Scam Harris

https://youtu.be/mwci5-vfGmU

Sam Harris's little tricks exposed. Lol!

How is that a trick

I already posted this full podcast.


He says it make s sense you would chose christian refugees first as that is common sense as they are not likely to be a jihadist.
Wheras just like with the Paris attack, one of them was.
He was talking about Risks.
He also made a comic view about Chomsky the regressive lefty if he would be President he would vote Carson instead based on the context of the point of Christian refugees be let in.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12466-sam-harris-and-douglas-murray-on-the-regressive-left

Even better still zack why not put it to the vote in light of the Paris attack how posters would feel over such a preference? Personally, I would only accept families, or mothers with childrens and not adult men on their own.

He's a total neo-con about guns too:

There are many mysteries posed by this world for which science offers no answer: Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Who let the dogs out? And, perhaps most confounding, why does anyone take atheist pundit Sam Harris seriously?

In response to the Sandy Hook massacre, Harris stopped sputtering about Muslims long enough to weigh in with a post Sandy Hook essay, “The Riddle of the Gun.” Unlike the above mysteries, however, the gun is no riddle. As the NRA recently reminded us, firearms are merely a tool. They can be used as a sturdy hammer, a nifty paperweight, a handsome tie clip, a rather crap spaghetti strainer, and, in a desperate pinch, as a convenient murder weapon! Guns are as far from a riddle as one can get. The numbers are brutally simple. According to this Harvard study, and the least bit of common sense, more guns = more gun homicides. And expounding on this topic, without accepting that fact as the moral epicenter of your argument, is tantamount to protecting gun rights over the lives of innocents. Harris, in his continuing quest to overcome the vicious stereotype that atheists are typically rational people, takes a page from NRA President Wayne LaPierre’s handbook of douchebaggery, and suggests the answer to the “riddle” of guns should be, in fact, more guns.

Only a corporate shill or a professional philosopher could arrive at this position without realizing (or admitting) how utterly full of shit they are.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/10/why_does_anyone_take_sam_harris_seriously/


Why anyone worships in the cult of Sam Harris is beyond me.  Just because he is an atheistic does not make him all knowing and all seeing, and in his case that definitely applies.

And yest speaks honestly unlike the regressives that slander him at any opportunity.
I may not agree with his view, but can totally understand why many would prefer based on the fact now the vast amount of terrorism is committed by Muslims.
Its a no brainer.
Maybe you can show me any other religion which is in conflict with just about every other faith committing terrorism around the world?

Like I say at least he is honest unlike Reza

Also people can here for themselves his views on gun instead of some hysetical regressive harpies


http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun-revisited

Didge, on seeing the words 'Sam Harris'

You must think that of Eilzel then Sassy as he like me thinks he is a very good speaker and champion against the utterly idiotic regressive left who defend Islam, which abuses homosexuals, women and countless other groups.
Or are you going to now wipe that egg off your face?
I notice you say nothing how Reza is caught out lying like with FGM claiming it is only an African problem which is not only racist but completely wrong and you are silent.

Quelle surprise

Don't give a fuck what Reza claimed as I wouldn't watch one of your video's if you paid me, and I've known all about FGM, who practices it and what is being done about it for at least 45 years. 

Les doesn't spend his time worshipping at the feet of Harris and posting his videos all over the place.  He's not a sycophant, you are.

sassy wrote:Don't give a fuck what Reza claimed as I wouldn't watch one of your video's if you paid me, and I've known all about FGM, who practices it and what is being done about it for at least 45 years. 

Les doesn't spend his time worshipping at the feet of Harris and posting his videos all over the place.  He's not a sycophant, you are.

There you have it, the regressive lefies are willing to turn a blind eye to racism by Reza in his remarks and how he blatantly lied.

 I do not worship Sam either, I admire, just as Eilzel does and it speaks more about the kind of vile people like yourself that attack him and others just for admiring his stance on all religions. Before many supported him when he was very highly critical of Christianity of which he still is, but the moment he does rightly the same with the discrmination in Islam, and the regressive llefties have a hysterical fit and forgo their liberla views to defend something that is oppressive.
So you can as you do daily try to deligitimize people, but people having woken up to these derisive tactics which seek to stop all discourse betwen anything.

Didge wrote:

sassy wrote:Don't give a fuck what Reza claimed as I wouldn't watch one of your video's if you paid me, and I've known all about FGM, who practices it and what is being done about it for at least 45 years. 

Les doesn't spend his time worshipping at the feet of Harris and posting his videos all over the place.  He's not a sycophant, you are.

There you have it, the regressive lefies are willing to turn a blind eye to racism by Reza in his remarks and how he blatantly lied.

 I do not worship Sam either, I admire, just as Eilzel does and it speaks more about the kind of vile people like yourself that attack him and others just for admiring his stance on all religions. Before many supported him when he was very highly critical of Christianity of which he still is, but the moment he does rightly the same with the discrmination in Islam, and the regressive llefties have a hysterical fit and forgo their liberla views to defend something that is oppressive.
So you can as you do daily try to deligitimize people, but people having woken up to these derisive tactics which seek to stop all discourse betwen anything.

Are you completely stupid.  We don't all spend our time watching videos of pundits,

We talk to real people in the real world.  Try it sometime.

I wouldn't waste my time listening to any of them and their pontificating rubbish.

sassy wrote:

Didge wrote:


There you have it, the regressive lefies are willing to turn a blind eye to racism by Reza in his remarks and how he blatantly lied.

 I do not worship Sam either, I admire, just as Eilzel does and it speaks more about the kind of vile people like yourself that attack him and others just for admiring his stance on all religions. Before many supported him when he was very highly critical of Christianity of which he still is, but the moment he does rightly the same with the discrmination in Islam, and the regressive llefties have a hysterical fit and forgo their liberla views to defend something that is oppressive.
So you can as you do daily try to deligitimize people, but people having woken up to these derisive tactics which seek to stop all discourse betwen anything.

Are you completely stupid.  We don't all spend our time watching videos of pundits,

We talk to real people in the real world.  Try it sometime.

I wouldn't waste my time listening to any of them and their pontificating rubbish.

Yet more chilidish immature unfounded accusations, which sums up your lack of intelligence.
I have been and seen more of the world than you would hope to achieve in two life times.
Your post is just drivel again ignoring all the points made which is no surprise is all you do is try to deligitimize or deflect when you are left found wanting.

Oh that's really funny, do tell what you have managed to pack in so far - come on, which countries, what experiences.   You're always good for a laugh with your claims lol

sassy wrote:Oh that's really funny, do tell what you have managed to pack in so far - come on, which countries, what experiences.   You're always good for a laugh with your claims lol

Well, South Anmerica, North America, Central America, parts of Africa, Most of Europe, parts of Asia, Israel, many places sassy as to experinces, I would need to write a few books to tell all the tales.
So I fail to see how that is funny, the fact you are constantly bitter and angry at people shows it is you that has issues.

Didge wrote:You must think that of Eilzel then Sassy as he like me thinks he is a very good speaker and champion against the utterly idiotic regressive left who defend Islam, which abuses homosexuals, women and countless other groups.
Or are you going to now wipe that egg off your face?
I notice you say nothing how Reza is caught out lying like with FGM claiming it is only an African problem which is not only racist but completely wrong and you are silent.

Quelle surprise

I don't know who Harris is... but what you said above describes Pat Condell very well...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:You must think that of Eilzel then Sassy as he like me thinks he is a very good speaker and champion against the utterly idiotic regressive left who defend Islam, which abuses homosexuals, women and countless other groups.
Or are you going to now wipe that egg off your face?
I notice you say nothing how Reza is caught out lying like with FGM claiming it is only an African problem which is not only racist but completely wrong and you are silent.

Quelle surprise

I don't know who Harris is... but what you said above describes Pat Condell very well...!

Pat is a boring drone that directs hate against Muslims, which is a tad different and is a first rate idiot who loves the sound of his own voice lol

And Harris is...?

Tommy Monk wrote:And Harris is...?

http://www.samharris.org/

The trick is that he talks out of both sides of his face to cover his arse.

In this example, he agrees with Carsons foreign policy but in the same sentence calls him a loon. So in the future he can say he's being misquoted either way.

The second trick he's played is on naive atheists who were once truly liberal, into closed minded neo cons who blindly support Israel and vilify Islam just becuase their atheist prophet said so.

Which shows Zack fails to understand anything.
You can like with Tommy for example disagree on many points, but on some certain points you can agree on.
Its not diffifcult, even for someone of your limited intelligence
You yourself share the same views as Tommy on homosexuals, so does that make you an idiot for doing so?
Also Ben Carson maybe a religious wackadoodle like you, but he does have some intelligence being as he is a retired neurosurgeon.

Islam is oppressive, when in the majority of the world women are classed as cattle, homosexuals are criminalized and Muslims cannot even leave their own faith. How on earth you can have audacity to say that should not be criticized shows how much of a sheep you really are. I support Israel and a Palestinian state, what I destest is all the bullshit that the likes of Fatah, Hamas and the PA invent to claim victim status, the institionalized antisemism from these groups. When they have from the start refused to except the state of Israel just as you do. All based on an invented nationality in the 1960's, Palestinians, which only came into being to be in opposition to Israel. Of which none of my views on Israel has anything to do with Sam Harris, which just furthers backs and confirms your consistant paranoia

I don't agree with many of Harris' views because I'm not into atheism, per say.
But his point on guns, noticeably this part:

“A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene.”

Well. It does have a point.

eddie wrote:I don't agree with many of Harris' views because I'm not into atheism, per say.
But his point on guns, noticeably this part:

“A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene.”

Well. It does have a point.

Not really, because the other men would have knives and so would the women.  He's just substituting a knife for what guns are doing at the moment.  If you take away the knives as well, people would have ropes and fists.  The aggression is still there, the means to carry it out is just less easily lethal.

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't agree with many of Harris' views because I'm not into atheism, per say.
But his point on guns, noticeably this part:

“A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene.”

Well. It does have a point.

Not really, because the other men would have knives and so would the women.  He's just substituting a knife for what guns are doing at the moment.  If you take away the knives as well, people would have ropes and fists.  The aggression is still there, the means to carry it out is just less easily lethal.

Which shows you have not learnt a single thing from the present knife attack in Israel, as where there was nobody with guns, the civillians were fleeing the knife attackers, showing you have not got the first clue.

Sassy, it's quicker to disarm someone if you have a gun and they don't?
I take your point about there always being aggression - I agree with that. Guns, handled correctly - and that's the key - are the best way to bring order to a potentially violent scene.

Anyway, I think I've brought the topic off topic slightly lol

Sassy, you seem to be arguing that all things would be equal if everyone had knives... but failing to consider the factors of size and strength which are key in any direct hand to hand or knife to knife type fight...

Guns change this dynamic, allowing attack from distance, and allowing strong force of attack regardless of physical size of person firing the weapon.


If you are advocating that all should carry knives, as you suggest above, as an equaliser etc... but given the relevant size/strength factor being too big to really create this imagined 'equal'...wouldn't it be better for all to have guns instead...!?

Whereby the size/strength factor would be reduced in significance as being a dominating force... and therefore a more equal situation...?

No Tommy I'm not, but I wouldn't expect you to grasp the principle.

What principle ate you suggesting then...?

eddie wrote:I don't agree with many of Harris' views because I'm not into atheism, per say.
But his point on guns, noticeably this part:

“A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene.”

Well. It does have a point.

that Bullshit

You can fight a knife with no weapon. I fucking Have!!!
A club of any sort beats a knife, I can rip a branch off a tree or fence paling and smash the shit out a dude with a knife

You cant beat a gun unarmed though, you need another gun Or a bomb
And Thus we have the ultra violence of Syria and ISIS 

At least men Born with the capacity to fight know it and don't have small man syndrome like men like Harris.
Cowardice, afraid to accept that knife fights leave both people injured, Cowards like him want to be able to Kill but not risk their precious skin.
His opinion is worthless in the Scenario, he wasn't born with the balls to intervene...

the argument about knives and guns and comparing them can only be made by people that have never had to seriously consider the difference between confronting being confronted by someone wielding one..


As someone that grew up in a bad area that under went the banning not only of guns but also knives and other weapons it has made a huge difference.
I used to see people stabbed at the train station at least every 2 weeks before the bans were introduced. it is so rare now it makes the news, it never did when in was in high school

Says the twat who did just that...

Tommy Monk wrote:Says the twat who did just that...

I think you will find you are wrong about that, as you are about so much, from things Veya has said before.

Veya has just confirmed my point about everyone having guns being an equalising force...


But you are too stupid to see it...

Oops, you actually think you are right on that lol

Tommy Monk wrote:Veya has just confirmed my point about everyone having  guns being an equalising force...


But you are too stupid to see it...

accept not
there are less hurt or dead people because we banned the carrying of knives for self defense, which was what you/I said you/I had it for when the police pulled you/me up, before the law change...

I was a teenager when the laws changed, I went from carrying a knife to not like most other teens from Blacktown.
these laws banning weapons work. I am speaking from the perspective of someone that could have easily ended up in jail if weapons had been more available. now i am in my 30's I am fucking so glad the laws changed when they did 

Ok Sassy... think about it for a second...


An unarmed man tries to attack a woman for example... or woman attacking a man...


What would be the most likely outcome?


And if both had knives and still required close contact fighting...?


Size/strength is overwhelming important factor in resulting outcome...


Now... if both have guns...?


Individual size/strength is no longer the defining factor in conflict as would be in close combat scenario...


Penny dropped yet...!?

oh FFS, you don't even understand what is being discussed or you wouldn't even go there.

you are of course quite right veya, and I think there has been a change of perspective

of course ONE result here is that only criminals carry weapons, and the "public" are defenceless; the criminal doesnt mind stabbing you for your phone wallet etc....

and given the pathetic police response to such things, coupled with a weak, corrupt and useless judiciary that is fully under lefty control , and therfore on the side of the "poor criminal", handing out little more than token sentences

you can see why some folks are getting a bit pissed...

some american cops have "to protect and serve" on their vehicles/badges????

well that would be a laugh over here....we see ONE ....plastic plod, once a week....

and of course the police anywhere dont actually protect anyone from crime such as robbery etc....

by the time they arrive its too late ...youve been robbed/raped/murdered.....could you please tell me where the protection is in that....

Now I'm not suggesting that everyone shouldbe running around tooled up.....

BUT
I am damn sure you should be able to carry as much defensive "tricks" as you want

like the old razor blades in your lapel....anyone remember that??? anyone grabbing you got their hand sliced....

Tommy Monk wrote:Ok Sassy... think about it for a second...


An unarmed man tries to attack a woman for example... or woman attacking a man...


What would be the most likely outcome?


And if both had knives and still required close contact fighting...?


Size/strength is overwhelming important factor in resulting outcome...


Now... if both have guns...?


Individual size/strength is no longer the defining factor in conflict as would be in close combat scenario...


Penny dropped yet...!?

Irrelevant if both have guns the victim is shot already or have the gun pointed at them making it impossible to draw it without being shot.
either way you are relying on someone willing to fight and risk their life to save another.
a Capable man can do that against a knife. Everyone is the victim of the gun man NO ONE can stand up to a gun.
The BAD guy is always going to be better armed, as they are the only one planning to create an incident.

And have you fired a gun? Size and strength make it easier

Tommy Monk wrote:Ok Sassy... think about it for a second...


An unarmed man tries to attack a woman for example... or woman attacking a man...


What would be the most likely outcome?


And if both had knives and still required close contact fighting...?


Size/strength is overwhelming important factor in resulting outcome...


Now... if both have guns...?


Individual size/strength is no longer the defining factor in conflict as would be in close combat scenario...


Penny dropped yet...!?

Tommy, you are so stupid that you are lesson NO1 why guns should be and rightly are severly restricted
the thought of you running around loose with a hand gun scares the shit outta me....

IF you were in a shooting situation with terrorists, I can guarantee you would shoot as many hostages as terrorists...probably more

that is if you could move your fear paralysed body....

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Veya has just confirmed my point about everyone having  guns being an equalising force...


But you are too stupid to see it...

accept not
there are less hurt or dead people because we banned the carrying of knives for self defense, which was what you/I said you/I had it for when the police pulled you/me up, before the law change...

I was a teenager when the laws changed, I went from carrying a knife to not like most other teens from Blacktown.
these laws banning weapons work. I am speaking from the perspective of someone that could have easily ended up in jail if weapons had been more available. now i am in my 30's I am fucking so glad the laws changed when they did 

Veya... your further admissions to being a violent thug are of no surprise... but missing the point entirely...


Sassy tried claiming that the removal of guns made all more equal as everyone would then have knives instead... then said the further removal of knives would only leave fists and ropes... as if this was an even better resulting situation, although facilitating further the ability of a stronger aggressor acting against others with the removal of their ability to intervene by removal of their tools needed to do so.


I am merely pointing out that in a world of blind, the one eyed man is king...


Take away all weapons then the strongest bully rules supreme...


If all have knives, then the strongest knife man is king...


If all have guns then strength/size become less relevant... therefore making people more equal!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

accept not
there are less hurt or dead people because we banned the carrying of knives for self defense, which was what you/I said you/I had it for when the police pulled you/me up, before the law change...

I was a teenager when the laws changed, I went from carrying a knife to not like most other teens from Blacktown.
these laws banning weapons work. I am speaking from the perspective of someone that could have easily ended up in jail if weapons had been more available. now i am in my 30's I am fucking so glad the laws changed when they did 

Veya... your further admissions to being a violent thug are of no surprise... but missing the point entirely...


Sassy tried claiming that the removal of guns made all more equal as everyone would then have knives instead... then said the further removal of knives would only leave fists and ropes... as if this was an even better resulting situation, although facilitating further the ability of a stronger aggressor acting against others with the removal of their ability to intervene by removal of their tools needed to do so.


I am merely pointing out that in a world of blind, the one eyed man is king...


Take away all weapons then the strongest bully rules supreme...


If all have knives, then the strongest knife man is king...


If all have guns then strength/size become less relevant... therefore making people more equal!!!

No I didn't dickhead, that's what you think because your brain is addled.

Lord Foul wrote:you are of course quite right veya, and I think there has been a change of perspective

of course ONE result here is that only criminals carry weapons, and the "public" are defenceless; the criminal doesnt mind stabbing you for your phone wallet etc....

and given the pathetic police response to such things, coupled with a weak, corrupt and useless judiciary that is fully under lefty control , and therfore on the side of the "poor criminal", handing out little more than token sentences

you can see why some folks are getting a bit pissed...

some american cops have "to protect and serve"   on their vehicles/badges????

well that would be a laugh over here....we see ONE ....plastic plod,  once a week....

and of course the police anywhere dont actually protect anyone from crime such as robbery etc....

by the time they arrive its too late ...youve been robbed/raped/murdered.....could you please tell me where the protection is in that....

Now I'm not suggesting that everyone shouldbe running around tooled up.....

BUT
I am damn sure you should be able to carry as much defensive "tricks" as you want

like the old razor blades in your lapel....anyone remember that??? anyone grabbing you got their hand sliced....

they are fair points
I do think the issue lies with the enforcement and follow through of the laws rather than the current laws themselves.
like you said the Judiciary is weak and politicized, police have become bureaucrats recording that a crime occurred rather than being on the streets preventing them.
Also the whole Samaritans being charged for helping    also reduces how many people are willing to stand up to help.

I would argue to an extent with you veya, Yes the man with a gun does have an advantage, but how much that matters depends where you are, and what scenario you envisage


let your average gun totting gangsta loose on my permission after dark especially (a mix of fields, long grass hedges and woodland) and give me a knife....and I'll bring you his kidneys to go with your chianti

same in a building, (where someone with a "long gun" is distinctly hampered) lets play hide n seek

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Veya has just confirmed my point about everyone having  guns being an equalising force...


But you are too stupid to see it...

accept not
there are less hurt or dead people because we banned the carrying of knives for self defense, which was what you/I said you/I had it for when the police pulled you/me up, before the law change...

I was a teenager when the laws changed, I went from carrying a knife to not like most other teens from Blacktown.
these laws banning weapons work. I am speaking from the perspective of someone that could have easily ended up in jail if weapons had been more available. now i am in my 30's I am fucking so glad the laws changed when they did 

Veya... your further admissions to being a violent thug are of no surprise... but missing the point entirely...


Sassy tried claiming that the removal of guns made all more equal as everyone would then have knives instead... then said the further removal of knives would only leave fists and ropes... as if this was an even better resulting situation, although facilitating further the ability of a stronger aggressor acting against others with the removal of their ability to intervene by removal of their tools needed to do so.


I am merely pointing out that in a world of blind, the one eyed man is king...


Take away all weapons then the strongest bully rules supreme...


If all have knives, then the strongest knife man is king...


If all have guns then strength/size become less relevant... therefore making people more equal!!!

Tommy Did you consider not a one on one fight?
2 strong men can beat a stronger man,
Guns lets one weak man, kill multiple.

It also assumes that the strongest is cruel. Often in my experience it is the opposite strong people are not crippled by fear and don't feel threatened all the time making them more prone to acts of kindness. and less prone to unwarranted 'preemptive strikes'. the strongest can laugh off what others take seriously because ti is not a threat to their position.

and of course i walk with a staff

which is strangely still a "right"

and its not an offensive weapon...even if plod wants it to be....

I proved that when I got lifted for wakling around with it

1 its a staff and its PURPOSE is to aid walking, it can only be a weapon IF and ONLY if I am actually using it as a weapon, the fact that it could POTENTIALLY be a weapon is irrelevant, and a matter of pure conjecture on the cops part....(he is making the assumption that I was or was about to use it as a weapon , an assumption he is NOT allowed to make, and certainly would not stand up in court witghout considerable corroberative evicence)
2 It, by definition can ONLY be an "offensive" weapon, if it is being used in offence (as opposed to defence)

So I told the sergeant at the station...go ahead make yourself look a twat ...charge me I dare you else release me immediately

and then pointed the above out to him and said that that would form the basis of my defence...
moreover it would form the main point of the soon to follow legal action against his force, in the form of a suit for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution...

he blinked first and threw me (and my staff) out........

Lord Foul wrote:and of course i walk with a staff

which is strangely still a "right"

and its not an offensive weapon...even if plod wants it to be....

I proved that when I got lifted for wakling around with it

1 its a staff and its PURPOSE is to aid walking, it can only be a weapon IF and ONLY if I am actually using it as a weapon, the fact that it could POTENTIALLY be a weapon is irrelevant, and a matter of pure conjecture on the cops part....(he is making the assumption that I was or was about to use it as a weapon , an assumption he is NOT allowed to make, and certainly would not stand up in court witghout considerable corroberative evicence)
2 It, by definition can ONLY be an "offensive" weapon, if it is being used in offence (as opposed to defence)

So I told the sergeant at the station...go ahead make yourself look a twat ...charge me I dare you else release me immediately

and then pointed the above out to him and said that that would form the basis of my defence...
moreover it would form the main point of the soon to follow legal action against his force, in the form of a suit for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution...

he blinked first and threw me (and my staff) out........

I'm on the lookout for a good hickory wood one lol

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Ok Sassy... think about it for a second...


An unarmed man tries to attack a woman for example... or woman attacking a man...


What would be the most likely outcome?


And if both had knives and still required close contact fighting...?


Size/strength is overwhelming important factor in resulting outcome...


Now... if both have guns...?


Individual size/strength is no longer the defining factor in conflict as would be in close combat scenario...


Penny dropped yet...!?

Irrelevant if both have guns the victim is shot already or have the gun pointed at them making it impossible to draw it without being shot.
either way you are relying on someone willing to fight and risk their life to save another.
a Capable man can do that against a knife. Everyone is the victim of the gun man NO ONE can stand up to a gun.
The BAD guy is always going to be better armed, as they are the only one planning to create an incident.

And have you fired a gun? Size and strength make it easier

Yes... a few actually... I prefer a 9mm semi to a 44 magnum all day long...!


I think some are missing the point I'm making here...


I'm not advocating the increased Ability of criminals to reign over normal law abiding citizens... I'm saying that criminals and other violent attackers would not have such ability to gain such easy control over others if everyone else also had the necessary weapons to hand that thereby gave the equalising force I'm talking about.