Support NeoGAF

[Liljagare]

I didn't pull a gun I showed the gun in its holster under my arm and if I did ever pull my gun it would 1 million percent be because I care about my wife and her well being

Did you not read what I said in the least?

I stopped for fuel in a sketchy place at around 3:00 AM. These guys came out of the shadows approaching us. I let them see I had a gun and they retreated

That is called escalation, which is why civ's shouldn't own guns, you were lucky, and you still wanted to protect your car, from being robbed. We all know why you showed your gun.

You were going to shoot someone over robbing you of a piece of property, if they kept approaching? That is not heroic, that is stupid, no matter how you keep retelling the story to yourself.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

That is called escalation, which is why civ's shouldn't own guns, you were lucky, and you still wanted to protect your car, from being robbed. We all know why you showed your gun.

You were going to shoot someone over robbing you of a piece of property, if they kept approaching? That is not heroic, that is stupid, no matter how you keep retelling the story to yourself.

Seems our conversation has run its course, you have no idea my intentions, if I wanted to escalate I would have pulled my gun, I wanted them to see I wasn't an easy target

 

[CGNoire]

Seems our conversation has run its course, you have no idea my intentions, if I wanted to escalate I would have pulled my gun, I wanted them to see I wasn't an easy target

Dude just ignore him. He is clearly trolling.

 

[Three]

Custody too triggering? Detained?

Custody usually means a person has been formally held/arrested. Detained is temporary based for questioning/investigation. In custody somebody is read their miranda rights, when detained they are not. They are different so I guess they wanted to make this clear. Why?, I'm not sure.

 

[Three]

You don't have to be able to defeat the hypothetical oppressive government at conventional war for being armed to prove effective at preserving your rights. Oppressing a disarmed citizenry costs absolutely nothing and can be done on a whim (as we are seeing across the disarmed parts of the West); oppressing an armed citizenry is a very different prospect and would likely cost more than can be gained. This is why they disarm first, and then oppress.

So seeing as things have really kicked off in the past decade with these type of shootings in the US, has the oppression started?

 

[calico]

Why are so many people against, just having basic gun safey laws in place??????

Not saying it's wrong for a country to do it the way you describe, but many people (in the US) are against some/all of the laws you describe because they are obviously antithetical to the right to 'keep and bear arms', and because they imply the right is in fact a privilege granted by the government, which is antithetical to the US Constitution.

 

[StueyDuck]

Why are so many people against, just having basic gun safey laws in place??????

I totally agree that every Tom, Dick and Harry shouldn't be able to buy LMGs and rocket launchers from Walmart hahaha

But I think the issue people have is that if you give the government an inch, they'll take a mile.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I totally agree that every Tom, Dick and Harry shouldn't be able to buy LMGs and rocket launchers from Walmart hahaha

But I think the issue people have is that if you give the government an inch, they'll take a mile.

As the saying famously goes: "Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control"

 

[RJMacready73]

That is called escalation, which is why civ's shouldn't own guns, you were lucky, and you still wanted to protect your car, from being robbed. We all know why you showed your gun.

You were going to shoot someone over robbing you of a piece of property, if they kept approaching? That is not heroic, that is stupid, no matter how you keep retelling the story to yourself.

Eh!? Are you soft in the head? That's clearly not an escalation that's a subtle wee gesture to show that he wasn't about to be rolled over on and the cunts that YOU ARE assuming had only robbery in mind took the hint and backed off.. he had his wife in the car you moron, ain't no one risking a situation like that if they have the means to stop it, I think you need to rethink the situation and place yourself in it

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Dude just ignore him. He is clearly trolling.

I tried giving them the benefit of the doubt they misread it at first but I think you are right, they are trolling or maybe one of the most coward people walking the face of the Earth, the easy target for criminals

 

[Toots]

I have a friend all the way from highschool teaching there, thank god he was already on vacation out of the US when the shooting happened.

People or laws, something needs to be done to stop these from happening, and quick.

 

[Boo Who?]

I tried giving them the benefit of the doubt they misread it at first but I think you are right, they are trolling or maybe one of the most coward people walking the face of the Earth, the easy target for criminals

He is retarded and would be curling in a ball like a baby if that same scenario happened to him. In your situation, I would have done the same thing. Only difference would have been the type of gun being shown.

 

[Zathalus]

We need more guns and less control.

I can predict that if we have two timelines one where the amount of guns in civilians hands are doubled and one where guns are reduced to an extreme minimum that the latter would have far, far, less mass murder type situations. Less murder in general as well. I doubt the latter scenario would occur as guns have become sacred to Americans, but it's just what would almost certainly happen.

Obviously it's not the only way of reducing gun violence, cultural changes combined with stricter screening laws can likely get good results as well, but that also sounds pretty impossible for modern day America.

If the Las Vegas shooting and Sandy Hook can't force America to change I doubt anything will.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

I can predict that if we have two timelines one where the amount of guns in civilians hands are doubled and one where guns are reduced to an extreme minimum that the latter would have far, far, less mass murder type situations. Less murder in general as well. I doubt the latter scenario would occur as guns have become sacred to Americans, but it's just what would almost certainly happen.

Obviously it's not the only way of reducing gun violence, cultural changes combined with stricter screening laws can likely get good results as well, but that also sounds pretty impossible for modern day America.

If the Las Vegas shooting and Sandy Hook can't force America to change I doubt anything will.

I don't recall the details around the Vegas shooting but wasn't Sandy Hook where the shooter killed his own mother and took her weapons she bought legally?

Maybe I am thinking of yet another shootings

How sad is it that I can't even keep the mass shootings straight because of the amount we have had here in the US?

 

[poppabk]

I have carried for approx 40 years here in the US and only felt I was ever going to need it once versus another human

Was outside of Atlanta very early in the AM maybe 3:00 and was running out of gas and stopped at the only places I saw open that already looked sketchy

While pumping gas some black guys came from the side of the building dressed in all black slowly walking our way and all I did was take my jacket off and reveal my .45 strapped to my body and they retreated back to their shadows

All it takes it once

Im surprised it didn't entice them. It's like flashing a really dangerous wallet but with $800 spilling out of it.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Im surprised it didn't entice them. It's like flashing a really dangerous wallet but with $800 spilling out of it.

Criminals want soft targets, not something that will fight back

 

[Mistake]

Criminals want soft targets, not something that will fight back

Standard behavior for any predator. Weakness is easy meat