• 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

Interesting some would call two boisterious young men in Calgary Canada punks and then compare them to Philly punks.

Quite a stretch to say the least.

Now funny Philly was drug into this, I have spent the last 9 years flying in and out of the town at least once a month. It is nothing like Calgary. There are parts of Philly that if your are not of that neighborhood it would be best you don't wander into those areas, but where tourists go in the daylight...

Comparing Calgary to major American cities is like comparing a never been with his bright and shiny to a combat vet.
 
So basically you set up this thread to beat up on an American police officer, who felt very uncomfortable in a place he was unfamiliar with.

The poor guy, first he gets asked if he has been to the stampede, and now because of a letter to the editor he wrote, in which he mentioned that, and how he was scared and wished he had a gun

He decided to make the situation public and if you read the link, he was bashing Canada, so truelly I dont think he is being treated unfairly
 
Your making all suppostiions based on air....first of all if hes retired hes not a very young man...hes with his wife who he needs to protect in a public park. Hes confronted by two young strangers asking a totally absurd meaningless question blocking his path...WHY? why would two strange youths approach and older couple in a park block their path and ask a meaningless question out of nowwhere

According to Gawker the two guys were just handing out tickets to the rodeo, which is why they were asking him if he'd been there.

Its human instinct and GOOD SENSE to become very concerned for your welfare and your wifes.

No, good sense would be to say "No, I haven't been there" or "No, I'm not interested." Or if one is inclined to be a dick, then one could just do exactly what this guy actually did since he didn't have his gun: Make a rude comment and walk away. Pulling out a gun is NOT human instinct and is NOT good sense. I'm amazed that he actually had the audacity to write to the Calgary Herald about this, when this guy is a perfect example of a case where having a gun would have made the situation a lot worse.

How did that man know they werent setting him up for an attack...He DIDNT...how did he know what their intent was...HE DID NOT KNOW....
Next time your walking with your wife or girlfriend in an area strange to you...and someone comes up and gets in front of you and blocks your path and asks have you BEEN TO THE HOEDOWN yet....let me know if you dont get nervous...

Do you pull a gun out every time you get nervous? It's not like his suspicions were justified and the two guys beat the crap out of him. Nothing happened! I'd be a lot more concerned about the wellbeing of those two guys if he had had a gun, than I am about this guy being nervous for ten seconds.

This guy is a dumbass and deserves all the ridicule he's now getting.
 
Last edited:
The poor guy, first he gets asked if he has been to the stampede, and now because of a letter to the editor he wrote, in which he mentioned that, and how he was scared and wished he had a gun

He decided to make the situation public and if you read the link, he was bashing Canada, so truelly I dont think he is being treated unfairly

I really don't see much bashing going on, unless you call desiring to be armed bashing.
 
notquiteright: I know alot of cops who have had idiots/drunks/druggies/domestics go south even though the Officer was in uniform, sidearm fully in view. They have never had to shoot the bad guy. There is an escalation of force, it isn't ignore to brandish...

True enough, police have to have the skills to get a good outcome, but the authority projected by the uniform and the armament goes a long way toward convincing people. In my opinion, many of the techniques that the police use would simply not work in a confrontation between unarmed civilians.

If your ideology spurs you to enter dangerous confrontations without all the protection you might need but could have then I'd say that your ideology is in need of perspective.
 
Do you pull a gun out every time you get nervous? It's not like his suspicions were justified and the two guys beat the crap out of him. Nothing happened! I'd be a lot more concerned about the wellbeing of those two guys if he had had a gun, than I am about this guy being nervous for ten seconds.

This guy is a dumbass and deserves all the ridicule he's now getting.

No where does it say or even suggest that he would have pulled his gun out for simply being nervous. He would have just liked to have had the gun if there had been a need for it. And I don't blame him one bit. Anyone with half a brain would be nervous in his place also, thats just human nature. Whether they would admit it or not. And wishing you had a gun in case things went south is not idiotic. I'm quite sure that millions of unarmed people over the years had wished that they had had a gun when they were attacked.

It is better to have and not need than it is to need and not have.
 
Regardless of "where" this occurred (even in Calgary) I don't see the question, "Have you been to the stampede?" as innocuous.

If two aggressive punks asked me the question my suspicions to what their response would be to my answer would be to tell me my ticket was on the bottom of their boot as they kicked me in the head . . . Punks (at least the one's here in Philly) love using a play on words as the "icebreaker" before they proceed with the beatdown.

"Stampede" is especially appropriate given the typical violent 'footwork" of current youthful strongarm robbers.

Sounds like the skinheads in San Jose.
 
Being asked a question about being to the stampede in a nature park, causes someone to wish that he was armed?

I have no issue with guns, and may carry one myself one day, and this dude's wish for a gun -- hell, his entire reaction to the guys who approached him -- bewilder me as much as it bewildered them.

Oh no, two strangers asked you a question without your permission?! Quick, find a burka for your wife and an AK for yourself! :roll:
 
I have to agree with the officer. It doesn't matter if it's in the middle of a crowded street in broad daylight, I do not care to be disturbed from going about my activities by anyone. I don't talk to strangers. I don't even recognize the existance of panhandlers and their ilk. I go out of my way to be armed and ready as much of the time as humanly possible. It's just like I was taught many years ago.... "BE PREPARED".

You're comfortable shooting through unarmed non-combatants to get to an armed prep. I care about as much about your opinion on self-defense as I do on women's rights.
 
No where does it say or even suggest that he would have pulled his gun out for simply being nervous.

The fact that he went to all the trouble to write a letter to the Calgary Herald arguing that he needed a gun, because two guys were supposedly rude to him, does not exactly make it sound as though he would have been a model of self-restraint if he had his gun with him. He sounds like a paranoid nut. In his letter, he even says that after he made his rude comment and walked away, that the two guys looked bewildered. This makes me suspect that they weren't even doing anything they thought could be construed as rude or threatening, let alone ACTUALLY threatening him.

He would have just liked to have had the gun if there had been a need for it.

And I'm sure the two ticket guys would have liked him to NOT have it. Fortunately he didn't or someone could have gotten hurt.

And I don't blame him one bit. Anyone with half a brain would be nervous in his place also, thats just human nature. Whether they would admit it or not. And wishing you had a gun in case things went south is not idiotic. I'm quite sure that millions of unarmed people over the years had wished that they had had a gun when they were attacked.

Yeah, but here's the thing: He wasn't attacked. If he had his gun and any confrontation had gone down, it would have been because HE was the aggressor.

It is better to have and not need than it is to need and not have.

Not for the people who end up getting shot because of paranoid loose cannons like this guy.
 
Last edited:
The fact that he went to all the trouble to write a letter to the Calgary Herald arguing that he needed a gun, because two guys were supposedly rude to him, does not exactly make it sound as though he would have been a model of self-restraint if he had his gun with him. He sounds like a paranoid nut. In his letter, he even says that after he made his rude comment and walked away, that the two guys looked bewildered. This makes me suspect that they weren't even doing anything they thought could be construed as rude or threatening, let alone ACTUALLY threatening him.

Oh please. Thats just reading far too much into something. The guy has a problem with Canada's gun laws and that makes him suspicious of possibly shooting someone just because he gets nervous? With this kind of thinking then anyone with a gun is guilty of such absurdity that you espouse here.

And I'm sure the two ticket guys would have liked him to NOT have it.

Doesn't matter if they would have liked him to be armed or not.

Fortunately he didn't or someone could have gotten hurt.

You have no valid grounds to base this assumption on. Just outta curiosity...do you know what happens when you "assume" something?

Yeah, but here's the thing: He wasn't attacked. If he had his gun and any confrontation had gone down, it would have been because HE was the aggressor.

So everyone that owns a gun is the aggressor no matter the circumstances. What kind of troll logic is that? And don't try to say that "you didn't say that" because that is exactly where your "logic" leads to, and i'm sure you know that. Simply having a gun does not make ANYONE the aggressor. No wonder we have such idiotic laws in this country. We've got people with this kind of attitude living here. :roll:

Not for the people who end up getting shot because of paranoid loose cannons like this guy.

:roll:
 
Last edited:
Oh please. Thats just reading far too much into something. The guy has a problem with Canada's gun laws and that makes him suspicious of possibly shooting someone just because he gets nervous? With this kind of thinking then anyone with a gun is guilty of such absurdity that you espouse here.

I doubt that the guys were even TRYING to be rude to him since they were "bewildered" by his rude response, according to his own account. So if a guy has an unpleasant encounter with another person and his reaction is to get butthurt that he didn't have a gun with him (to the extent that he went to the trouble to write a newspaper letter about it), then yes, I'd be concerned about him possibly shooting someone.

Doesn't matter if they would have liked him to be armed or not.

Well actually it kinda does, since THEIR safety would be a factor too.

So everyone that owns a gun is the aggressor no matter the circumstances. What kind of troll logic is that? And don't try to say that "you didn't say that" because that is exactly where your "logic" leads to, and i'm sure you know that. Simply having a gun does not make ANYONE the aggressor.

Let me explain the logic to you as simply as I can:
- He didn't have his gun.
- Nothing bad happened.
- Therefore, if he *had* had his gun and something bad had happened, then it would have been because he started some ****. Unless you think that a couple random people handing out rodeo tickets would be more likely to jump him if they saw he had a gun. :roll:
 
Last edited:
I doubt that the guys were even TRYING to be rude to him since they were "bewildered" by his rude response, according to his own account. So if a guy has an unpleasant encounter with another person and his reaction is to get butthurt that he didn't have a gun with him (to the extent that he went to the trouble to write a newspaper letter about it), then yes, I'd be concerned about him possibly shooting someone.

It doesn't matter if they were trying to be rude. He felt threatened and was afraid for his wife's safety. But feeling threatened does not mean that he would have automatically pulled out his gun or even showed it like you are implying that he would do. You have no evidence that he would have other than your own biased thought patterns.

And people complain about gun laws all the time. Both in Canada and in the US. Yet you don't see them automatically pulling out guns the moment they feel threatened do you? Hell, we complain about gun laws lots here at DP for one example.

Well actually it kinda does, since THEIR safety would be a factor too.

It would have mattered had they been in any danger. And there is no evidence that they would have been had the guy had his gun with him. Again....all that he said is that he would have felt safer with it. Feeling safer =/= will cause trouble or shoot someone with gun if they have it.

Let me explain the logic to you as simply as I can:
- He didn't have his gun.
- Nothing bad happened.
- Therefore, if he *had* had his gun and something bad had happened, then it would have been because he started some ****. Unless you think that a couple random people handing out rodeo tickets would be more likely to jump him if they saw he had a gun. :roll:

Idiocy. Just because someone has a gun does not mean that they are the ones to always start ****. That is why your "logic" fails. Another reason is that you have no idea if the guy would have carried concealed or open. Remember the question that I asked you about the word "assume"?
 
Let me explain the logic to you as simply as I can:
- He didn't have his gun.
- Nothing bad happened.
- Therefore, if he *had* had his gun and something bad had happened, then it would have been because he started some ****. Unless you think that a couple random people handing out rodeo tickets would be more likely to jump him if they saw he had a gun. :roll:

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that. Law-abiding citizens, and I'm pretty certain that he was law-abiding, due to his law enforcement background, carry for defense, not offense.
 
It doesn't matter if they were trying to be rude. He felt threatened and was afraid for his wife's safety. But feeling threatened does not mean that he would have automatically pulled out his gun or even showed it like you are implying that he would do. You have no evidence that he would have other than your own biased thought patterns.

In his letter to the Calgary Herald, he said "Would we not expect a uniformed officer to pull his or her weapon to intercede in a life-or-death encounter to protect self, or another? Why then should the expectation be lower for a citizen of Canada or a visitor?" If he still views this as potentially a "life-or-death encounter" AFTER he made it out of the situation without getting hurt, and AFTER he's had time to cool down and write a letter to the newspaper, then I can only imagine what kind of paranoia he would've had at the time.

And people complain about gun laws all the time. Both in Canada and in the US. Yet you don't see them automatically pulling out guns the moment they feel threatened do you? Hell, we complain about gun laws lots here at DP for one example.

In the US people *do* end up getting shot because some paranoid dumbass pulls out a gun and a situation escalates far beyond the point that it needed to.

It would have mattered had they been in any danger. And there is no evidence that they would have been had the guy had his gun with him. Again....all that he said is that he would have felt safer with it. Feeling safer =/= will cause trouble or shoot someone with gun if they have it.

Well that guy being nervous for ten seconds isn't a good enough reason. The funny thing is, I'm not even necessarily opposed to carrying weapons (depending on the place and circumstance). But if this guy's intent was to make people more sympathetic to that point of view, he's had precisely the opposite effect. :lol:

Idiocy. Just because someone has a gun does not mean that they are the ones to always start ****.

Who said that they're ALWAYS the ones to start ****? I'm saying that in this particular case, if he had a gun and **** went down, it would have been because he started it. How do I know this? Because nothing happened to him!
 
There is no reason whatsoever to assume that. Law-abiding citizens, and I'm pretty certain that he was law-abiding, due to his law enforcement background, carry for defense, not offense.

The concern isn't so much that he's going to use it for "offense," in the sense that he's going to go rob a 7/11. The concern is that he's a paranoid nut who truly thinks he's using it for "defense" and needlessly escalates a situation.
 
The concern isn't so much that he's going to use it for "offense," in the sense that he's going to go rob a 7/11. The concern is that he's a paranoid nut who truly thinks he's using it for "defense" and needlessly escalates a situation.

don't you generally believe that anyone who carries a handgun is a paranoid nut?
 
don't you generally believe that anyone who carries a handgun is a paranoid nut?

Depends where they're carrying it and why. In some situations I think it can be perfectly rational to want to carry a gun.
 
don't you generally believe that anyone who carries a handgun is a paranoid nut?

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.
 
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 would strip any policeman or politician the power to carry a gun if they opposed such rights for OTHER civilians
 
I would strip any policeman or politician the power to carry a gun if they opposed such rights for OTHER civilians

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:
 
I would strip any policeman or politician the power to carry a gun if they opposed such rights for OTHER civilians

Off duty cops in Canada if I am not mistake do not have the right to carry handguns,
 
I would strip any policeman or politician the power to carry a gun if they opposed such rights for OTHER civilians

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.
 
In his letter to the Calgary Herald, he said "Would we not expect a uniformed officer to pull his or her weapon to intercede in a life-or-death encounter to protect self, or another? Why then should the expectation be lower for a citizen of Canada or a visitor?" If he still views this as potentially a "life-or-death encounter" AFTER he made it out of the situation without getting hurt, and AFTER he's had time to cool down and write a letter to the newspaper, then I can only imagine what kind of paranoia he would've had at the time.

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

In the US people *do* end up getting shot because some paranoid dumbass pulls out a gun and a situation escalates far beyond the point that it needed to.

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.

Well that guy being nervous for ten seconds isn't a good enough reason. The funny thing is, I'm not even necessarily opposed to carrying weapons (depending on the place and circumstance). But if this guy's intent was to make people more sympathetic to that point of view, he's had precisely the opposite effect. :lol:

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.

Who said that they're ALWAYS the ones to start ****? I'm saying that in this particular case, if he had a gun and **** went down, it would have been because he started it. How do I know this? Because nothing happened to him!

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom