Return to “encounter at wallyworld - calling all armchair QB's”
I never placed much faith in it being true. It was still pretty funny.Keith B wrote:And that is just what it is, an Internet story and not true. http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;anygunanywhere wrote:I recall an internet story about some general being interviewed by some woman and he used the same type of analogy on her except is was that she was equipped to be a woman of the evening, so to speak.
Anygunanywhere
Excellent, bronco78.bronco78 wrote:Sure you are, we all are,, man or womanPeteCamp wrote:Sophmoric. I am definitely not a potential rapist. That action would require me to decide to commit the crime of rape. Now if two of us were standing there, I might assume that the other person might have the potential to commit rape because I have no direct control over his actions. It is all about behavior. Was it inflammatory or misleading when the OP posted the actions of the people he encountered in Wal Mart?You are POTENTIALLY a rapists are you not? That really isn't that hard to understand is it? Is it true or not? Try to focus on the word POTENTIALLY. ( I used that bit of bull, due to it having been used just like this in a college newspaper that printed the names of all “potential” rapists on campus ((the name of every male registered at that school)) while I was teaching at OSU… It was deemed an accurate and protected bit of speech, if not inflammatory and misleading)
Definition of POTENTIAL
1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality.
Rape requires no "special equipment" just a mind set and or an action.
You are a potential rapists, more so you have a piece of equipment commonly used to commit rape against men and women.. .. the obvious parallel analogy to your statements would be.
Due to you carrying your specific piece of equipment, You sir are more likely to potentially cause or participate in a rape then a person with out that common piece of equipment.
Yes it's a silly position to argue from I admit it.. the words are used correctly by definition but the idea strung together with them is poorly constructed and misleading.
Much like your use of the word potential in this discussion above.. IMHO.Every word.PeteCamp wrote:Have you read the discussion?The statement is essentially true , but it does not mean it is valid or value added to the discussion..I think we agree more then disagree... And I thank you for a polite discussion.PeteCamp wrote:That is exactly what I am saying. For exactly the same reason as above. Look, don't blame me if that concept is taught at almost every police academy in the United States. Go tell them they're wrong.Much like saying the simple presence of a fire arm at a confrontation = more potential to have a deadly result.
Bingo! We have a winner!The BEHAVIOUR, the mind set, the actions of the people involved, not the method is what sets the potential for a deadly encounter. IMHO.
You're exactly right, although it is not simple semantics. It is serious business when you carry a deadly weapon and confront aggressive individuals. Therein lies the POTENTIAL.I think most are just poking at semantics, but really the ideas presented are not all that different in thought.
Mr. Camp, you and I are not really that far off in our thoughts and I do understand your point. We both agree that behavior is the focus.PeteCamp wrote:I don't see what you don't understand about the word POTENTIALLY. We are talking about BEHAVIOUR + THE PRESENCE OF DEADLY WEAPON(S) = A POTENTIALLY DEADLY SITUATION. That really isn't that hard to understand is it? Is it true or not? Try to focus on the word POTENTIALLY.My premise is that in a confrontation, the fact that the actors posess firearms do not make the encounter more deadly.
Encounters can and often do turn deadly without the presence of firearms. The presence of a firearm, as I stated before, is not what makes confrontations deadly. Our actions and responses are what makes encounters deadly.
I grant you the very obvious truth that a couple of pistols laying on a table are very unlikely to get in an argument and shoot each other without human instrumentality. I also grant you the obvious truth that people can and do kill one another without a firearm. Put a couple of folks exhibiting BAD BEHAVIOUR at the table with a couple of firearms and you have a POTENTIALLY DEADLY CONFRONTATION. The same would be true of a Bowie knife or my mother-in-law's black pepper cake
That is not what I'm saying. I cannot speak for them, but I seriously doubt anyone else on here is saying that either. Trust me.Your are repeating what the antis are saying. "Why if we allow CC/OC these gun nuts will just start shooting each other/ innocent people/ bystanders/ save the children/ whatever."
By the way, I am at a loss to explain "more deadly." More dead than dead? Sorry, forget it, we've managed to run a good discussion completely off the road.
I beg your pardon?b322da wrote:Bravo, Pete!
Talk about "confrontation." It appears to be an almost automatic and unthinking response by some members of this forum.
Elmo
No, you said it. I quoted you.PeteCamp wrote: Here is a simple truth to remember: When you are carrying a lethal weapon, EVERY scenario can turn into a deadly force scenario.
You are still saying that the fact that someone has in their posession a deadly weapon, that this makes the encounter deadly if it escalates. Using your words, yes, fistfights can be deadly, so your insistence that our handguns make them more so is in fact nonsense. ALL encounters can turn deadly. The presence of a firearm does not make it more deadly. The presence of a firearm makes them more fair and equal, and in probably more cases than you would admit, the presence of a firearms makes them more civil.PeteCamp wrote:I think you are obviously ignoring the clear implications of what I said. Obviously, it is not owning or carrying a gun per se that is a danger. It is the simple truth that any fight can turn deadly if there is a deadly weapon involved. Since you have grandchildren, I would think you should understand the risks of a scuffle or fistfight with a much younger man when you are carrying a deadly weapon on your side. This is certainly not a condemnation of carrying. It is a call to use good judgement when confronting idiots such as the OP described.
As to a country of wimps. Perhaps. But surely someone is not a wimp if he doesn't choose to correct every instance of bad manners he encounters every day with the risk of having to pull a deadly weapon to end the lesson? Standing up for what is right? Certainly. Not being bullied? Absolutely. Dealing with a waiter? No problem. Going to prison over some stupid clown who runs his mouth and forces me to act even more stupidly than he and draw a weapon? Not hardly.
There seems to be the perception that these types of scenarios turn into deadly force situations because we carry.PeteCamp wrote: Here is a simple truth to remember: When you are carrying a lethal weapon, EVERY scenario can turn into a deadly force scenario. Why? Because YOU brought a deadly weapon to it. It might start as a fistfight, but if someone gains control of your weapon, it can turn deadly in a heartbeat.
