti-gun and think that all women in dangerous situations should be unarmed. One more time for good luck, I just wanted to spark a debate and used a women as an example. I could have easily used a man in the example but I didnt for the reason above. I just wanted to start a friendly debate to see how you guys would argue that its better to be armed than unarmed.

As for the last paragraph in your post. THANK YOU, that is more along the lines of the replies I was hoping for. That is a clear arguement for carry a gun around. Just what a debate needs!

Thing is, TRD, you're getting dogpiled because that's a misdirecting question frequently used by anti-gun activists. Not to say that you're an anti-gun activist, just that's where that question comes from.

The reason it isn't a valid hypothetical is because is artificially limits the scenario. Any conclusion drawn by answering it is automatically faulty. Better to ask, "Is it better to be a trained firearms user and have a gun and have risk having it turned on you or just not have the gun in the first place". Of course, an anti-gun activist isn't going to ask that question for obvious reasons, hence the corrupt version you've heard and are asking.

Thanks for pointing that out, its kinda makes more sense now as to why I was called an anit gun liberal. Sorry for the confusion. Hopefully my explantion above with do the trick, but If not i'll try again.

As for your new and improved debate question: What do you think?

 

[Thai]

I would hope that anyone who owns a gun would have some practice with it. Even my wife, who has not been fond of guns prior to marriage, is now open to practicing with her revolver. She actually enjoys shooting now! I think that anyone who knows how to handle their firearm will be better off in the hypothetical situation...because more often than not, the appearance of a firearm is enough to prevent a situation from escalating to something worst.

 

[KidVermicious]

As for your new and improved debate question: What do you think?

Well, like I said, I think it's a no brainer. All other things being equal, a person carrying a firearm and trained in it's use is going to be better able to handle a hostile situation than somebody who isn't, despite the minimal risk of having that firearm turned against them.

 

[the great him]

even a man/male with a weapon is at risk for having his weapon taken from him. i have trained both to, and above the military standard as well as law enforcement and private security standards for not only weapon retention but the ability to disarm and remove a weapon from someone elses control. and even i do not feel immune to having my weapon taken from me, its a risk you take anytime you introduce a weapon to a sitation, you do not know who you are going up against. you have to be able to think quickly and asses the situation and environment accurately so you can make the situation come out favorable for you. most police officer shootings occur with their own weapon used against them, its true, part of that problem is not having back up, again its a numbers game, when an officer confronts one or more people he is at a disadvantage. now if two officers confront two or more subjects their odds of having a situation escalate have over 400% decreased even if the number of people the two officers are confronting are twice their number. -basically numbers are your muscle, the two of you can watch each others backs and stop things before they happen. its hard for one officer to interact(weather it be frisking/searching or just talking) to one person and keep his/her eye(s) on other people in the area, thats where the mitigating factor or force multiplier of the second officer comes in, he/she can keep keep an eye on the rest of the people while the first officer can focus on the person they are interacting with. its a perception thing same applies to civilians if you are faced with one or more attackers perps even if you have a gun/weapon its probably best to try to find an exit and escape to call 911 or for assistance. use the weapon only to defend yourself if the perps become aggressive towards you(even if you are in your own home its best to leave if you are out numbered, now if you have small children then by all means stand your ground) do you get what im saying?

this is about numbers not male or female. i have been deployed with a couple of females that i would take in a heart beat over some guys(yes even infantry guys), cause their mental attitude was they didnt take BS from anyone and they where competent. same thing with fellow officers...

 

[TRDCal]

I think that anyone who knows how to handle their firearm will be better off in the hypothetical situation...because more often than not, the appearance of a firearm is enough to prevent a situation from escalating to something worst.

a person carrying a firearm and trained in it's use is going to be better able to handle a hostile situation than somebody who isn't, despite the minimal risk of having that firearm turned against them.

I guess these 2 posts pretty much sum up the conclusion of our debate. I have to agree that it makes sense, and I'm probably closer to carrying a gun than I was a week ago but the thought of it is still new to me so I think it will take time to get use to it. For now it's unneccesary but you never know where I'll end up in the future.

do you get what im saying?

this is about numbers not male or female. i have been deployed with a couple of females that i would take in a heart beat over some guys(yes even infantry guys), cause their mental attitude was they didnt take BS from anyone and they where competent. same thing with fellow officers...

Yah I here yah loud and clear, and it makes perfect sense. Strength in numbers! And I'm not sexist I'm well aware that there are plenty of women out there that could handle a gun or dangerous situation better than me or other men out there I just used a women a an example.

 

[Thai]

I guess these 2 posts pretty much sum up the conclusion of our debate. I have to agree that it makes sense, and I'm probably closer to carrying a gun than I was a week ago but the thought of it is still new to me so I think it will take time to get use to it. For now it's unneccesary but you never know where I'll end up in the future.

Just remember, if you're gonna carry, then make it a point to train and carry as often as possible. Why? Because you can never predict when you would "need" to use your gun. Heck, there have been a few cases of shooting in churches....

 

[noneckrex]

TRDcal.... I'm not mad at you brother...

 

[Thai]

You just never know: Jeanne Assam: 'It was me, the gunman, and God'

 

[TRDCal]

TRDcal.... I'm not mad at you brother...

Cheers man thanks, glad to here it even if I may be the black sheep in this debate :lol:

 

[034RUNNER]

Different weapons here. I would get way too angry and go nuts with anything serious like a gun.

 

[looper36]

Gun Nerd here. Let's not be so narrow minded. Sure , there are some people that should not own a gun. I also believe that there are some people that shouldn't own a pit bull. I love the breed and I enjoy shooting sports. Some people don't have the mental stability for either. If you live in an ivory tower and a gun is not nesessary in your daily life.... congratulations. Unfortunately, the rest of us live in the real world where bad things happen to good people for no reason at all. I will carry my guns and stash them in my 4runner. Guns can save lives when in the right hands.

 

[TRDCal]

If you live in an ivory tower and a gun is not nesessary in your daily life.... congratulations. Unfortunately, the rest of us live in the real world

LOL...Ivory tower, no and I'm not religious so I take a bit of offense to that. I don't get why I get labelled as a bible humping liberal because I don't feel the need to carry a gun around. It's not that my town is crime free, it's just that the rate of serious crimes is so low, that I have more chance of getting killed driving to the gun store that I do by a person I would require a gun to protect myself from. The biggest time for crime is fri./sat. night at the bar and it's nice to know that if you get in a fight, it'll will be carryed out like men with fists...You don't have to worry about someone pulling a knife or gun out, I mean eventhough your fighting, there's still a gentlemen's code. But thats because we're small town folk, if you went to Ottawa or Montreal you could get stabbed, anything goes in the cities these days, but in the country we keep it more civilized.

I can't say this enough...I RESPECT the fact that some use guns to protect their family, which if required, is great in my opinion, just don't give me the whole "its THE real world". It might be "YOUR real world" but its not "THE real world". I as well as many people I know have travelled all over the REAL WORLD and not always in resorts and I/we never felt it was necessary . If you live in a dangerous neighborhood then get a gun, BUT use it for its purpose > PROTECTION and not a d!ck extension!

P.S. The narrow minded statement was by you: "I need a gun because I live in the REAL world and everyone who doesn't need a gun lives in a biblical oasis.

 

[Prime]

4Runners AND guns? I heart this place.

I'll tell you what scares me, is people who think that the only thing preventing the average person from committing mass murder is a lack of opportunity. I don't get what kind of seething cauldron of rage you'd have to be to think it's reasonable to think people with carry permits are going to shoot each other in traffic. That's not directed at anyone, just Brady types in general, God bless 'em.

I've also found that the most lethal people I've ever met were also the most polite.



Kid, your sigline made me pee a little.