Thread: Armed Police buying lunch

Originally Posted by Tussock

You can't defend yourself with a gun. You can defend yourself with a stick or a shield, but not a gun. A gun can only eliminate a threat.

My experiences in e.g. West Africa and a Trashcanistan etc., suggest differently. Without our armed security colleagues we would have been defenceless.

Originally Posted by gundoc

She was blonde and appeared quite nice. No tactical awareness though as she bent down to study the selection of cream buns. Her thumb-snap holster was about 18" in front of me. I don't have a problem with cops carrying guns on duty but I question the need to wear it into a bakery to buy lunch when there is a perfectly good lock-box in the front of her car. Similarly, if a cop is armed when they visit me (I get a few visits for paperwork etc.) then they don't come inside. They often visit wearing empty holsters which is fine. It is just good manners.

To be fair (if you see what I did there) the Holy Brunettes (PBUHerz) Saint Jacinda-the-Thief and Alexa Occasional-Cortex are singlehandedly ruining the market for blonde jokes.

There seems to be a lot of animosity out there towards those that are just doing their job. Let's not confuse the average officer with those that are making policy from their crystal towers.

Quote Tussock...You can't defend yourself with a gun. You can defend yourself with a stick or a shield, but not a gun. A gun can only eliminate a threat.

Really?...the whole point of carrying a gun is to eliminate “the”threat,thus defending whatever needs to be defended....ie in my case the cockpit......talk about mincing words .......tell you what,Ill carry my gun,and you attack me with your stick...lets see who wins that little contest.....the term “splitting hairs”comes to mind

Originally Posted by sightpicture

My experiences in e.g. West Africa and a Trashcanistan etc., suggest differently. Without our armed security colleagues we would have been defenceless.

True that. They are for sure a defence tool also. Why would we are the “defence force” of a country with firearms

I should have been clearer. As @sightpicture said, now that New Zealand is West Africa, they have a role.

@A330driver you are on mate. I will take those odds. We stand the same distance apart as your cockpit, or a normal conversational range and if you can get your gun out before I have flogged you with the stick, I will concede defeat. I really don't need the stick.

You need that gun out. No use tied to your hip at close quarters. Most of police interaction is at close quarters. Like I said, do it the American way. Get it out, point it at Kiwi civilians, or don't carry it. Just accept the huge change in out culture, when you talk to police at gun point.

People will submit to the threat of a firearm. That is policing by coercion.

Originally Posted by Ryan_Songhurst

There seems to be a lot of animosity out there towards those that are just doing their job. Let's not confuse the average officer with those that are making policy from their crystal towers.

Ryan, you're not wrong. But, animosity is not necessarily misdirected. Reading Solzhenitsyn and other historians makes it very clear to those who wish to see, that everything the COL nomenklatura do now and will do to us normals they despise, is only possible because of the apparatchiks like Cahill, and the enforcers - принуждать - like these 'uns...

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/04/1...ot-surprising/



I make no secret of the fact I'll hand in my guns last day of September. Consequences for my family and myself dictate that, at this stage.

But I also know that neither the Thief-In-Chief Taxcinda nor Cahill nor Nash nor Collins nor Alpers etc, will invade my house at dawn and smash their way into my bedroom if I don't comply. It'll be their rank-and-file State minions, all the people who are "just doing (their) job"

I ain't Jesus. No way. Not by a loooooong chalk.

QuoteYou need that gun out. No use tied to your hip at close quarters.

We train for those very same scenarios ......I’m not going to get into the semantics of your opinion,your statement regarding not being able to defend yourself with a gun is a fallacy.Law enforcement ,security all types train for those situations,your statement makes a mockery of the reason to be armed.

Nothing personal,I’m in the business,I see it differently........I favour my odds

Originally Posted by sightpicture

Ryan, you're not wrong. But, animosity is not necessarily misdirected. Reading Solzhenitsyn and other historians makes it very clear to those who wish to see, that everything the COL nomenklatura do now and will do to us normals they despise, is only possible because of the apparatchiks like Cahill, and the enforcers - принуждать - like these 'uns...

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/04/1...ot-surprising/

Attachment 108752

I make no secret of the fact I'll hand in my guns last day of September. Consequences for my family and myself dictate that, at this stage.

But I also know that neither the Thief-In-Chief Taxcinda nor Cahill nor Nash nor Collins nor Alpers etc, will invade my house at dawn and smash their way into my bedroom if I don't comply. It'll be their rank-and-file State minions, all the people who are "just doing (their) job"

I ain't Jesus. No way. Not by a loooooong chalk.

Attachment 108753

As another guy who is aware of the saying "those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it", during the long slow fall of the Roman empire, which group were the last to get paid?

A hint for everyone else, it is not doctors and teachers.

Sejanus' union members. I mean, Cahill's... :-)

Good history, Tussock.

Originally Posted by A330driver

QuoteYou need that gun out. No use tied to your hip at close quarters.

We train for those very same scenarios ......I’m not going to get into the semantics of your opinion,your statement regarding not being able to defend yourself with a gun is a fallacy.Law enforcement ,security all types train for those situations,your statement makes a mockery of the reason to be armed.

Nothing personal,I’m in the business,I see it differently........I favour my odds

My intention was to mock people of being armed. I was not joking, as I have all the equipment.

I was flagged at the airport for explosives after leaving a mine site. Had to wait standing in a tiny cubicle till a Federal police officer of some sort came and signed me out. Holster on his right, he leans into the cubicle which is too small for both of us from the left side, then twists round and leans his weight with his left arm on the bench, writes with his right hand. I am 50cm from him.

Where was his gun? If he had just held it out to me I would have had less access to it, and he did that for every suspect, every time, because there was no other way to use the space.

I'm not saying you are not sharp. But if I tricked you? If I knew what I was doing as well, and I was a good actor?

You are being dishonest if you imply there is no risk each way from bringing a gun to every party.

I stand by my statement about defense. Defense is a word used by the political correct because "offense" is offensive. It is an offensive weapon. I'm not the one mincing words. It is an offensive weapon designed for blowing holes in things. You can go on the offensive and eliminate a threat. You can threaten. You can't defend yourself. You can defend a building or you can fight. Fighting is going on the offensive. A bullet proof vest is defensive. I can guard my head, this is defense, or I can hit with my elbow which is offense.

Try being a bouncer and see if the difference between offensive and defensive is not important. Be honest. Don't mince words for political correctness. I'm not the one who garbled the language.

Imagine if Police and Politicians were honest and admitted they had guns for offense

For a rational view of the police in the present context, I'd also suggest reading some John Hasnas ('The Myth of the Rule of Law'). For example:

“If a visitor from Mars were asked to identify the least effective method for securing individuals’ safety and property, he might well respond that it would be to select one group of people, give them guns, require all members of society to pay them regardless of the quality of service they render, and invest them with the discretion to employ resources and determine law enforcement priorities however they see fit subject only to the whims of their political paymasters."

Go ahead, change my mind...

Having observed first hand a series of safety breaches on a range where police were training the public may actually be at greater risk of getting shot now.

Hence the reason they train......its a tool,to be proficient,one must train,.....some get it some dont...hopefully they have standards,and of course you are right,in the wrong hands,its more dangerous

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

Having observed first hand a series of safety breaches on a range where police were training the public may actually be at greater risk of getting shot now.

https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...ot-their-roof/