Carjacking and the Cybertruck [LOCKED: NO POLITICS!]

[TruckElectric]

Yes, really.

Go ahead and be scared if you like.

LOL Clueless is as clueless does.

Sponsored

 

[TruckElectric]

You deliberately mischaracterized this thread.

 

[Diehard]

Can we

Since I live in a non-Communist ran state I have a carry permit and I keep a small semi-automatic pistol in my pocket at all times.
If someone feels my CT is worth their life they are welcome to try to take it.
I also practice situational awareness and stay out of places that might be high risk.
Unfortunately we have a worthless criminal justice system that values the rights of worthless criminals and mindless savages more than the rights of honest citizens.
That system allows violent criminals to remain on the street when they should be locked away for good or executed for murder or other violent crimes.

Don't you think because you carry, if you were in that guy's shoes, you would have stayed and engaged instead of running? Don't you think that would have increased the chance of you being shot?

If someone could guarantee "savages" wouldn't have access to guns if you agreed to get rid of yours, would you? I am not saying anyone can. Hypothetically if someone could, would you?

I am not trying to offend or have a heated argument here. I have not been involved or followed gun rights discussions with any depth but I know it is big in this country. I don't know anyone that owns one. This is coming from genuine curiosity and I am just curious if there is anything anyone could do for you to get rid of yours?

 

[TruckElectric]

More Deep Survival

 

[Frankenblob]

Can we


Don't you think because you carry, if you were in that guy's shoes, you would have stayed and engaged instead of running? Don't you think that would have increased the chance of you being shot?

If someone could guarantee "savages" wouldn't have access to guns if you agreed to get rid of yours, would you? I am not saying anyone can. Hypothetically if someone could, would you?

I am not trying to offend or have a heated argument here. I have not been involved or followed gun rights discussions with any depth but I know it is big in this country. I don't know anyone that owns one. This is coming from genuine curiosity and I am just curious if there is anything anyone could do for you to get rid of yours?

Interesting, could you stop talking, stop using the Internet, stop reading books, stop watching tv... or stop moving around from your house to the sidewalk, corner of the road, grocery store...?

I am curious if you could do the above for the 1st and 5th Amendments as I think criminals or wrongdoers would STOP harassing people (1st) or stop lurking in the shadows to attack or doing B&Es (5th)

Not trying to argue just trying to see the logic?

The strange idea I see some saying is "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" is itself crazy; witness pulling a cord on a lawn mower, lifting weights to get stronger... and millions of other things that prove that doing something over and over DOES give the expectation of "different results".

 

[TruckElectric]

Projection

 

[Frankenblob]

You have never met me?

Yet you espouse a critique of knowingness.

Interesting.

 

[Diehard]

Not trying to argue just trying to see the logic?

I am not sure if I understand everything you said correctly. My understanding is that you are saying there will always be criminals out there (I agree) and as long as there is danger and I have the right to protect myself, it makes no sense to get rid of my gun. That is putting myself at disadvantage.
That is the logic North Korea and Iran have; if the other guy has it, I should have it too. If that is what you are saying, it is logical and it does make sense. What I am saying is that what IF the other guy didn't have it?

p.s. all of this is taking the discussion of if you need guns to protect yourself against government aside (let's put that in a separate bucket for now)

My thinking is if we could reduce the gunfight to a knife fight and reduce the knife fight to a fist fight, less people would be dying. Of course this is only an assumption, I have done no scientific studies to back this assumption up. If it is true, first we have to see if everyone agrees that No guns idea is better than racing for more and bigger guns idea. The logic is the same as nuclear disarmament.

If no one agrees the outcome and the goal of having less/no nukes is a good thing, there is no sense trying to figure out how to make it happen. Same thing with guns; I am just trying to see if you agree no one having guns is better than the Tesla driver and the dude with the pantyhose on his head both having guns. Just a philosophical questions regardless of what the law or constitution says.

To simplify: I understand that when the pantyhose dude has a gun, it may be too much to ask the Tesla dude not have one. The question is IF (BIG IF) losing your gun could guarantee all criminals losing theirs, would you agree to it?

 

[Frankenblob]

I am not sure if I understand everything you said correctly. My understanding is that you are saying there will always be criminals out there (I agree) and as long as there is danger and I have the right to protect myself, it makes no sense to get rid of my gun. That is putting myself at disadvantage.
That is the logic North Korea and Iran have; if the other guy has it, I should have it too. If that is what you are saying, it is logical and it does make sense. What I am saying is that what IF the other guy didn't have it?

p.s. all of this is taking the discussion of if you need guns to protect yourself against government aside (let's put that in a separate bucket for now)

My thinking is if we could reduce the gunfight to a knife fight and reduce the knife fight to a fist fight, less people would be dying. Of course this is only an assumption, I have done no scientific studies to back this assumption up. If it is true, first we have to see if everyone agrees that No guns idea is better than racing for more and bigger guns idea. The logic is the same as nuclear disarmament.

If no one agrees the outcome and the goal of having less/no nukes is a good thing, there is no sense trying to figure out how to make it happen. Same thing with guns; I am just trying to see if you agree no one having guns is better than the Tesla driver and the dude with the pantyhose on his head both having guns. Just a philosophical questions regardless of what the law or constitution says.

To simplify: I understand that when the pantyhose dude has a gun, it may be too much to ask the Tesla dude not have one.
Hello,

I have yet to receive the order and when I click on the link you provided it takes me to "OSM" worldwide. So I contacted OSM and they do NOT have the tracking number you sent me.

So, what's happening?

I am not sure if I understand everything you said correctly. My understanding is that you are saying there will always be criminals out there (I agree) and as long as there is danger and I have the right to protect myself, it makes no sense to get rid of my gun. That is putting myself at disadvantage.
That is the logic North Korea and Iran have; if the other guy has it, I should have it too. If that is what you are saying, it is logical and it does make sense. What I am saying is that what IF the other guy didn't have it?

p.s. all of this is taking the discussion of if you need guns to protect yourself against government aside (let's put that in a separate bucket for now)

My thinking is if we could reduce the gunfight to a knife fight and reduce the knife fight to a fist fight, less people would be dying. Of course this is only an assumption, I have done no scientific studies to back this assumption up. If it is true, first we have to see if everyone agrees that No guns idea is better than racing for more and bigger guns idea. The logic is the same as nuclear disarmament.

If no one agrees the outcome and the goal of having less/no nukes is a good thing, there is no sense trying to figure out how to make it happen. Same thing with guns; I am just trying to see if you agree no one having guns is better than the Tesla driver and the dude with the pantyhose on his head both having guns. Just a philosophical questions regardless of what the law or constitution says.

To simplify: I understand that when the pantyhose dude has a gun, it may be too much to ask the Tesla dude not have one. The question is IF (BIG IF) losing your gun could guarantee all criminals losing theirs, would you agree to it?

"...IF (BIG IF) losing your gun could guarantee all criminals losing theirs, would you agree to it?"

No, because 1) THEY ARE STILL CRIMINALS. 2) I like to hunt 3) I have no criminal intentions with said. 4) I view it as an asset NOT a liability. 5) I think they are quite an artistic piece.


Now, here is a similar one, "if NOT leaving the confines of your closet were to stop criminals from " going out and doing their 'business'", would you?

Stipulating restrictions in a "tit for tat" style basis doesn't get anywhere, it could result in more regressiveness ( revenge, ya know the "Hatfields and McCoys") than positiveness.

The idea of criminals not posing said items is awesome but still a subjunctive.

 

[LoPro]

Not to be political but maybe I can offer a perspective regarding some assumptions made here (skip post if tired of Norway or think it’s irrelevant):

Not that I haven’t fought in a dark alley before, but guns are used for hunting here in Norway and not even cops walk around armed with guns. It’s not just that criminals know they don’t *have to* have (and seldom have) a gun in case of cops, but guns (or even carrying a knife in the city) makes a criminal act a very serious offense. I myself have a beautiful double barreled Italian shotgun locked away though. You have to go through a hunting class of 25 hours or something, and apply to your local police to buy one. But it’s for birds not trespassers. A Rifle is a Big Game class more. To buy a hand gun you have to be a member in good standing at a shooting range/club for 6 months. And you have to have no criminal record and keep shooting at a shooting range every year. Serious mental health issues can mean the guns will be placed away for you if you don’t sell them yourself.

We actually have one of the highest guns per capita in the world in Norway, but it’s mostly hunting rifles and shotguns. The murder rate is very very low though.

It’s not perfect but as a gun owner this system fits me well. I feel quite the opposite, but I respect that people elsewhere thinks this imposes on their freedom etc. It has to do with the very fabric of society and I think you would have to be willing to do several other reforms other than just gun reform for the same attitude to guns to work elsewhere if it’s very different. You may have several reasons not to. But that’s a big ideological discussion I’m not able to take.

I don’t want hear anything about “communism” (Norway is very far from it), but to reach out a hand to my American friends who feel strongly for guns and gun protection, I can say the CT could never have been made here. The startup culture and the business chances you routinely take and businesses you build are impressive. That is a sad fact about Norway. But we’re working on it. At least I can import your product (I hope euro regulations permitting)? I don’t know how much that American startup culture is intertwined with individualism incl thoughts around gun rights. Maybe a little. Possibly quite some.

A perfect society would have a little of both (or more) of our countries IMO. But that’s probably for another kind of forum.

TOO LONG, DIDN’T READ:
So, in conclusion, personally not worried about carjacking, and rather annoyed with all the automatic locking of doors in some cars in case of an accident. Probably the same as slightly more rural people anywhere. But for the people that need that protection especially I can’t think of anything safer than an Austin, Texas made Cybertruck.

 

[Dids]

I never owned a gun but now that I have all this knowledge, I feel like, I owe it to myself to get one. Once I have the knowledge and the gun, it would be such a waste, if I didn't find an excuse to use them. Sounds like a plan. Then again as it was mentioned here before, everyone has a plan until .....
Nah, somebody has to be a victim, it may as well be me. I remember in school when we were asked if you want to be a lion or gazelle, everyone wanted to be a lion. I always thought gazelle made a lot more sense. Lions had to work for a living everyday, spend all their time to plot how to get that gazelle and finally when they were too tired to run have a slow miserable death. gazelles were retired all their life jumping around having fun and never had to chase after their food. If they happen to be one of the unlucky ones at some point, they would have an uncomfortable few minutes and wouldn't be there to regret anything after. Their batting average on how they spend their days seemed much better even if those days were fewer for some of them. I opt to remain a cautious gazelle (behind CT's bullet proof glass).

Defo lion! Lions clap cheeks.

 

[Diehard]

No, because 1) THEY ARE STILL CRIMINALS. 2) I like to hunt 3) I have no criminal intentions with said. 4) I view it as an asset NOT a liability. 5) I think they are quite an artistic piece.

Now, here is a similar one, "if NOT leaving the confines of your closet were to stop criminals from " going out and doing their 'business'", would you?

Thanks for clear answers. I see your point.

 

[Diehard]

Defo lion! Lions clap cheeks.

Don't fall for the hype. You are thinking like an engaged man thinks about married life.

This is what it really looks like. Cheeks Clap back

Sponsored