What are the odds of this

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

we are good with our constitution and the 2nd amendment. We have such an amazing country that we have the option for DERP's who don't like it, to not come here

What country in the world does not have that?

, and stay in their own amazing nation where a nutjob can remove your rights by shooting folks, and then telling everyone he did it so you would loose your rights.

The need to have to carry around a weapon, to protect yourself against others carrying around weapons, does not sound like a right, but a knee-jerk reaction to a bad situation you have gotten yourself into.

It's like having to go out and steal stuff because others are thieving from you.

... and we do have legal firearms in the hands of the public here in New Zealand.

Applying for a firearms license

why do KIWI's have guns then? If the only reason to have them is to rob people or shoot people who are robbing you, why does your country allow them? (that's the part you walked into while DERPing.)

Hunting, farming/animal control and sports shooting.

That 'if' option you proposed above to be the only case, is not the only case.

that's very interesting. In the US, we only are allowed to use them to shoot each other.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Actually yes, there are states/cities that have restrictions on knives that can be carried.

Why not give myself the upper hand? Why is it my responsibility to have a fair fight when I am not the one committing the crime?

Again, how am I putting myself in a situation to get "hurt" if I am minding my own business and a guy tries to rob me?

Do you have an actual argument against me owning and carrying a firearm to defend myself or just more nonsense?

Are you also going to tell me that if someone breaks into my house to rob me, I am supposed to just let them take whatever they want and go without incident?

If someone already has a weapon drawn and ready to use against you, and you go for your weapon, one of the options the offender has is to act first with violence.

In this case, carrying a weapon will likely get you shot or stabbed, and the offender has the advantage because you will have not yet have drawn your weapon of defense.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

we are good with our constitution and the 2nd amendment. We have such an amazing country that we have the option for DERP's who don't like it, to not come here

What country in the world does not have that?

, and stay in their own amazing nation where a nutjob can remove your rights by shooting folks, and then telling everyone he did it so you would loose your rights.

The need to have to carry around a weapon, to protect yourself against others carrying around weapons, does not sound like a right, but a knee-jerk reaction to a bad situation you have gotten yourself into.

It's like having to go out and steal stuff because others are thieving from you.

... and we do have legal firearms in the hands of the public here in New Zealand.

Applying for a firearms license

why do KIWI's have guns then? If the only reason to have them is to rob people or shoot people who are robbing you, why does your country allow them? (that's the part you walked into while DERPing.)

Hunting, farming/animal control and sports shooting.

That 'if' option you proposed above to be the only case, is not the only case.

that's very interesting. In the US, we only are allowed to use them to shoot each other.

Perhaps that might explain the high numbers and regularity of shootings that happen there?

But I'm also fairly sure that there are also cases where forearms are used for suicide. Availability of firearms also means more suicides by firearms.

a reply to: chr0naut

So then no need for me to even have a weapon? Your logic is astounding

In this case, most people that will try to rob you are not trained with whatever they are using to rob you. I on the other hand am very versed in the use of my self defense methods. I don't see this working out very well for them in the long run.

Any other nonsensical arguments you want to try and make for why I shouldn't have a weapon for self defense?

a reply to: chr0naut

You solved the mystery! Go get you a scooby snack there sport.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Actually yes, there are states/cities that have restrictions on knives that can be carried.

Why not give myself the upper hand? Why is it my responsibility to have a fair fight when I am not the one committing the crime?

Again, how am I putting myself in a situation to get "hurt" if I am minding my own business and a guy tries to rob me?

Do you have an actual argument against me owning and carrying a firearm to defend myself or just more nonsense?

Are you also going to tell me that if someone breaks into my house to rob me, I am supposed to just let them take whatever they want and go without incident?

If someone already has a weapon drawn and ready to use against you, and you go for your weapon, one of the options the offender has is to act first with violence.

In this case, carrying a weapon will likely get you shot or stabbed, and the offender has the advantage because you will have not yet have drawn your weapon of defense.

how long have you taught firearm safety and self defence?

a reply to: network dude

I'd venture to say 20 years minimum with the amount of "knowledge" he thinks he has

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Actually yes, there are states/cities that have restrictions on knives that can be carried.

Why not give myself the upper hand? Why is it my responsibility to have a fair fight when I am not the one committing the crime?

Again, how am I putting myself in a situation to get "hurt" if I am minding my own business and a guy tries to rob me?

Do you have an actual argument against me owning and carrying a firearm to defend myself or just more nonsense?

Are you also going to tell me that if someone breaks into my house to rob me, I am supposed to just let them take whatever they want and go without incident?

If someone already has a weapon drawn and ready to use against you, and you go for your weapon, one of the options the offender has is to act first with violence.

In this case, carrying a weapon will likely get you shot or stabbed, and the offender has the advantage because you will have not yet have drawn your weapon of defense.

how long have you taught firearm safety and self defence?

I have never taught either of these, however I was taught them while I was in the air force.

a reply to: chr0naut

Imagine that. I was in the USAF, I had no idea my training in firearms was sufficient to tell other how to deal with situations I've never been in or trained how to handle.

My firearms training did teach me about some of that, and additional training has helped, but even with all that, I don't feel that I'm qualified to tell others how to deal with crisis situations. I'm glad you are that confident. But then, anonymous internet folks usually are experts in many fields.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

So then no need for me to even have a weapon? Your logic is astounding

I have no idea of your requirement to have a weapon. There are legitimate reasons to own a firearm. Your assumption that I am judging you personally is incorrect.

However, simply having a weapon to hand is probably not going to be protective for most people in situations where an offender is armed.

In this case, most people that will try to rob you are not trained with whatever they are using to rob you.

Why would you believe that?

There is nothing stopping a criminal from being a highly trained sharpshooter.

If they are drugged up on amphetamines, they will have faster reaction times and be more paranoid/less inhibited as well - and they already have their weapon drawn.

In that situation, carrying a gun makes it more likely you will be shot than someone who is unarmed.

Put yourself in the mindset of the perp, and imagine that you are holding up two people standing about the same distance from you. One is armed and one is not. Lets say they both react and move unexpectedly at about the same time. Do you shoot at the person who is unarmed?

I on the other hand am very versed in the use of my self-defense methods. I don't see this working out very well for them in the long run.

Any other nonsensical arguments you want to try and make for why I shouldn't have a weapon for self-defense?

I don't see how you could get a shot off before the perp could shoot at you. Self-defense training wouldn't remedy that.

a reply to: chr0naut

you really should come to the US and teach self defense. it could be a lucrative job. And as good as you believe you are, you could demonstrate your skills anytime you want, as there are criminals laying in wait behind every dark corner. You really are an amazing person.

a reply to: chr0naut

I would venture to say, and I'm sure most here would back me up, that here in the Us most people who are going to try and rob you out of the blue are not going to be a "trained sharpshooter".....you have a wild imagination don't you

But, we go back to my question of, Do you have an actual argument against me owning and carrying a firearm to defend myself or just more hypothetical nonsense? We could sit here and argue what ifs all day long.

Give me one good reason as to why someone should not have a firearm on their person to protect themselves in any instance?

Maybe go take a look at how many shootings are stopped by a good guy with a gun in the US.

And of those that were stopped by police, what is the reason it was not a good guy with a gun? Gun free zone perhaps?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

Imagine that. I was in the USAF, I had no idea my training in firearms was sufficient to tell other how to deal with situations I've never been in or trained how to handle.

My firearms training did teach me about some of that, and additional training has helped, but even with all that, I don't feel that I'm qualified to tell others how to deal with crisis situations. I'm glad you are that confident. But then, anonymous internet folks usually are experts in many fields.

My training was years ago, and I don't drill in it, and so it's probably useless to me in an emergency situation, except as an intellectual exercise.

But I don't carry a firearm and live in a country where almost no-one carries firearms. I and my countrymen are simply less likely to be shot than someone living in the US.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

I would venture to say, and I'm sure most here would back me up, that here in the Us most people who are going to try and rob you out of the blue are not going to be a "trained sharpshooter".....you have a wild imagination don't you.

Honestly, the bad guys are some of the general public.

There is nothing stopping the bad guys from shooting things up in some remote property, or going to a gun range to do so. In fact, it would seem logical to me that if someone has an intent to use a firearm, that they would go and shoot it at targets, at least a few times.

But, we go back to my question of, Do you have an actual argument against me owning and carrying a firearm to defend myself or just more hypothetical nonsense?

We could sit here and argue what ifs all day long.

Give me one good reason as to why someone should not have a firearm on their person to protect themselves in any instance?

Maybe go take a look at how many shootings are stopped by a good guy with a gun in the US.

And of those that were stopped by police, what is the reason it was not a good guy with a gun? Gun free zone perhaps?

How could anyone really know how many shootings are stopped by a good guy with a gun? I'm sure it happens, but really, how many?

I will give you a hint, it will always be less than the number of bad guys with guns and intent to use them.

What I do know is the number of firearm related deaths in the USA which has the second highest number in the world. So, clearly, the alleged protectiveness of firearms in the hands of the public is NOT happening there.

Gun Deaths by Country 2024

The idea that the average person in the USA who carries a firearm for self-defense is safer is proven false by those statistics.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

you really should come to the US and teach self defense. it could be a lucrative job. And as good as you believe you are, you could demonstrate your skills anytime you want, as there are criminals laying in wait behind every dark corner. You really are an amazing person.

Who's the one now who doesn't 'get it'?

No thanks.

LOL

Back to the OP, I remember when the President of Tanzania made a harsh speech about not letting the vaccine into his country. It's way back in 2021, so I don't remember the specifics, but I seem to remember he made reference to "their plan" and stuff like that. I could easily see him being assassinated for that. The elites wouldn't draw any more attention to themselves doing that than they have doing anything else as long as most people dismiss it, or don't even notice, which is the case.

a reply to: chr0naut

I fully admit I am not qualified to train anyone in self defence. You did as well, after you gave advice in self defence that is. But who am I, but some guy living in a country with open borders. You folks sure did a nice job on your border security. Do your sharks have frickin laser beams?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

That's not an answer to my question

But, even then, you just further made my point

Or, and here's a weird possibility, why not try and avoid doing anything that might get you injured?

I tried that.

I got called all sorts of names and had to fight to keep my job.

My wife lost hers with the Health Region.

A lot of people, even here on ATS, said that I didn’t have a right to avoid doing something that would get me injured.

Do I need to be more specific or do you get it?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

I fully admit I am not qualified to train anyone in self defence. You did as well, after you gave advice in self defence that is. But who am I, but some guy living in a country with open borders. You folks sure did a nice job on your border security. Do your sharks have frickin laser beams?

Mentioning self-defense is not giving advice on it. I gave no actual training, nor any specifics of techniques. I merely mentioned it. Once again you exaggerate things beyond the level of reasonableness in attempt to debate. It is fairly transparent, and I doubt it would convince anyone who is sitting on the fence.

And border security is something different again entirely. A strawman moving of goal posts when you have no valid counter arguments to the topic under debate.

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

That's not an answer to my question

But, even then, you just further made my point

Or, and here's a weird possibility, why not try and avoid doing anything that might get you injured?

I tried that.

I got called all sorts of names and had to fight to keep my job.

My wife lost hers with the Health Region.

A lot of people, even here on ATS, said that I didn’t have a right to avoid doing something that would get me injured.

Do I need to be more specific or do you get it?

Since you haven't given any details, I really cannot hope to reasonably respond.

No, I don't get it.

Nor do I believe I was I addressing you specifically in my previous posts in this topic thread.

If you have no right to avoid, and cannot avoid, injury to yourself, then you are not free in a fairly major way.