Crazy American meets Calgary...

[HyperZell]

For anyone on Twitter, #NoseHillGentlemen has lots of great lols. For example:

Here's a handy card to print for when you don't want to utter a single word to any gentle-men.


Awkward moment at the entrance to Tims, one of those "no you go first" situations, wish I'd had a gun.



And my personal contribution:

Going to start replying to telemarketers with "Gentle-men, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye."

[ZenOps]

Cthulhu insanity: Where the mistrust is so high, any act seems disingenous.

Its like me going up to Rob Anders and saying "I'd like to shake your hand broheim, you gotz some serious skillz."

It would never happen, the level of trust is so far gone - they would rather pull a weapon on you. It even gets to the point where you have to worry about people stealing your cardboard.

Its somewhat understandable in the US, I mean one day - you are shaking hands with the President of the United States, and the next day you've got a drone up your ass *Khadafi* *cough* *Quadaffi*

[Hamann]

He did not say he would of pulled the gun or that he would of shot anyone, the guy is basically saying he would of felt alot safer if he would of had his firearm. He's used to having that form of self protection, he was caught in a situation that made him uncomfortable while not having his firearm. Being that I was not there I can't say for sure if he was over-reacting or anything, but I've run into my share of "Shady" people up on nose hill.

I do not understand why he felt the need to write a letter of some trivial encounter though.

[Twenty]

I don't know if I should go to Chinook tonight. Someone might talk to me.

[Modelexis]

I can understand how a visitor who is used to being allowed to protect himself would feel very uncomfortable without his defensive tool.

People are dwelling a lot on this story and the fact that it was a park and probably no threat was present. I don't think that was the main message of the letter, the main message was just to explain how different life can be when you compare someone will full defensive capabilities to someone who would be thrown in jail for carrying a defensive weapon.

It's not about the park, it's not about the question he was asked or the response, it's just that this guy is trying to explain what he feels when he is stripped of the right to self defense.

If someone would have pulled a gun on them in that park that day we would be talking about a very different debate. Or if he was illegally carrying his weapon and someone started knifing people in the park and his weapon was able to force the criminal to surrender.

I have never experienced the concealed carry lifestyle but yet I empathize with the feeling of being exposed when around strangers who can act unpredictable and if they have ill intent may in fact be carrying a gun.

I don't experience this at the park much, but when I'm in the 24 hr car wash at 1am on a friday night near a bar I feel that threat of danger, the feeling that you're trapped should someone enter with a weapon and attack. The time it would take you to flee and attempt to open the overhead door via push button would leave you severely injured or dead.
Looking across the wash and seeing solo women locked in the same level of vulnerability but without that feeling of fear I sometimes wonder how they can be so unaware of their surroundings.

We have to be much more creative here in Canada to provide a substitute for a defensive weapon such as a gun. We need to look to other means, none of which I will mention here but should you be in a situation to defend yourself you will at least have more options than flee.

You might not need to defend yourself as long as you live, but that doesn't grant you the right to tell someone what measures they can take to protect themselves and be prepared should that day ever come.

Canadians sometimes live in a fantasy that everyone is wonderful lawful people who would never attempt to bring harm to you. The fact is that people do want to harm you and if the time is right they will attempt, especially if they know for sure that you are not armed.

If I'm out in a field hunting I will feel much more secure knowing that if a bear turns up angry I will have options. The odds of crossing paths with an angry bear while hunting is probably higher than finding yourself in a life threatening situation around urban areas of Canada but the choice to carry protection or not should be left up to the individual.
If I carry a gun every single time I'm out in public and never in my life do I have to use my gun, this is the goal of every lawful gun owner, they assume this burden and they accept the responsibility. Should a threat arise where they need to deploy their weapon and force a threat to surrender or to return fire at least the option is there where it formerly was not.

[Redlined_8000]

Thats not really awkward, its more dangerous! If the first thing in his mind was "fuck i need my gun right now" just tells you how uncomfortable that guy is without it, and how he will use it for the most retarded stuff ever.
That guy shouldn't be a cop.

[ZenOps]

Yeah, because you know that everyone that says "Hi" and "have you been to the Stampede" is just code for "I'm going to jump on you and start eating your face".

Arming the populace with weapons of mass destruction and mind altering drugs has done wonders for the psychological health of the US.

He should have said "I would have felt better if I had my bazooka, RPG, and tactical nuclear device handy". This BTW is the #1 reason we should not let any out of work (million dollar debt) California teachers into Canada, they are going to bring the insanity with them.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by Twenty


I don't know if I should go to Chinook tonight. Someone might talk to me.

probably not though

[finboy]

Could be trolling, but a couple people commented on the story in his local paper that they had similar experiences in nose hill, but the guys gave them free tickets to the stampede

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by Modelexis
I can understand how a visitor who is used to being allowed to protect himself would feel very uncomfortable without his defensive tool.

People are dwelling a lot on this story and the fact that it was a park and probably no threat was present. I don't think that was the main message of the letter, the main message was just to explain how different life can be when you compare someone will full defensive capabilities to someone who would be thrown in jail for carrying a defensive weapon.

It's not about the park, it's not about the question he was asked or the response, it's just that this guy is trying to explain what he feels when he is stripped of the right to self defense.

If someone would have pulled a gun on them in that park that day we would be talking about a very different debate. Or if he was illegally carrying his weapon and someone started knifing people in the park and his weapon was able to force the criminal to surrender.

I have never experienced the concealed carry lifestyle but yet I empathize with the feeling of being exposed when around strangers who can act unpredictable and if they have ill intent may in fact be carrying a gun.

I don't experience this at the park much, but when I'm in the 24 hr car wash at 1am on a friday night near a bar I feel that threat of danger, the feeling that you're trapped should someone enter with a weapon and attack. The time it would take you to flee and attempt to open the overhead door via push button would leave you severely injured or dead.
Looking across the wash and seeing solo women locked in the same level of vulnerability but without that feeling of fear I sometimes wonder how they can be so unaware of their surroundings.

We have to be much more creative here in Canada to provide a substitute for a defensive weapon such as a gun. We need to look to other means, none of which I will mention here but should you be in a situation to defend yourself you will at least have more options than flee.

You might not need to defend yourself as long as you live, but that doesn't grant you the right to tell someone what measures they can take to protect themselves and be prepared should that day ever come.

Canadians sometimes live in a fantasy that everyone is wonderful lawful people who would never attempt to bring harm to you. The fact is that people do want to harm you and if the time is right they will attempt, especially if they know for sure that you are not armed.

If I'm out in a field hunting I will feel much more secure knowing that if a bear turns up angry I will have options. The odds of crossing paths with an angry bear while hunting is probably higher than finding yourself in a life threatening situation around urban areas of Canada but the choice to carry protection or not should be left up to the individual.
If I carry a gun every single time I'm out in public and never in my life do I have to use my gun, this is the goal of every lawful gun owner, they assume this burden and they accept the responsibility. Should a threat arise where they need to deploy their weapon and force a threat to surrender or to return fire at least the option is there where it formerly was not.

Dude you need some friends, or a hug or something..

The guy admitted that he was not good in a social situation without his gun. What kind of lunatic says that? No surprise that he's from Michigan.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
Dude you need some friends, or a hug or something..

The guy admitted that he was not good in a social situation without his gun. What kind of lunatic says that? No surprise that he's from Michigan.

Maybe I missed this part of the article that was written.
Can you quote where he said that he was not good in social situations without his gun?

The article I read stated that he felt safer with a defensive tool on his person in exactly the same way our police officers do.

He never even mentions his gun or any gun while he tells the story at the park.

Recently, while out for a walk in Nose Hill Park, in broad daylight on a paved trail, two young men approached my wife and me. The men stepped in front of us, then said in a very aggressive tone: "Been to the Stampede yet?"

Herald columnist Naomi Lakritz: Officer's comments reflect cultural divide between Canada, U.S.

We ignored them. The two moved closer, repeating: "Hey, you been to the Stampede yet?"

I quickly moved between these two and my wife, replying, "Gentle-men, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye." They looked bewildered, and we then walked past them.

I speculate they did not have good intentions when they approached in such an aggressive, disrespectful and menacing manner. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ they did not pull a weapon of some sort, but rather concluded it was in their best interest to leave us alone.

This is the complete story of the park, no where does it mention his gun or his weapon or him doing anything violent or him not being good in social situations.

If we're on the subject of prescribing things by way of belittling and sarcastic comments, you need some reading lessons.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Modelexis
Maybe I missed this part of the article that was written.
Can you quote where he said that he was not good in social situations without his gun?

The article I read stated that he felt safer with a defensive tool on his person in exactly the same way our police officers do.

He never even mentions his gun or any gun while he tells the story at the park.

This is the complete story of the park, no where does it mention his gun or his weapon or him doing anything violent or him not being good in social situations.

If we're on the subject of prescribing things by way of belittling and sarcastic comments, you need some reading lessons.

I think you need some reading lessons... there's a link to his letter in the first post.

I recently visited Calgary from Michigan. As a police officer for 20 years, it feels strange not to carry my off-duty hand-gun. Many would say I have no need to carry one in Canada.

Yet the police cannot protect everyone all the time. A man should be al-lowed to protect himself if the need arises. The need arose in a theatre in Aurora, Colo., as well as a college campus in Canada.

Recently, while out for a walk in Nose Hill Park, in broad daylight on a paved trail, two young men approached my wife and me. The men stepped in front of us, then said in a very aggressive tone: "Been to the Stampede yet?"

We ignored them. The two moved closer, repeating: "Hey, you been to the Stampede yet?"

I quickly moved between these two and my wife, replying, "Gentle-men, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye." They looked bewildered, and we then walked past them.

I speculate they did not have good intentions when they approached in such an aggressive, disrespectful and menacing manner. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ they did not pull a weapon of some sort, but rather concluded it was in their best interest to leave us alone.

Would we not expect a uniformed officer to pull his or her weapon to intercede in a life-or-death encounter to protect self, or another? Why then should the expectation be lower for a citizen of Canada or a visitor? Wait, I know - it's because in Canada, only the criminals and the police carry handguns.

Walt Wawra, Kalamazoo, Mich.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Modelexis

Maybe I missed this part of the article that was written.
Can you quote where he said that he was not good in social situations without his gun?

here...

I recently visited Calgary from Michigan. As a police officer for 20 years, it feels strange not to carry my off-duty hand-gun.

I quickly moved between these two and my wife, replying, "Gentle-men, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye." They looked bewildered, and we then walked past them.

he also followed up with CBC, in a very strange fashion...

What concerned me is two young men just approached us and stopped us, stopping us by being in our path, and [began] talking to us without even being welcome to talk to us. They just took it upon themselves to yell at us.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...police-us.html

He never even mentions his gun or any gun while he tells the story at the park.

he mentions it right after, here...

Would we not expect a uniformed officer to pull his or her weapon to intercede in a life-or-death encounter to protect self, or another? Why then should the expectation be lower for a citizen of Canada or a visitor?

while he doesn't directly say "i wish i had shot those muggers in the face," you really can't tell me that a trained police officer should be reacting in this way. No one is saying that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, but there was ZERO reason to defend himself in this case, but his snap reaction was "I should be allowed to have my gun right now!"

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by rage2
I think you need some reading lessons... there's a link to his letter in the first post.

Why don't you quote where he admits that he is not good in social situations without a gun?

Read my post again there champ.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by finboy


here...


he also followed up with CBC, in a very strange fashion...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...police-us.html



he mentions it right after, here...


while he doesn't directly say "i wish i had shot those muggers in the face," you really can't tell me that a trained police officer should be reacting in this way. No one is saying that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, but there was ZERO reason to defend himself in this case, but his snap reaction was "I should be allowed to have my gun right now!"

You don't think it would be strange to not have a gun in public after 20+ years of having a gun in public?
Does this mean he is bad in social situations without a gun?

You wear a seat belt your whole life and you get in a car with no seat belts, it is perfectly normal to feel vulnerable.
Does this mean you aren't good at driving cars with no seat belts? No, it simply means that you would prefer to have that extra level of protection.
You might even drive differently with no seat belt, but that says nothing about how good or bad you are at driving on public roads.

You can relate to him if you think about this, think if you are driving a car and some guy is racing up your rear view very quickly, with a seat belt you might brake check or change lanes. If you have no seat belt and your car has no doors you might drive differently, it might make you feel really uneasy.
It's easy to see how a society where seat belts are illegal might not understand why people need these sissy seat belts.

If I wear a seat belt my entire life and go on vacation to a place where they are illegal, some dude almost runs a light and locks up his brakes at the last second, hell ya I'm going to be pissed off and wish I was allowed to wear a seat belt.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Modelexis


You don't think it would be strange to not have a gun in public after 20+ years of having a gun in public?
Does this mean he is bad in social situations without a gun?

You wear a seat belt your whole life and you get in a car with no seat belts, it is perfectly normal to feel vulnerable.
Does this mean you aren't good at driving cars with no seat belts? No, it simply means that you would prefer to have that extra level of protection.
You might even drive differently with no seat belt, but that says nothing about how good or bad you are at driving on public roads.

You can relate to him if you think about this, think if you are driving a car and some guy is racing up your rear view very quickly, with a seat belt you might brake check or change lanes. If you have no seat belt and your car has no doors you might drive differently, it might make you feel really uneasy.
It's easy to see how a society where seat belts are illegal might not understand why people need these sissy seat belts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by finboy


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You didn't even give me a quote where he admitted he was bad in social situations.

The guy admitted that he was not good in a social situation without his gun. What kind of lunatic says that?

You're entire post was null, it had nothing to do with the quote in question.

You fabricated a strawman of your own here:

but there was ZERO reason to defend himself in this case

He never said anything about him wanting to defend himself in this case.
He wanted the right to carry a firearm for protection in the case that these people may have pulled a gun on him.
He never said that he would have handled the situation differently had he been carrying a pistol.

Although this is what you would like to hear when you read the article.

[Modelexis]

Again:

He never even mentions his gun or any gun while he tells the story at the park.

You quoted a part of his article after he was done mentioning the story at the park, this is after the story has been told, not during.

Lemme break it down for you:

I thank the Lord Jesus Christ they did not pull a weapon of some sort, but rather concluded it was in their best interest to leave us alone.

------------------------------
at this point the story is done, he has finished.
He goes on to ask a question, let's listen in:
------------------------------

Would we not expect a uniformed officer to pull his or her weapon to intercede in a life-or-death encounter to protect self, or another?

He is NOT saying this was a life or death situation, the question is separate from the previous story that has already been concluded.

I'll repeat myself:

People are dwelling a lot on this story and the fact that it was a park and probably no threat was present. I don't think that was the main message of the letter, the main message was just to explain how different life can be when you compare someone will full defensive capabilities to someone who would be thrown in jail for carrying a defensive weapon.

It's not about the park, it's not about the question he was asked or the response, it's just that this guy is trying to explain what he feels when he is stripped of the right to self defense.

When you are forced to transition from the role of protector and defender to the role of defenseless sheep walking into unfamiliar territory, this is what the guy is trying to get across. It has nothing to do with the story fundamentally, the story was just an example of a situation where he felt uneasy about being stripped of his defenses.

[Twenty]

Originally posted by ercchry


probably not though

Then I'm safe.

[The BMW Guy]

Originally posted by Modelexis


People are dwelling a lot on this story and the fact that it was a park and probably no threat was present. I don't think that was the main message of the letter, the main message was just to explain how different life can be when you compare someone will full defensive capabilities to someone who would be thrown in jail for carrying a defensive weapon.

It's not about the park, it's not about the question he was asked or the response, it's just that this guy is trying to explain what he feels when he is stripped of the right to self defense.

Hey Champ,

Maybe I missed this part of the article that was written.
Can you quote where he said "the main message was just to explain how different life can be when you compare someone will full defensive capabilities to someone who would be thrown in jail for carrying a defensive weapon"?

He never even mentions "the main message was just to explain how different life can be when you compare someone will full defensive capabilities to someone who would be thrown in jail for carrying a defensive weapon".

Why don't you quote where he admits that "the main message was just to explain how different life can be when you compare someone will full defensive capabilities to someone who would be thrown in jail for carrying a defensive weapon"?

He never said that was what he meant in the article.

Although this is what you would like to hear when you read the article.

---------------------------------