• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Nose Hill Gentlemen' pro-gun letter sparks Twitter frenzy

Depends where they're carrying it and why. In some situations I think it can be perfectly rational to want to carry a gun.

What situations would those be? And does a person know that they are going to run into those situations every time they step out their door?
 
That's what Canadians think and why he is a laughing stock here. There are only about 150 licenses ever issued in Canada that would allow you to carry a handgun and those are reserved for people who the government deems threatened.

I know some Canadians that would disagree with you here.
 
I know some Canadians that would disagree with you here.

Most don't though. There is no debate about pistols (practically everyone agrees on it) here only long guns.
 
What situations would those be? And does a person know that they are going to run into those situations every time they step out their door?

If you're a woman who walks home alone from work at 9 PM, through a bad neighborhood, then I think it's completely rational to want to have a gun (or some other type of weapon).

If you're a tourist on vacation in a foreign country (in freaking *Calgary* of all places) on a leisurely walk through a nice park in broad daylight, then yes, you're a paranoid nut if you want a gun just in case someone tries to start some ****.
 
You're reading far too much into his letter. He never said that he was in a "life or death" encounter. He just said that he was "nervous"...not frightened. It was a reasonable question that should be asked regardless of who says it or the circumstances for asking the question. The kind of situation that he believed that he was in however naturally does bring out the question. But asking the question does not mean

He was obviously more than just nervous, as he went to the trouble to write a letter to the Calgary Herald about the experience. If I get "nervous" I don't make a big deal about it...I probably don't even remember it an hour later.

Which of course you hear all about. How often do you hear about the cases where no gun was drawn and the situation never esculated? Funny how those are never mentioned and ignored while all the bad things always get touted about.

Because if the gun was never drawn and the situation never escalated, then it's no different than there not being a gun at all. Of course that's the outcome in most of these cases...but it tells us nothing about the outcome of the cases where it *is* drawn.

If he's had the opposite effect it is because people are assuming way too much. Which means there is a problem with them. Not him and his message.

From his own account we can get a pretty good sense of what happened: 1) The guys didn't assault him, and 2) They looked "bewildered" by his curt response. Based on his own account of what happened, I don't think it's a huge assumption that they posed no danger to him whatsoever.

Your logic leads to it. And would you be saying the same thing if something HAD happened to him? All that he wanted was his gun in case he had need of it. Thats all. Nothing in his letter actually suggests that he would have used it in any way shape or form as things were. You just assume that he would have. From the way you have been talking you assume that he would have brandished it to get them to back off and the situation would have esculated because of it. Yet you have no evidence what so ever that he would have.

You are missing the point. He's just getting the criticism because he's the one who wrote the letter and because he seems quite paranoid himself (i.e. like the type of person who *would* do something rash). But suppose he wouldn't draw the gun. The problem isn't so much him as an individual...it's the fact that SOME people with his thought process in that same situation *would* be paranoid and *would* pull the gun. I mean, it's not like it's wild speculation that people who have guns occasionally do really stupid stuff because they irrationally feel threatened. There are reports of it all the time.
 
Last edited:
If you're a woman who walks home alone from work at 9 PM, through a bad neighborhood, then I think it's completely rational to want to have a gun (or some other type of weapon).

If you're a tourist on vacation in a foreign country (in freaking *Calgary* of all places) on a leisurely walk through a nice park in broad daylight, then yes, you're a paranoid nut if you want a gun just in case someone tries to start some ****.

So you've never heard of the phrase "Better to be prepared than to not be"? or "Better to have and not need than to need and not have"? Is it not possible to want to be prepared, and let it known that you want to be prepared without being called some paranoid nutjob?
 
He was obviously more than just nervous, as he went to the trouble to write a letter to the Calgary Herald about the experience. If I get "nervous" I don't make a big deal about it...I probably don't even remember it an hour later.

Writing a letter about it to the local newspaper does not mean that he was "more than just nervous" in that encounter. That is just your assumption.

Because if the gun was never drawn and the situation never escalated, then it's no different than there not being a gun at all. Of course that's the outcome in most of these cases...but it tells us nothing about the outcome of the cases where it *is* drawn.

Yet you are perfectly willing to assume that this person would have drawn their gun. Despite your acknowledgement that there are times when such sitations as this (only one of people having a gun) arise and nothing ever comes of it.

From his own account we can get a pretty good sense of what happened: 1) The guys didn't assault him, and 2) They looked "bewildered" by his curt response. Based on his own account of what happened, I don't think it's a huge assumption that they posed no danger to him whatsoever.

Obviously they didn't pose a danger to him. But here's a question for you...how would anyone have known that until after it was done and over with? Hinde sight is 20/20 of course. But present sight is anything but 20/20.

You are missing the point. He's just getting the criticism because he's the one who wrote the letter and because he seems quite paranoid himself (i.e. like the type of person who *would* do something rash). But suppose he wouldn't draw the gun. The problem isn't so much him as an individual...it's the fact that SOME people with his thought process in that same situation *would* be paranoid and *would* pull the gun. I mean, it's not like it's wild speculation that people who have guns occasionally do really stupid stuff because they irrationally feel threatened. There are reports of it all the time.

And you're missing the point of his letter. It certainly wasn't to portray that he would have used his gun. Or to portray that he would have brandished it and esculated the situation. Nor does it show any abnormal paranoia. It was a letter to show people that while yeah this time things went hunky dorie that doesn't mean that it always will. And in Calgary it is not legal to carry something which will help you to defend yourself even though real criminals may use that very thing and cops are allowed to use it. I mean come on, if cops are allowed to use it to defend themselves because it is acknowledged that the criminals will have guns then why shouldn't the general populace have the same ability? To that cop the citizens were being treated as "less than cops" because they could not defend themselves on equal footing as cops from criminals who will use a gun. THAT was the point of his letter. He just used what happened to him as an example. Perhaps because he realizes that a dead person will not be able to say the same thing.
 
After 6 pages of complete rationalizations of why this guy should feel "threatened" I find it more than humorous that many people say a person needs to be armed to "feel" secure. When did we bocome so cowardly that we feel we need to be armed in order to protect ourselves.

That is right I said cowardly. If you need a gun to make yourself feel protected then you are a coward.

A man "accosted" in public park in broad daylight by two obnoxious kids needs a gun to make himself feel safe??????? If you need a gun to make yourself feel safe do everyone a favor and either stay home or seek mental help.
 
I have no idea what the man's history is, but if he's spent enough time living or working in a high-crime area, it's perfectly reasonable for him to need a gun in order to feel safe.
 
I have no idea what the man's history is, but if he's spent enough time living or working in a high-crime area, it's perfectly reasonable for him to need a gun in order to feel safe.

No it is not "perfectly reasonable." Reason is just that. If he was walking in Griffith Park at midnight and was acossted by two young men it might be reasonable for him to need a weapon. But then why would anyone, not spoiling for fight or up to nefarious activities, be in Griffith Park at midnight.

My point is that I have travelled all over the world to places both industrialized and third world. All these places have one thing in common, most areas are safe for almost everyone at anytime time of day or not. There are always places that are not safe day or night. There are places that are safe during the day but not at night. Everyone either knows or could easily find out where these places are in any given location. The only reason to go into the places that are not safe is either because you are spoiling for fight or confrontation of some kind or you are up to some kind of nefarious activity. The only reason you would need a gun to feel safe is if you purposefully travel to unsafe areas for the above mentioned reasons or if you are in a safe area you are a coward. The one you should never have to deal with unless you purposefully want to and the other, like I stated before, please stay at home and draw the shades or seek mental help.

By the way if he spent his whole carreer in bad neighborhoods and now needs a gun to feel safe it pretty much proves my point about seeking mental help because obviously something in not right in his head.
 
The only reason to go into the places that are not safe is either because you are spoiling for fight or confrontation of some kind or you are up to some kind of nefarious activity.

Right, like "living" and "working." :lol:
 
I have no idea what the man's history is, but if he's spent enough time living or working in a high-crime area, it's perfectly reasonable for him to need a gun in order to feel safe.

He was from Kalamazoo Mich
I do not know if that was where he was a cop, he may have worked in Detroit
 
Right, like "living" and "working." :lol:

OK, reading context is always key. If you live in a dangerous neighborhood that is different than visiting a place and GOING into a dangerous neighborhood. If you live in south central LA and tell me you need a gun in your house to feel safe I would say you have an argument. If you visiting Calgary and tell me you need a gun to feel safe you are either mentally ill or a coward.
 
Now there is a prescription for public safety straight from the Mad Hatter in Wonderland but without benefit of the nifty lid with the fraction on it. ;):roll:

explain what that ads to the discussion

Do worshippers of big government think that government officials are more important than other citizens
 
They don't have a right to it. Unlike the U.S. we don't have a version of the second amendment we don't even have property rights in the charter. It also isn't only cops and politicians that oppose the citizens do aswell.

sort of like a stockholm syndrome in practice then
 
I'm sorry that we have different values to Americans.
 
OK, reading context is always key. If you live in a dangerous neighborhood that is different than visiting a place and GOING into a dangerous neighborhood. If you live in south central LA and tell me you need a gun in your house to feel safe I would say you have an argument. If you visiting Calgary and tell me you need a gun to feel safe you are either mentally ill or a coward.

I'm actually pretty spiff when it comes to reading comprehension. "Going into" is something that a resident of such a neighborhood would do after, say, leaving it to work or shop or visit with friends. You were not specific, and words have specific meanings. You had a picture in your mind of what you meant, but since you didn't share that picture with me, I didn't see what you saw. Nevertheless, I can think of a simple example of where you'd "going into" a bad neighborhood for a legitimate reason, even if you didn't live or work there -- visiting someone who does.

Aside from that, I think maybe your definition of "coward" needs to be revised. You can be either brave or cowardly while feeling mortal fear, regardless if an objective evaluation would find that the fear is justified -- brave is being afraid and doing the hard thing anyway, cowardice is succumbing to your fear and failing in your obligations as a result.

Finally, there are predators to be found everywhere. Even if you've never even seen a bad neighborhood on TV, a sufficiently bad experience can teach you the necessity of a weapon for personal protection -- and don't tell me that's an indicator of mental illness, because if you do you'll only be making it blazingly obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.
 
I'm actually pretty spiff when it comes to reading comprehension. "Going into" is something that a resident of such a neighborhood would do after, say, leaving it to work or shop or visit with friends. You were not specific, and words have specific meanings. You had a picture in your mind of what you meant, but since you didn't share that picture with me, I didn't see what you saw. Nevertheless, I can think of a simple example of where you'd "going into" a bad neighborhood for a legitimate reason, even if you didn't live or work there -- visiting someone who does.

Aside from that, I think maybe your definition of "coward" needs to be revised. You can be either brave or cowardly while feeling mortal fear, regardless if an objective evaluation would find that the fear is justified -- brave is being afraid and doing the hard thing anyway, cowardice is succumbing to your fear and failing in your obligations as a result.

Finally, there are predators to be found everywhere. Even if you've never even seen a bad neighborhood on TV, a sufficiently bad experience can teach you the necessity of a weapon for personal protection -- and don't tell me that's an indicator of mental illness, because if you do you'll only be making it blazingly obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.

I think your "reading comprehension" needs some work. As I stated it was not your "reading comprehension" that was in question but your reading in context. The context of this thread and my postings are about someone who was in a city that is not known for its violent crimes. He was in a safe part of that city and somehow felt threatened when "accosted" by two young men. Again reading in context is everything. He was not visiting someone in bad neighborhood, he was not living in a bad neighborhood and he was not working in bad neighborhood. My point of bringing up going into bad neighborhoods and visiting cities is to point out that, while all cities have places that are dangerous, finding out where those places are and avoiding them is very, very easy to do.

As to my point about cowardice. Again reading in context is everything. The thread states that the man wish he had a gun to feel protected when "accosted" by two young men in a public place in broad daylight in safe part of a city known to be a safe city. If you feel threatened by that then you are a coward. If you feel you need a gun in that situation to make you feel safe then you are a coward and quite possibly mentally unstable. In most situations while traveling you are perfectly safe without a gun. Again while I can think of a few situations when being armed might be necessary for protection, this definitely was not one of them. In general if you feel you need to carry a gun to feel safe then you seriously need to consider mental therapy. While there are few situations when I can think it wise those are few and far between.
 
I think your "reading comprehension" needs some work. As I stated it was not your "reading comprehension" that was in question but your reading in context.

Reading in context is but a part of reading comprehension. :D

The context of this thread and my postings are about someone who was in a city that is not known for its violent crimes. He was in a safe part of that city and somehow felt threatened when "accosted" by two young men. Again reading in context is everything.

If you had read my first post in thread, you would've known I didn't defend the man's silliness in that particular instance. When I responded to you, you were painting with a broad brush: "If you need a gun to make yourself feel safe do everyone a favor and either stay home or seek mental help." The context was along the lines of the thread's subject, but the comment itself was not qualified in any way.

I then proceeded to provide you with an example of the sort of person who might need a gun in order to feel safe. You then once again painted with a pretty broad brush about the kind of person who would go into a bad neighborhood.

I'm not missing the context, I've been responding to that broad brush you insist on using.

He was not visiting someone in bad neighborhood, he was not living in a bad neighborhood and he was not working in bad neighborhood.

I have also pointed out that one doesn't need to live in a bad neighborhood to have a life-changing experience that makes you want to arm yourself.

My point of bringing up going into bad neighborhoods and visiting cities is to point out that, while all cities have places that are dangerous, finding out where those places are and avoiding them is very, very easy to do.

Sure, unless you grow up in it or you're too poor to move out.

In general if you feel you need to carry a gun to feel safe then you seriously need to consider mental therapy. While there are few situations when I can think it wise those are few and far between.

... and there you go, painting with a broad brush again, even after I've pointed out legitimate reasons for wanting to carry a gun in order to feel safe.
 
explain what that ads to the discussion

Do worshippers of big government think that government officials are more important than other citizens

Perhaps you can find some and ask them?

The last time I was in DC I saw NOBODY prostrating themselves on the ground in adoration and prayer. Perhaps it is different in the libertarian circles?
 
Lowdown-
I did take a bit to wander back to the thread-

You do make my point 100%, he claims to be a policeman of some sort. Yet he uses NONE of his training. There is far more to self defense than ignore the threat/ shoot the threat. IF he was a cop and IF he had any training what so ever he wouldn't have tried to ignore a threat and hope it goes away... that is what some accuse liberals of doing. Piss poor from the git go and any DEEtroit cop knows better than to try and shuffle off.

Reads way too much like a whine piece bemoaning the lack of concealed carry in Canada.
 
Back
Top Bottom