vortexring

You and Kallend have failed to show that those of us who carry concealed handguns harm you or anybody else in any way, shape, or form, so instead you've taken to making thinly veiled attacks, referring to "tinfoil beanies," and citing irrelevant statistics. If, statistically, a person is more likely to die of heart disease than in a car accident, should that person only wear his or her seatbelt if he or she first makes the effort to diet and exercise? The decision to carry a gun shouldn't be based on statistics. Well, if you feel they are attacks - let me apologise - they're not. Taking the piss a little? Yes indeed. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It's not so much someone big Karen - more their mentality in certain situations many soldiers have been finding themselves in recently. It's a mentality women don't normally have, because their, well, women! No big deal - I'm not suggesting a firefight may be lost through women in the section being distracted by broken nails or by being distracted by a nice kitten for example. () It's a 'controlled' agression they normally don't posess. In fact, contolled psychosis is perhaps more nearer to the truth. I'm deliberatly avoiding examples simply because they're rather horrifying for the more delicate amongst us. Patronising? Perhaps. There definently exists a place for women in the military - without a doubt. But why are very, very few women capable of passing the cadres and selections for the more 'elite' units? Why, despite numerous attempts, some have yet to do so? I'm aware a women passed the All Arms Commando course in the UK, but these soldiers are pretty much normal infantry anyway. Infantry is certainly not one of them. Neither is close quarter battle with a desperate enemy either. Still, thinking about that one, I think my wife might be up to the job if she could, where necessary, get as angry and psychotic as the time when I.... In fact, forget it

Tinfoil beanie! Anyway, some people like carrying guns. It gives them security, a bit like a childs comfort blanket. Going by statistics, your more likely to injured or killed in general day to day life from a head injury than an armed attacker. So all the armed civilians cutting about their daily lives - have you got your helmets on? Well, why not? So 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Your first paragraph is reasonable enough - you secure your fears and paranoia by carrying a gun when your psyche deems it suitable. Guns were designed to kill and empower. Neither has it been called worthless. Everything else you wrote comes across as bollocks really. But each to their own, eh?

Agreed - ultimately; who guards the guards? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Wow! No way man! In regards to the 5 unfortunate ladies you mention - I'm not in the habit of getting into strangers cars alone at night - so it doesn't really come into the argument does it? Helmets making me feel better? Go for it? Nah, I'll take my chances. In fact, when I walk down to the pub tonight it probably won't even occur to me to put on my pro-tec as I put my jacket on. Wonder why? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

They must be pretty bad then!! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It's so rare to come under unprovoked armed attack I won't ever worry about this. Your arguments basis comes across as being based on fear and paranoia. Relax!

Facetious argument. I did get certified in Red Cross CPR...and I'd bet you are, too. So manual CPR is as good as a defib' machine? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Your argument with Amazon portrays what a despicable, dishonest and dirty bag of snakes your politicians are. Just like ours! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Come to think of it, since you aren't interested in the ultimate tool for saving yourself from a violent attack, that life insurance might be a good idea for you. I sometimes wonder over your sanity John. I may not always carry, what's in your eyes, the ultimate tool to prevent violent attacks. But I have lots of other tools and methods. Do you carry a gun to the beach? When you go for a swim? When you're parachuting? You can't always carry - so how on earth can you justify the risk of being unarmed John!! As you said; 'Violence happens every day, and can happen to anyone, anywhere, no matter how careful you may be.' So explain yourself. And all the very best of luck!

So far it seems only 1 has... Wrong!

So far it seems only 1 has... Wrong!

I suspect you are sincere in your statements, but the fact that most troglodytes (thanks, nerdgirl) would agree does not impress anyone a bit further along the evolutionary scale. It pretty much ranks up there with the troglodyte consensus on walking upright.

Bollox!!! How can you say the actions of the fearful person harm everybody! From your description, upon seeing the mysterious white powder, the prepared person dons his respirator.....then what? Checks he/she has a round in the chamber? Then watches everybody who didn't happen to be carrying a respirator to work die? Paranoid? YES!!! I'll take my chances!!!! It's the fucking 'prepared' person in your context who is actually fearful! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! Anyway, have a great weekend. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You too mate 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I'm surprised you think that John, it certainly doesn't invalidate the topic discussed. Still, can you give me some reasons to carry a concealed handgun then? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Christ, I wrote an answer then you went and edited your original question! What happened to the popcorn? I'm going by experience in the sense that combat infantryman would say no to serving in full blown combat with women. Specialist units do exist with females serving covertly(and armed to the teeth - to effectively break any enemy contact) in various hotspots around the world. But lets not go there. Their covert for a reason. Their not exactly going out in section strength fighting patrols to engage the enemy are they? Or doing house clearances in a built up environment? *Cue endless list of possible infantry tasks.....* Ultimately it's not sexist because in general women are physically less capable than men on average. That's not sexist. It's a fact of life. Anyway, I've yet to see a women pass the selection required of a British Paratrooper. Not your All Arms P company either - the entire 6 months in the depot. It's not all about fitness and stamina. Still, a women is yet to pass either. Maybe one day - but not many ever will, as for the reasons mentioned earlier. If I'm in brutal combat - I want a paratrooper next to me, not a lady. Where is the argument in that? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Absolutley - but does the law see it this way? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

My cartoon bubble is pretty similiar. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Fair enough - still, I'm wondering.... If, upon having robbed someone at gunpoint, I'm then shot in the back by the victim, where exactly does the victim stand in the eyes of the law; in states where individuals can legally carry handguns? Is the victim in the shit legally, so to speak? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

In todays climate? I think they'd say no. If on the other hand, my country was facing anihilation by Nazi's, then of course, I'd have everyone capable of handling a weapon if necessary. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I asked someone else mate. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Never!! Wow, your a life support system for a brain, aintcha! I'd never have thought! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

An interesting discussion! My initial thought was perhaps only people who have served in combat should really answer this. Infantry fighting. In this case, I'd suspect their answer would generally be no. It's not a sexist answer in the slightest. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'