How many of you keep a firearm in the truck or on you?

Discussion in 'Business Operations' started by MooseMan89, Feb 26, 2013.

  1. BPS##

    BPS## LawnSite Senior Member
    from WY
    Messages: 828

    Even the cops are telling folks in a growing list of locales to carry because the cops can't get there in time.

    Remember when seconds count the 5 0 is only minutes away.
    In some rural locations they might be an hr plus away.
  2. mjstef

    mjstef LawnSite Member
    Messages: 144

    First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. (this is backed up by plenty of case law. Google it) When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.

    Here is one case of a Sheriff in Milwaukee telling people to arm themselves.....
  3. DalesLanscaping

    DalesLanscaping LawnSite Member
    Messages: 58

    To answer the original question I do NOT carry a gun while out on the job. Not that bad of an area. Parts of West Chester are bad but not where I am treating. Not a big help on this one
  4. weeble67

    weeble67 LawnSite Senior Member
    Messages: 286

    I carry, probably 90% of the time I am away from my house. I am a Police Officer and off duty carry is second nature for me. Transition to an ankle holster or an in the pants holster while you are mowing. I have no problems with my firearms that way. I know it's been said before one in the truck won't help you when your truck is stolen.
  5. dstifel

    dstifel LawnSite Senior Member
    Messages: 928

    To me leaving it in the truck is irresponsible. Truck gets stolen and you arm the bad guys.
    Posted via Mobile Device
  6. herler

    herler LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 5,139

    A great number of armed men carry unlicensed guns, some are convicted felons, some are landscapers, the solution to this problem is not about waging war because if that were the solution we could simply shoot everybody and be done, but until someone dies at the hands of a gun wrongfully used AND the owner is held responsible, nothing will change.

    Absolutely nothing, the teenager standing trial for the murder of his classmates proclaiming that the hand used to kill these sons and daughters now masturbates to the memory will not change, whether you carry a gun makes no difference, if anything there will simply be more sick, and now armed people.

    The logic that the armed people are sane folks who can defend themselves against the sick is flawed.
    It doesn't work that way, in the real world sick people are just as dangerous and if you are armed your chances of being sane or sick are about equal, thus greater national armament simply results in more violence and death.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2013
  7. Ridin' Green

    Ridin' Green LawnSite Fanatic
    Male, from Michigan
    Messages: 17,450

    This is one of the biggest piles of BS you have ever shoveled.

    So, let's here from someone who actually knows what he's talking about. Someone who has been there and done that. This man uses logic and reason, not his luny ideology like you just did.

    This has been around on the net for a while, but it really applies to herler's rediculous post-

    "The Gun Is Civilization" - Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad "force equations." These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

    People who argue for the banning of arms, ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

    People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip, at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

    The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!
  8. Wright Lawn

    Wright Lawn LawnSite Member
    Male, from Rock Hill, SC
    Messages: 54

    Can posts be blocked? I'd like to block herler, I don't need to waste my time reading his excrement! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
  9. The Turf Guys

    The Turf Guys LawnSite Member
    from Midwest
    Messages: 135

    Herler is probably a decent guy but just completely uninformed about this topic. Most likely too much time listening to that guy Maddow on MSNBC. Thinking that disarming honest people is somehow going to keep criminals from killing people is like taking away medicine away from sick people and thinking that will cure diseases.
  10. mjstef

    mjstef LawnSite Member
    Messages: 144

Share This Page