DrmDoc Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) It would certainly seem so. Pardon, I thought I was addressing zapatos. I didn't know it was you I also misunderstood. So...personal safety means very little you as well? Edited July 25, 2016 by DrmDoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 Then what else do they pretend to stand for? They would have to be able to foretell the future to be there in time to prevent the crime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 They would have to be able to foretell the future to be there in time to prevent the crime... Isn't that what happens when they pre-judge a potential criminal and shoot first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 Isn't that what happens when they pre-judge a potential criminal and shoot first? You may have a point but they are not supposed to do that are they? Still criminals generally try to commit crimes in a place where the police are currently not at... The police cannot be everywhere even in a police state... At some point you have to take your own actions to prevent harm to yourself and loved ones... I still wouldn't carry a gun in public, down that road lies insanity, but in my house... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 It's impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime before it happens. They cannot know until they are called... This is what the police have told me, friends of mine who were law enforcement.. However, their presence and dedicated response is usually what deters most crime from happening. I used to hire off-duty policeman at Christmas to patrol a mall I managed. I didn't do it so they'd catch shoplifters, I did it so their presence would make shoplifters choose someplace else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 You certainly have a way of drawing comparisons between clearly disproportionate circumstances. We both know that a pursuit for "personal safety" isn't comparable to a pursuit inspired by a "cute girl working at the counter"--that is unless your personal safety is truly as unimportant to you as lusting after a pretty girl. Perhaps I misunderstood what you have clearly expressed; for you, personal safety isn't "necessarily all that important" and is as concerning to you as how you might chose your petrol station or whether your pantry is sufficiently stock with emergency supplies. It just seems to me that if personal safety was truly your basis for gun ownership as you said, you would most certainly feel a little less personally safe without it. You continue to misunderstand me. Where exactly did I clearly express that personal safety isn't all that important to me? Perhaps you equate owning a shotgun with personal safety but I do not. You seem to be projecting your perspective of shotguns and lusting after pretty girls on to me. The contribution of my shotgun to my personal safety is minimal, somewhere on the order of having jumper cables readily available. I expect that I have significantly less than a 1% chance of being injured or dying if I don't have jumper cables or a shotgun. I have clearly stated several times now that the shotgun is not important to my safety. I don't know how else to say it. Personal safety isn't "comparable to a pursuit inspired by a "cute girl working at the counter"". I never made such a comparison. What I did say though was that not having my shotgun was about as important to me as not seeing the cute girl at the counter. Believe me or not as you wish, but please stop insinuating that I'm not being truthful. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 Pardon, I thought I was addressing zapatos. I didn't know it was you I also misunderstood. So...personal safety means very little you as well? It would certainly seem so... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 However, their presence and dedicated response is usually what deters most crime from happening. I used to hire off-duty policeman at Christmas to patrol a mall I managed. I didn't do it so they'd catch shoplifters, I did it so their presence would make shoplifters choose someplace else. You do have a point, but I doubt that hiring an off duty police officer to guard my house is a reasonable plan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted July 25, 2016 Author Share Posted July 25, 2016 Just to be clear... Pretty girls have made us all do unreasonable things at one time or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 You do have a point, but I doubt that hiring an off duty police officer to guard my house is a reasonable plan... But hiring a police force to guard your neighbourhood seems to be the prevailing plan... Just to be clear... Pretty girls have made us all do unreasonable things at one time or another. Just to be clear... Pretty girls have made us all do 'think' unreasonable things at one time or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 You do have a point, but I doubt that hiring an off duty police officer to guard my house is a reasonable plan... For private citizens, I suppose the equivalent would be quick response times. If a criminal knows his crime will take 10 minutes but the police will probably be there in 7, it's more likely they'll choose not to commit it, or commit it somewhere the police aren't as responsive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 For private citizens, I suppose the equivalent would be quick response times. If a criminal knows his crime will take 10 minutes but the police will probably be there in 7, it's more likely they'll choose not to commit it, or commit it somewhere the police aren't as responsive. They do have that here, that is for sure.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) You continue to misunderstand me. Where exactly did I clearly express that personal safety isn't all that important to me? Here you provided "personal safety" as your reason for gun ownership: Yes, and again I might be making too big a deal of this, but I have a shotgun for personal safety, and am neither fearful, worried, or concerned. After you designated "personal safety" here, as what seemed a prime factor in your reason for ownership, you subsequently commented: I'm all for gun control. I'd give up all my guns if that's what it took, although I'd prefer rules that allowed me to keep hunting and sport weapons. Just because something is a 'prime factor' in a decision doesn't mean it is necessarily all that important. The prime factor is me choosing my petrol station over another is the cute girl working at the counter. But I wouldn't be bothered in the least if I had to buy my petrol elsewhere. Which clearly suggested to me that you didn't consider the designed factor of "personal safety" "necessarily all that important." Perhaps you equate owning a shotgun with personal safety but I do not. Perhaps; however, you did provide "personal safety" as your reason for owning a shotgun as the above quotes provide. The contribution of my shotgun to my personal safety is minimal, somewhere on the order of having jumper cables readily available. I expect that I have significantly less than a 1% chance of being injured or dying if I don't have jumper cables or a shotgun. I have clearly stated several times now that the shotgun is not important to my safety. I don't know how else to say it. Not to be argumentative, but you have also stated the opposite as referenced above. Personal safety isn't "comparable to a pursuit inspired by a "cute girl working at the counter"". I never made such a comparison. What I did say though was that not having my shotgun was about as important to me as not seeing the cute girl at the counter. Perhaps, but... I'm all for gun control. I'd give up all my guns if that's what it took, although I'd prefer rules that allowed me to keep hunting and sport weapons. Just because something is a 'prime factor' in a decision doesn't mean it is necessarily all that important. The prime factor is me choosing my petrol station over another is the cute girl working at the counter. But I wouldn't be bothered in the least if I had to buy my petrol elsewhere. ...from a discussion of personal safety as a prime factor to you designating how you might select your petrol station as a prime factor is indeed the comparison you seem to be making above--between factors of safety and a comely girl. Although I have referenced seeming inconsistencies, insinuating the measure of your veracity was not and is not my intent. However, as I have commented, gun ownership regards a measure of confidence and security that owners would otherwise not have without them. Edited July 25, 2016 by DrmDoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now