Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Of course you hope you won't need it. No question there.
I just wonder what kind of world you guys see out there that would bring you to that drastic of a habit. I can't even imagine what that world looks like. Or if you're in that hell, why you don't move. That's why I call it a paranoia problem.
It's a world of being prepared, not much to get overly excited about really. Seeing people carry guns isn't all that scary.
Remember this? "The best defense from a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"...or car in this case.
I'm as pro gun as you can get, that doesn't mean I think people should be free to use them against others for criminal purposes. Now if the woman was just driving along and saw a guy with a gun and ran him over she should be put in prison for murder. In this case it would appear we had a guy with a fake gun up to no good and the lady did what she could to stop him. I have no complaints here.
Yeah I've heard that statement before. I have my own wording: "the answer to gun violence is ..... more guns!
Or as a wiser wag put it, "like trying to put out a fire by dousing it with gasoline". I mean, think about it.
Looks like the brainwashing is taking effect. The left wants everyone to hate guns and people with guns. They would have you believe people with guns are evil unless they are protecting high ranking liberals. The children of today will especially freak out when they see people with guns.
clearly, gun owners should only travel by tank.
Now that the incredulity is fading, we should probably as a few routine questions:
1.) How did she "know" he was going to shoot the children?
2.) If I walk down a street carrying my own shotgun (mine's real), am I fair game for any woman with a car?
everyone is fair game for any woman with a car.
Neg!
clearly, gun owners should only travel by tank.
Or maybe just carry their pistols in their holsters.
Not looking like a thug would probably be advisable also.
If the gun was not concealed then there generally is no special carry permit required. It was a toy, not even a real gun. If he had not posed any threat to her she should be charged for running him over.
Superb instincts. She stopped a robbery.
Now that the incredulity is fading, we should probably as a few routine questions:
1.) How did she "know" he was going to shoot the children?
2.) If I walk down a street carrying my own shotgun (mine's real), am I fair game for any woman with a car?
3.) Why is the woman's act NOT "assault with a deadly weapon", and/or "attempted murder"?
Now that the incredulity is fading, we should probably as a few routine questions:
1.) How did she "know" he was going to shoot the children?
2.) If I walk down a street carrying my own shotgun (mine's real), am I fair game for any woman with a car?
3.) Why is the woman's act NOT "assault with a deadly weapon", and/or "attempted murder"?
OK, just being devil's advocate here.
Why would you walk around an urban area with a long gun? Even a "sawed off" 'long gun'?
Not that I've never done it, I just knew to keep it encased in an ambiguous container. Trench coats are helpful in this endeavor during in climate weather as well.
I'm not going to second guess the woman's judgment on this story so far considering what I've read. If I saw an armed person wielding a weapon in public I would likely go in the opposite direction, unless I was convinced he was about to commit a heinous crime.
She obviously was convinced.
clearly, gun owners should only travel by tank.
Or maybe just carry their pistols in their holsters.
Not looking like a thug would probably be advisable also.
So if a black guy has it in his holster, does that make him a thug?
Now remember, it would be a black with a gun.
Now that the incredulity is fading, we should probably as a few routine questions:
1.) How did she "know" he was going to shoot the children?
2.) If I walk down a street carrying my own shotgun (mine's real), am I fair game for any woman with a car?
3.) Why is the woman's act NOT "assault with a deadly weapon", and/or "attempted murder"?
OK, just being devil's advocate here.
Why would you walk around an urban area with a long gun? Even a "sawed off" 'long gun'?
Not that I've never done it, I just knew to keep it encased in an ambiguous container. Trench coats are helpful in this endeavor during in climate weather as well.
I'm not going to second guess the woman's judgment on this story so far considering what I've read. If I saw an armed person wielding a weapon in public I would likely go in the opposite direction, unless I was convinced he was about to commit a heinous crime.
She obviously was convinced.
Or crazy as a hat full of shit.
Yeah I've heard that statement before. I have my own wording: "the answer to gun violence is ..... more guns!
Or as a wiser wag put it, "like trying to put out a fire by dousing it with gasoline". I mean, think about it.
Actually I think you do need to think about but with a more realistic mind.
First of all our criminal element represents approximately 1% of our population yet does 98% of the crime. They aren't going to be disarmed in their activities regardless of laws you pass. If they can't get a gun they use a bat, a knife, a sword or even an airsoft gun. Anything to get the advantage over their chosen victim. But they have the advantage of surprise along with that intimidation of having a weapon you don't. Normal people don't have that advantage of surprise against them. Therefore being prepared for any event is the most logical conclusion a person could make, and that means arming yourself at all times.
Defenseless citizens have no recourse and therefor are at the whim of the criminal element when they arrive with superior weaponry. The absolute best defensive weapon a good citizen can have on hand is a gun. It not only counter acts the criminals highest power weapon it trumps anything the less than intelligent criminal can round up.
More guns in good peoples hands are not adding gas to the fire, it's adding fire extinguisher's to counter the fire starters.
I'm afraid that analogy doesn't work. You'd need something like an anti-gun -- a device which would render nearby guns useless. Then you'd have an analogical fire extinguisher.
-- which is kind of a fascinating idea; I'm tempted to poll the site on a question like, "if you could walk around with either a gun or an anti-gun, which would you choose?"
But fighting guns with more guns is just escalation, not equalization. Wouldn't matter what the weapon was; if everyone walked around with a knife, then everyone would have the means and opportunity to stab someone. All they would need would be motive. And they probably wouldn't have to wait long. At the root of all this is the culture of violence and the value of might-makes-right, but we'll have to leave it there lest we wend off topic.
She may not have to worry about the cops, but wait till his lawyer get a hold of everything she owns. You can't just run over someone for what they might do.
Actually I think you do need to think about but with a more realistic mind.
First of all our criminal element represents approximately 1% of our population yet does 98% of the crime. They aren't going to be disarmed in their activities regardless of laws you pass. If they can't get a gun they use a bat, a knife, a sword or even an airsoft gun. Anything to get the advantage over their chosen victim. But they have the advantage of surprise along with that intimidation of having a weapon you don't. Normal people don't have that advantage of surprise against them. Therefore being prepared for any event is the most logical conclusion a person could make, and that means arming yourself at all times.
Defenseless citizens have no recourse and therefor are at the whim of the criminal element when they arrive with superior weaponry. The absolute best defensive weapon a good citizen can have on hand is a gun. It not only counter acts the criminals highest power weapon it trumps anything the less than intelligent criminal can round up.
More guns in good peoples hands are not adding gas to the fire, it's adding fire extinguisher's to counter the fire starters.
I'm afraid that analogy doesn't work. You'd need something like an anti-gun -- a device which would render nearby guns useless. Then you'd have an analogical fire extinguisher.
-- which is kind of a fascinating idea; I'm tempted to poll the site on a question like, "if you could walk around with either a gun or an anti-gun, which would you choose?"
But fighting guns with more guns is just escalation, not equalization. Wouldn't matter what the weapon was; if everyone walked around with a knife, then everyone would have the means and opportunity to stab someone. All they would need would be motive. And they probably wouldn't have to wait long. At the root of all this is the culture of violence and the value of might-makes-right, but we'll have to leave it there lest we wend off topic.
Well when you don't have a f*cking anti-gun device your best option is to have one yourself.
Might makes absolute right when it comes to self defense. Only an idiot would walk into a gun fight with a set of chopsticks thinking the other people are cheating so they have an advantage.
Guns are the number one weapon of choice to defend yourself against the number one weapon the criminals may bring to the fight. Arm yourself with whatever else you may want to but in the end the gun is your best option.
Why would you walk around an urban area with a long gun? Even a "sawed off" 'long gun'?
Not that I've never done it, I just knew to keep it encased in an ambiguous container.
