or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Pizza Hut denies man's right to carry a weapon!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pizza Hut denies man's right to carry a weapon! - Page 2

post #41 of 94
Oh come on, forgive me for stating the obvious but it's against company rules to carry a firearm. The man carried a firearm and lost his job. Of course he did.

It's against company rules because mistakes happen and Pizza Hut don't want to be dragged through courts and press because someone gets killed by the Company that Packs Heat. It's against company rules because it makes delivery people safer since they're less likely to get shot for their cash if they're not armed and people know it.

It's a completely responsible rule and they guy was totally right to lose his job. A school wouldn't let a teacher carry a gun, a bus company wouldn't let a driver carry a gun and a pizza firm wouldn't let a delivery man carry a gun.

He carried a gun. He lost his job. Tough shit. Should have had a different job.
post #42 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
A school wouldn't let a teacher carry a gun

Unless you live in Utah.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #43 of 94
um, is common man even old enough to have a gun? i'm not up on my gun-totin' laws.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #44 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by rok
um, is common man even old enough to have a gun? i'm not up on my gun-totin' laws.

I believe CM lives in Tejas. And I believe in Tejas the legal age at which one can get a concealed weapons permit is 4.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #45 of 94
Note to self: read Hassan's posts before duplicating. Oops!
post #46 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
"the best thing to do is just follow directions and the whole incident is typically over in no more than 30 seconds"

This is where people like many of you and people like me differ. I don't accept what is handed to me. I dont believe in cowering to a freak on the street any more than I believe in cowering to terrorists or SH or the UN or the French or whoever. If you don't take care of yourself, no one else is going to do it for you. Its not about surviving. Its about winning.

This is about the most dumb post I've ever seen here.

You're 16 for christ's sake! And if you're lying about that it still sounds dumb. The idea of a child like yourself running around with a gun with that attitude scares me. More reasons for stricter gun control.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #47 of 94
Have any of you actually ever been the victim of a violent crime? Would a gun have helped you in your situation? It helped me- in fact, it helped me to protect my family, myself, and my property, as well as put some people behind bars for a long time.

Someone tried to rob and car-jack me in a parking garage in San Antonio, Texas. The situation ended with my Glock in the perpetrator's face, the same face which was soon on the pavement and later behind bars.

My companion was shaken but not hurt in any way. Our lives were protected because I carry. So was my property. And now there is one less scum-bag out there to attack YOU PEOPLE who abhor those of who refuse to be victims. So YOU"RE WELCOME, gun grabbers.

Do you anti-gun folks really think that a person who wants to commit a rape, robbery, or murder gives two shits if he has a "legal" gun or not? Gun control will work when criminals obey the law- meanwhile many of you want to disarm law-abiding people. Nonsensical and stupid. Period.

Would any of you put a sign on your home that says "GUN-FREE HOME- WE ARE UNARMED" That would certainly make those meanies leave you alone, huh?

Go ahead, libs, call me what you want.

I pack heat. With pride.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #48 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
Have any of you actually ever been the victim of a violent crime? Would a gun have helped you in your situation? It helped me- in fact, it helped me to protect my family, myself, and my property, as well as put some people behind bars for a long time.

Someone tried to rob and car-jack me in a parking garage in San Antonio, Texas. The situation ended with my Glock in the perpetrator's face, the same face which was soon on the pavement and later behind bars.

My companion was shaken but not hurt in any way. Our lives were protected because I carry. So was my property. And now there is one less scum-bag out there to attack YOU PEOPLE who abhor those of who refuse to be victims. So YOU"RE WELCOME, gun grabbers.

Do you anti-gun folks really think that a person who wants to commit a rape, robbery, or murder gives two shits if he has a "legal" gun or not? Gun control will work when criminals obey the law- meanwhile many of you want to disarm law-abiding people. Nonsensical and stupid. Period.

Would any of you put a sign on your home that says "GUN-FREE HOME- WE ARE UNARMED" That would certainly make those meanies leave you alone, huh?

Go ahead, libs, call me what you want.

I pack heat. With pride.

Yup! But if everyone was that way you'd have to go at each other with clubs. There would be no drive by clubings. No one would get a club through their living room window by mistake. Tell me do you think it's about winning also?

When people make statements like CM just did it's just proof that there are too many people out there not mature enough to own a fire arm.

If the penalty for getting caught with a gun was strict enough criminals might think twice. It has to start somewhere. Something has to be done about this gun problem.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #49 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
Have any of you actually ever been the victim of a violent crime?

I've deleted vague personal info, but let's just say that, to me, the situation you described is relatively minor.
Quote:
I pack heat. With pride.

As far as I'm concerned, your attitude shows you are nothing more than a wannabe thug, on the same level of teenage gangbanger who depends on his gun for a sense of security. You've lowered yourself to the same level.

And yeah, I've been a gun owner. I'm also not really opposed to gun ownership for self-defense. But your attitude is just immature.
post #50 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I've deleted vague personal info, but let's just say that, to me, the situation you described is relatively minor.

As far as I'm concerned, your attitude shows you are nothing more than a wannabe thug, on the same level of teenage gangbanger who depends on his gun for a sense of security. You've lowered yourself to the same level.

And yeah, I've been a gun owner. I'm also not really opposed to gun ownership for self-defense. But your attitude is just immature.

I hope the same thing that happened to me happens to you. You need to feel what it likes to be a target, an almost-victim. That might help your perspective. A thug? I sent one to prison, instead of myself and family members to the morgue.

Smite makes right, my friend. When guns are outlawed, I will become an outlaw. Ain't the Bill of Rights GREAT?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #51 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Yup! But if everyone was that way you'd have to go at each other with clubs. There would be no drive by clubings. No one would get a club through their living room window by mistake. Tell me do you think it's about winning also?

If there was a magical way to get all the guns to disappear, including those of the criminals (and I say magical, because there is no such way), it might not be too bad for me. It would make most people way unsafer. You know why this is?

I'm young, fit, and most of all, have lots of potential to hurt people without using guns. Not unlike the average violent criminal.

The majority, peaceful people with no interest in violence, need the best equalizer available (handgun) to even have a chance.
post #52 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
I hope the same thing that happened to me happens to you. You need to feel what it likes to be a target, an almost-victim. That might help your perspective. A thug? I sent one to prison, instead of myself and family members to the morgue.

Smite makes right, my friend. When guns are outlawed, I will become an outlaw. Ain't the Bill of Rights GREAT?

Also By Gon :

-----------------------------------------------------------
" If there was a magical way to get all the guns to disappear, including those of the criminals (and I say magical, because there is no such way), it might not be too bad for me. It would make most people way unsafer. You know why this is?

I'm young, fit, and most of all, have lots of potential to hurt people without using guns. Not unlike the average violent criminal.

The majority, peaceful people with no interest in violence, need the best equalizer available (handgun) to even have a chance. "


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



Actually I believe most studies have shown that there's more chance of a deadly exchange ( for both parties ) if fire arms are involved on both sides. I'm assuming by your statements ( " instead of myself and family members to the morgue. " } that the car jacker also had a gun.

Also your statements Gon about being young and fit enough to hurt someone or in Jubelum's case that you'd become an outlaw if guns were outlawed don't impress me at all. In fact it kind of puts you in the same place as the car jacker.


Also I want to say I have nothing against hand guns per say ( as long as they aren't pointed at a person ). I've even have had fun going out target practicing with friends. I'm quite a good shot. It's just that there are way too many people out there ( kids mainly ) who aren't mature enough to have one and it's still way too easy to get one.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #53 of 94
[edit: I'm cutting out a lot because this is a conversation that I can't have online]

Arming everyone isn't going to solve the underlying problems.

Being a party to violence is not something to be proud of, it's something to be avoided. In the US, your property isn't worth a life. Property, particularly in this country, is far more ephemeral than life.
post #54 of 94
And, as I mentioned, I don't have a problem with responsible adults carrying guns. However, someone who feels 'pride' about being armed is dangerous, particularly if they get giddy about the potential of using it on another human.
post #55 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Also your statements about being young and fit enough to hurt someone or in Jubelum's case that you'd become an outlaw if guns were outlawed doesn't impress me at all. In fact it kind of puts you in the same place as the car jacker.

You just don't get it, do you? You don't need to be impressed by me or Jubelum. We are not the kind of people who will kill you for no good reason whatsoever. But there are a shitload of people like that, and if you fail to respect them enough to prepare for the eventuality of meeting one, it can cost you.
post #56 of 94
Just a quick poll, is there such a thing as a handheld, concealable flamethrower? It would melt the ice on my driveway and send those muggers away screaming, on fire!
post #57 of 94


We're not truly free until we have hand-thermo-nukular concealed weapons. I need to protect my family too.
post #58 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
edited out at giant's request

I'm proud to know, deep down, that if faced with violence I will attempt to do what's appropriate in the situation, instead of freezing in fear.

I'm just guessing here, but maybe Jubelum is thinking the gun as an indication and sign of commitment to that same principle.
post #59 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
I'm proud to know, deep down, that if faced with violence I will attempt to do what's appropriate in the situation, instead of freezing in fear.

My point is that violence and freezing in fear aren't the only options.
post #60 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Well, obviously the point is that violence and freezing in fear aren't the only options.

Wrong. They might be the only options. That's up to the aggressor. You don't always get to choose.

What I said was, I'll look at things as objectively as possible in the situation, and react accordingly. I have no problem talking whatever I have to in order to defuse the situation, or handing out my wallet, if those things seem to offer a way out from the situation. But I also have no problem using violence to do the same thing. I hold that a person using force on myself is surrendering all his rights till he ceases to be a threat. I'd prefer that he didn't suffer unnecessary damage, and I'm not going to cause any on purpose - but I don't recognize any obligation to consider his wellbeing as long as he is threatening me. Since I have to make my decisions with extreme time and perception constraints in the situation, there is likely to be more damage than necessary but I will not hold myself responsible for any of that.

Before someone inevitably drags out the legal angle, I'll just say that I have an utilitarian view of the law. I do have harder constraints on my decisions compared to what my philosophical stance and feelings alone would allow, but not for any respect for the law as such, rather in anticipation of legal repercussions.
post #61 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
You just don't get it, do you? You don't need to be impressed by me or Jubelum. We are not the kind of people who will kill you for no good reason whatsoever. But there are a shitload of people like that, and if you fail to respect them enough to prepare for the eventuality of meeting one, it can cost you.

You've been watching too much TV.

I'm sure they're out there but this isn't the best way to handle that or the problem as a whole.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #62 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
Wrong. They might be the only options. That's up to the aggressor. You don't always get to choose.

What I said was, I'll look at things as objectively as possible in the situation, and react accordingly. I have no problem talking whatever I have to in order to defuse the situation, or handing out my wallet, if those things seem to offer a way out from the situation. But I also have no problem using violence to do the same thing. I hold that a person using force on myself is surrendering all his rights till he ceases to be a threat. I'd prefer that he didn't suffer unnecessary damage, and I'm not going to cause any on purpose - but I don't recognize any obligation to consider his wellbeing as long as he is threatening me. Since I have to make my decisions with extreme time and perception constraints in the situation, there is likely to be more damage than necessary but I will not hold myself responsible for any of that.

Before someone inevitably drags out the legal angle, I'll just say that I have an utilitarian view of the law. I do have harder constraints on my decisions compared to what my philosophical stance and feelings alone would allow, but not for any respect for the law as such, rather in anticipation of legal repercussions.

Yes but what if the agressor decides to blow you away because you have a gun ? When otherwise he might have let you live.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #63 of 94
A mugger aproaches me, pistol in hand.

Do I:

1. Pull out a bigger pistol and take the associated risk that he might react the wrong way and shoot me.

2. Give him my wallet.

Hmmm... life on the line? Or wallet...

DUH.
post #64 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
A mugger aproaches me, pistol in hand.

Do I:

1. Pull out a bigger pistol and take the associated risk that he might react the wrong way and shoot me.

2. Give him my wallet.

Hmmm... life on the line? Or wallet...

DUH.


1. Carjacker approaches me, knife in hand:

Do I:

1. Hand him my wallet and keys, and ask him really nicely to not hurt me or my family. OR
2. Point my firearm at him, which leads to the following choices:

1. He goes to jail and cannot do this to anyone else for 15-30 years. OR
2. He continues to be aggressive and is removed from the gene pool.

I would, and did take choice 2, and then he chose choice 1. All after his idiotic choice to attempt to victimize another person he assumed was defenseless.

"Life is the sum total of the choices we make."

He made his choice. I made mine. No one got hurt. Life goes on.


"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #65 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes but what if the agressor decides to blow you away because you have a gun ? When otherwise he might have let you live.

Quagmire, is that you?

Violent criminals are OK people, they are just misunderstood. If we just took time to negotiate, feel their pain, and play nice, the meanies will go away. That goes for street thugs to Al-Qaeda. "We shouldn't piss off people who already mean to harm us."

Head, meet sand. The real-world trolley is boarding on your right.

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #66 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
1. Carjacker approaches me, knife in hand:

Do I:

1. Hand him my wallet and keys, and ask him really nicely to not hurt me or my family. OR
2. Point my firearm at him, which leads to the following choices:

1. He goes to jail and cannot do this to anyone else for 15-30 years. OR
2. He continues to be aggressive and is removed from the gene pool.

I would, and did take choice 2, and then he chose choice 1. All after his idiotic choice to attempt to victimize another person he assumed was defenseless.

"Life is the sum total of the choices we make."

He made his choice. I made mine. No one got hurt. Life goes on.



See, the thing is, you got really really lucky. Simple as that. The moment you produce a gun you dramatically increased the odds that you or a member of your family was going to get hurt.

That's a stone fact. The crime stats are very clear on this. If you really cared about the safety of your family you would have known that.

But of course, you don't think it applies to you, because you're a badass. You know how to handle yourself. You're not like the weak ones.

In that belief, you are exactly like every other stupid motherfucker that got themselves killed or their family members killed for no better reason than they didn't like the feeling of being pushed around. Of being helpless.

And now, god help the people who cross your path, you got lucky and you're sure you know how it's done.

So it's time to break it to the kids: daddy loves his swollen dick better than he loves you. He would rather play out a stupid fantasy of macho control than do the smart thing and let the fucking car go. Because that would make daddy feel like a woman.

And he's bragging about on the internet. Christ.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #67 of 94
Since we are posting stories about how badass we are.

A few years ago I was walking down the dangerous streets of Eugene, OR. I was returning home with some things from the store when I was thrown into a wall. By the time I knew what happend I had a gun in my face. He wanted my wallet, I told him I was going to get and to calm down. I gave it to him and he ran off. I ran to the cop shop that was a few blocks away and they found him 20 minutes afterwards. I got back my wallet.

If the crooks wanted to kill you they would before you knew they were there. If all of us had guns they would kill you from a distance and run up and grab your shit. If I really needed the 4 bucks from the pizza guy and assumed he had a gun I would kill him before the car door was open.

So maybe we should look at why people kill for possesions. Money for drugs would be a good starting place.
post #68 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
Quagmire, is that you?

Violent criminals are OK people, they are just misunderstood. If we just took time to negotiate, feel their pain, and play nice, the meanies will go away. That goes for street thugs to Al-Qaeda. "We shouldn't piss off people who already mean to harm us."

Head, meet sand. The real-world trolley is boarding on your right.


Nobody said they were nice people. Al-Queda is a different issue and set of circumstances entirely .

Most experts ( not you ) seem to think that if the criminal is threatened he'll threaten back. So if the carjacker had a gun would you have still pulled out your glock and had gunfight at the ok corral with him? Most experts ( not you ) say the best thing to do to avoid violence is to comply. Say he grab your gun, you fought for it, and it went off and killed your companion?

If you ask me you were lucky.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #69 of 94
<yawn>
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #70 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox

So it's time to break it to the kids: daddy loves his swollen dick better than he loves you. He would rather play out a stupid fantasy of macho control than do the smart thing and let the fucking car go. Because that would make daddy feel like a woman.

Wow, that's pretty creative... completely delusional as well.

If the person had wanted to stop with my vehicle, fine. It's only a "thing." I had no assurance that he was not going to then harm me or kidnap/rape/kill my wife or kids. I do not negotiate well with a knife in my face. Playing "Lets Make a Deal" when someone threatens my life is just not my style, sorry. Call it self preservation.

Is this how it should go? :
So it's time to break it to the kids: daddy was too concerned with playing nice and trying to get along to stop the man who intended to kidnap, rape, and kill their mother. It is better that she and us are victims. Your dad was a good citizen, helpless victim, and your life is changed forever because of it. But at least that "addabox" guy will not insult him now. That makes everything better.


Thanks so much for your holiday gift of free psychoanalysis. Next time, please direct it to the wall at your left.


"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #71 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
And, as I mentioned, I don't have a problem with responsible adults carrying guns. However, someone who feels 'pride' about being armed is dangerous, particularly if they get giddy about the potential of using it on another human.

giddy? That's bullshit. As I or any of my fellow instructors will tell you, making the decision to use a firearm against the human body is nothing that you can fully get over. I show my students gunshot wound photos, to drive home the reality. I read statements from people who have killed others in combat or in the line of duty. In our state, even a fully justified self-defense homicide will cost you over $15K in legal expenses. Anyone who thinks that it is "just fun" to be armed and looks for a fight needs their head checked.

I personally, however, was very glad that I had the right tool to make the difference when it came to my own safety and that of my family. Perhaps 'pride' was the wrong word- in short, I have no problem admitting that I am armed, I'm not ashamed of my choice, and I will vigorously defend my rights to life and property against anyone who wishes to violate those rights. Up to, and including, the maximum means allowed by law.

A framed portrait of Herbert Spencer hangs above my fireplace. (OK, not really, but pushing buttons is so much FUN!!! )
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #72 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by lemon
If the crooks wanted to kill you they would before you knew they were there. If all of us had guns they would kill you from a distance and run up and grab your shit. If I really needed the 4 bucks from the pizza guy and assumed he had a gun I would kill him before the car door was open.

That's not true on several levels, but this much should be enough: People who choose a career of a violent criminal are not exactly the most reasonable ones around. Do you trust them not to do something stupid? Do you trust them not to decide, in the midst of robbing you, that you are a witness and that's a problem?
post #73 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Nobdy said they were nice people. Al-Queda is a different issue and set of circumstances entirely .

Most experts ( not you ) seem to think that if the criminal is threatened he'll threaten back. So if the carjacker had a gun would you have still pulled out your glock and had gunfight at the ok corral with him? Most experts ( not you ) say the best thing to do to avoid violence is to comply. Say he grab your gun, you fought for it, and it went off and killed your companion?

Eh? A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. They don't go around with nametags, "Hello, my name is Joe and I'm a Jihadist." "... not-very-violent robber." "... murderous psychopath." "... your friendly neighborhood rapist."

What you know is that he has initiated use of force against you. That's it. What he says is not to be trusted.

You have a totally false idea of how a violent encounter goes down. It's fast and dynamic. When it escalates to physical violence, there's no longer time to 'threaten' anyone, much less for them to 'threaten' back. As a general rule, I won't show a weapon to make a threat, since if I'm justified in showing it then I'm justified in using it as well. Keeping the weapon out of sight right up to when it's used gives you an element of surprise and better odds.

It's hard for the aggressor to grab something he doesn't know is there. Even if he managed to, that's why I practice grappling with weapons. End of story.

Also, many "experts" recommend never to threaten anyone with a weapon, since the aggressor might get some protection of the law when he feels threatened.
post #74 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
Perhaps 'pride' was the wrong word- in short, I have no problem admitting that I am armed, I'm not ashamed of my choice, and I will vigorously defend my rights to life and property against anyone who wishes to violate those rights.

And, IMO, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I do, however, disagree that property in the US is worth killing or being killed. Property is extremely ephemeral.
Quote:
Originally posted by lemon
A few years ago I was walking down the dangerous streets of Eugene, OR. I was returning home with some things from the store when I was thrown into a wall. By the time I knew what happend I had a gun in my face. He wanted my wallet, I told him I was going to get and to calm down. I gave it to him and he ran off. I ran to the cop shop that was a few blocks away and they found him 20 minutes afterwards.

Gon, you need to read lemon's story over and over until you understand that it's a description of what happens the vast majority of the time. If you are willing to kill or be killed over $50, you have serious fucking issues.
post #75 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Gon, you need to read lemon's story over and over until you understand that it's a description of what happens the vast majority of the time. If you are willing to kill or be killed over $50, you have serious fucking issues.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
What I said was, I'll look at things as objectively as possible in the situation, and react accordingly. I have no problem talking whatever I have to in order to defuse the situation, or handing out my wallet, if those things seem to offer a way out from the situation.

Uh.. thanks. Please assume more things about me. Especially stuff that totally contradicts what I say on this very thread.

I don't care about $50. I care about staying alive and well.
post #76 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
Uh.. thanks. Please assume more things about me.

My point isn't that you want to kill someone over $50, it's that the chances that you will encounter a situation where a gun is necessary are pretty slim, particularly if you recognize that ephemeral property isn't worth killing or being killed over.
post #77 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
<yawn>

If this subject bores you why post at all?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #78 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
Eh? A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. They don't go around with nametags, "Hello, my name is Joe and I'm a Jihadist." "... not-very-violent robber." "... murderous psychopath." "... your friendly neighborhood rapist."

What you know is that he has initiated use of force against you. That's it. What he says is not to be trusted.

You have a totally false idea of how a violent encounter goes down. It's fast and dynamic. When it escalates to physical violence, there's no longer time to 'threaten' anyone, much less for them to 'threaten' back. As a general rule, I won't show a weapon to make a threat, since if I'm justified in showing it then I'm justified in using it as well. Keeping the weapon out of sight right up to when it's used gives you an element of surprise and better odds.

It's hard for the aggressor to grab something he doesn't know is there. Even if he managed to, that's why I practice grappling with weapons. End of story.

Also, many "experts" recommend never to threaten anyone with a weapon, since the aggressor might get some protection of the law when he feels threatened.

-----------------------------------------------------------
" A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. "

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

If it's the same thing why do we need the patriot act or homeland security? Why not just let the FBI handle it?

As for the rest of it.....Well if he had the gun in the guy's face I think he knew it was there. As far as violent encounters go they are fast and unpredictable. In those close quarters no amount of training ( ) will guarantee a predictable outcome.

As you say " end of story ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #79 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
giddy? That's bullshit. As I or any of my fellow instructors will tell you, making the decision to use a firearm against the human body is nothing that you can fully get over. I show my students gunshot wound photos, to drive home the reality. I read statements from people who have killed others in combat or in the line of duty. In our state, even a fully justified self-defense homicide will cost you over $15K in legal expenses. Anyone who thinks that it is "just fun" to be armed and looks for a fight needs their head checked.

I personally, however, was very glad that I had the right tool to make the difference when it came to my own safety and that of my family. Perhaps 'pride' was the wrong word- in short, I have no problem admitting that I am armed, I'm not ashamed of my choice, and I will vigorously defend my rights to life and property against anyone who wishes to violate those rights. Up to, and including, the maximum means allowed by law.

A framed portrait of Herbert Spencer hangs above my fireplace. (OK, not really, but pushing buttons is so much FUN!!! )


You're not pushing buttons you're just sounding a bit silly.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #80 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
My point isn't that you want to kill someone over $50, it's that the chances that you will encounter a situation where a gun is necessary are pretty slim, particularly if you recognize that ephemeral property isn't worth killing or being killed over.

That I can agree with, sorta, but you had a funny way of expressing it in the previous posts.

I don't even own a gun, BTW. I live in a place where possession of any weapon in a public place is illegal, and so far my cost/benefit analysis says it's not worth the potential legal trouble carrying one, because I lead a very safe life. If it was legal I'd carry a weapon - not because I'd really expect to use one, but there's no downside to having one. It's like insurance for a specific purpose that has a low, one-time cost.

Besides, property is not "just" property. People work to acquire it. If you burn a man's house and it's not insured, you are robbing him of years of his work. Not unlike mugging him and sending him to a hospital in a coma for a couple years. So I understand and support other people who want to use force to defend property that is important to them, even if I have little property to defend and will probably never end up defending it in any case.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Pizza Hut denies man's right to carry a weapon!