Whos Carrying a Glock While Detecting Va. Beach? Mention on National News.

[ShovelNose]

Who's Carrying a Glock While Detecting Va. Beach? Mention on National News.

"Not that there is anything wrong with it" lol Watching Fox Business News last night and Dagen McDowell mention that she had seen a guy carrying a Glock while he was metal detecting at Va. Beach. He told her it was to protect his gold ring finds. No time frame but seemed to indicated it had been recent. She is pro gun but was still seemed to be shocked to see it on the beach. Sure he has his reasons but I have not felt the need to yet. Has anyone else felt the need to carry at the beach?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[lisfisher]

I have nothing against carrying whatsoever, concealed or not concealed but I would think walking on a beach with a pistol in plain sight would be similar to detecting on a well manicured lawn in a park with a giant garden shovel - it's going to attract attention, period.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[frogmaster-riviera]

Our bad guys already have guns. WE also want our bad guys to fear for their life if they are going to try to rob someone. Look at the knife and ex attacks happening in countries with strict gun regulations. Look at the terrorist attack in your own country. They knew nobody would have a weapon to stop them. Thats why so many mass killings happen in "gun free" zones.

Police does carry guns in Europe, not war gun, except in UK. You have bad and BAD guys.. :-) The BAD guys have guns, even war guns worldwide..the bad guys have knifes which are "less worth" then guns.

Again it's a question of education and seen from outside US, it can be surprising to see that almost everyone can hold on him a 100% lethal tool.

Living in a place where every person around you have the ability to judge if you can live or die makes me feel it's jungle = insecure.

Again I'm not a US citizen and I don't have the "gun background" philosophy.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Police does carry guns in Europe, not war gun, except in UK. You have bad and BAD guys.. :-) The BAD guys have guns, even war guns worldwide..the bad guys have knifes which are "less worth" then guns.

Again it's a question of education and seen from outside US, it can be surprising to see that almost everyone can hold on him a 100% lethal tool.

Living in a place where every person around you have the ability to judge if you can live or die makes me feel it's jungle = insecure.

Again I'm not a US citizen and I don't have the "gun background" philosophy.

It isn't judging if someone else lives or dies, it is judging if we individually live or die.. You also do not have the ability to ever defend yourself or your family in case of an national emergency. What if there is a national emergency, an EMP blast, worldwide interruption in oil or food, riots, what do you do, wait for someone to come defend your family?

 

[releventchair]

Police does carry guns in Europe, not war gun, except in UK. You have bad and BAD guys.. :-) The BAD guys have guns, even war guns worldwide..the bad guys have knifes which are "less worth" then guns.

Again it's a question of education and seen from outside US, it can be surprising to see that almost everyone can hold on him a 100% lethal tool.

Living in a place where every person around you have the ability to judge if you can live or die makes me feel it's jungle = insecure.

Again I'm not a US citizen and I don't have the "gun background" philosophy.

Jungle /insecure is a feeling. Nothing wrong with that.
Self defense against those who are armed and intent on killing you is a right of law abiding citizens here.
That does make the feelings of others insecure also.
Maybe a gun is not needed even after carrying it a lifetime. Good in a way despite the effort expended.
Maybe an unarmed populace is more vulnerable to assault?
While tempting to say it will never happen , here/there , it happens.
Never being allowed to have guns does not make being destroyed less a crime against humanity , but imagining being allowed arms and then being destroyed when not having them ,(through their not being allowed) would leave me wishing a chance had existed to remove at least one or more assailant on similar footing.

How should unarmed victims feel?

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/features/darfur/fiveyearson/report6.html

 

[frogmaster-riviera]

It isn't judging if someone else lives or dies, it is judging if we individually live or die.. You also do not have the ability to ever defend yourself or your family in case of an national emergency. What if there is a national emergency, an EMP blast, worldwide interruption in oil or food, riots, what do you do, wait for someone to come defend your family?

Interesting TH, do you have an example of a "national emergency" in a western country since the end of WWII?

We pay the police and the military to protect us, the civilian. I have learned during my military service (during 3 years) to use weapons. If there is a national emergency, then I will gain access to weapons to serve my country.

I don't think in case of riot the fact of holding a gun at home will change something, but I can understand different point of view.

I think have a gun puts you in danger, you are not trained for that and you have to challenge yourself : "do I use it or not?" .................if you don't have a gun, you don't think about it, you simply run away and let the professional deal with the situation.

More generally is like having the the nuclear bomb : to be sure that irresponsible countries may use it, we prevent them from having it!

Even if I was trained a few decades ago, I prefer not to carry or hold any gun at home to avoid any kind of irresponsibility due to my lack of training and a potential lost of the common sense while facing a risky situation.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Interesting TH, do you have an example of a "national emergency" in a western country since the end of WWII?

We pay the police and the military to protect us, the civilian. I have learned during my military service (during 3 years) to use weapons. If there is a national emergency, then I will gain access to weapons to serve my country.

I don't think in case of riot the fact of holding a gun at home will change something, but I can understand different point of view.

I think have a gun puts you in danger, you are not trained for that and you have to challenge yourself : "do I use it or not?" .................if you don't have a gun, you don't think about it, you simply run away and let the professional deal with the situation.

More generally is like having the the nuclear bomb : to be sure that irresponsible countries may use it, we prevent them from having it!

Even if I was trained a few decades ago, I prefer not to carry or hold any gun at home to avoid any kind of irresponsibility due to my lack of training and a potential lost of the common sense while facing a risky situation.

Here we have had multiple emergencies, hurricanes, riots are just 2 examples. People have stood in front of their stores with private firearms to protect them from looting or being burnt down during riots.

You pay the police and military, but just how long do you think it would take for police to get to you when they are having hundreds of calls for help at your local police station ? As ex military how long would it take you to get a firearm.?

There is no "challenge yourself do I use it or not?", here it is simple, someone is breaking into my home, I use my firearm, someone tries to hijack my car I use my firearm, someone tries to attack me or my family on the street I use my firearm, I am not going to cower in fear waiting on the police to arrive either... Police are good for drawing chalk lines around bodies, it is my job to make sure it isn't my or my love ones bodies...

I carry flood and fire insurance but I have never had a flood or fire. I carry the insurance just in case I need it, it is the same way with my firearms, I have them and carry them just in case I ever need them....

To explain further reasons why we have firearms would required this thread be in the politics forum.

 

[flgliderpilot]

Interesting TH, do you have an example of a "national emergency" in a western country since the end of WWII?

We pay the police and the military to protect us, the civilian. I have learned during my military service (during 3 years) to use weapons. If there is a national emergency, then I will gain access to weapons to serve my country.

I don't think in case of riot the fact of holding a gun at home will change something, but I can understand different point of view.

I think have a gun puts you in danger, you are not trained for that and you have to challenge yourself : "do I use it or not?" .................if you don't have a gun, you don't think about it, you simply run away and let the professional deal with the situation.

More generally is like having the the nuclear bomb : to be sure that irresponsible countries may use it, we prevent them from having it!

Even if I was trained a few decades ago, I prefer not to carry or hold any gun at home to avoid any kind of irresponsibility due to my lack of training and a potential lost of the common sense while facing a risky situation.

9-11, riots, and there are the recent incidents in France, and plenty of school shootings. Plenty of reasons to not rely on police or military to protect you, individually, as a person, because none of these were stopped by law enforcement or military. Thinking police or military are going to come protect you is wrong. That's not their job.

We should just summarize with YES lots of people carry detecting and end this thread

 

[Jason in Enid]

Speaking of riots... During the recent rioting, the police were pulled out and they allowed the criminals to have free reign. How safe do you think the people in that area felt? How many that didn't own a firearm were really, really wanting one right then?

How many German women would have preferred to be armed on new-years eve? Police CAN NOT protect us.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Speaking of riots... During the recent rioting, the police were pulled out and they allowed the criminals to have free reign. How safe do you think the people in that area felt? How many that didn't own a firearm were really, really wanting one right then?

There were store owners guarding their stores with visible weapons, those stores were not looted or burned.

 

[chlsbrns]

I carry! A scoop! I was on the beach and some junkie asked me if I found anything? I said no! Then the creep reached for my excal. I dropped it and wacked him in his gonads with my scoop. Babe Ruth would have been proud! The sucker doubled over with his hands on his knees and started puking and I wacked him again on his knee. He went down and I walked away.

 

[flyadive]

I carry! A scoop! I was on the beach and some junkie asked me if I found anything? I said no! Then the creep reached for my excal. I dropped it and wacked him in his gonads with my scoop. Babe Ruth would have been proud! The sucker doubled over with his hands on his knees and started puking and I wacked him again on his knee. He went down and I walked away.

Scoop wasn't enough , because it's getting knee deep in Babe Ruth's! Lol
You should have let him have your Ex (lol)when he reached !
Those junkie creeps are crazy suckers. Then you wacked him while he was a pukin too? Your one tough gal I tell ya!
HH

 

[chlsbrns]

I don't know about tough? Temper... YES! A little crazy.... Maybe? I just wanted to make sure that I could walk away I didn't want to run!

 

[frogmaster-riviera]

Speaking of riots... During the recent rioting, the police were pulled out and they allowed the criminals to have free reign. How safe do you think the people in that area felt? How many that didn't own a firearm were really, really wanting one right then?

How many German women would have preferred to be armed on new-years eve? Police CAN NOT protect us.

Seen from here, there is no gun debate....the debate is the following: where was the police?

I hope we will stay out of massive gun zone, continue to trust our police and prevent the majority to feel that having a gun is necessary.

 

[lookindown]

Many states allow open carry....

I have carried fire insurance all my life but never had a fire, got flood insurance and no floods so far, got life insurance and still alive, car insurance and only minor fender benders. I didn't buy those insurances to impress anyone either, I bought them in hopes I never need them, but just in case I do..... Same way with my carrying firearms, I carry in hopes I never need them but just in case I do....

Well said...if that doesn't explain it, nothing will...you don't carry to have shoot outs in the streets over disagreements...you carry to protect yourself from being harmed by someone if the situation ever arises.

 

[jyt2017]

Hurricane Katrina in 07. It was as close to a societal breakdown as it gets. Even the riots don't really take it that far. Theres been quite a few actually.

Interesting TH, do you have an example of a "national emergency" in a western country since the end of WWII?

We pay the police and the military to protect us, the civilian. I have learned during my military service (during 3 years) to use weapons. If there is a national emergency, then I will gain access to weapons to serve my country.

I don't think in case of riot the fact of holding a gun at home will change something, but I can understand different point of view.

I think have a gun puts you in danger, you are not trained for that and you have to challenge yourself : "do I use it or not?" .................if you don't have a gun, you don't think about it, you simply run away and let the professional deal with the situation.

More generally is like having the the nuclear bomb : to be sure that irresponsible countries may use it, we prevent them from having it!

Even if I was trained a few decades ago, I prefer not to carry or hold any gun at home to avoid any kind of irresponsibility due to my lack of training and a potential lost of the common sense while facing a risky situation.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Some are under the false belief it is the police's legal job to protect citizens, that is not the case, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police officers at all levels of the government have no duty to protect the citizens of this country. It is the job of police officers to investigate crimes and arrest criminals.

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html

• Castle Rock v. Gonzales, which found police employees had “qualified immunity” (legal land language that purports to shield individuals from personal responsibility) and thus could not be sued, after three kids were killed by the husband of a woman who’d three weeks prior gotten a restraining order that stipulated that he be at least 100 yards from her and their three daughters except during specified visitation time. This, despite four calls made by the woman to police, after the kids were snatched-up, including one in which she informed them of the location of the husband and their children.
• Warren v. District of Columbia, in which two women heard their roommate being attacked downstairs by intruders called the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After their roommate’s screams stopped 30 minutes later they assumed the police were present and went downstairs, only to themselves be held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers, for the next 14-hours. The “officials” in legal land claimed that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection. See
• Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, in which legal land “authorities” stated that police had no constitutional duty to protect people from crime, after a woman, who’d filed numerous complaints and had gotten restraining order, was continually harassed and had her property vandalized by her ex-husband.

 

[frogmaster-riviera]

Some are under the false belief it is the police's legal job to protect citizens, that is not the case, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police officers at all levels of the government have no duty to protect the citizens of this country. It is the job of police officers to investigate crimes and arrest criminals.

Hello TH!

Well, in Europe we try to have a police that protects us..... don't want to have Police only there to count the points and tell how was right and who was wrong LoL. Try vote in favor of a REAL police service that "protects" the citizen, this will decrease the need to carry a gun. Less guns = less accidents


If you have time TH, try to watch this little movie...

 

[flgliderpilot]

Some are under the false belief it is the police's legal job to protect citizens, that is not the case, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police officers at all levels of the government have no duty to protect the citizens of this country. It is the job of police officers to investigate crimes and arrest criminals.

Hello TH!

Well, in Europe we try to have a police that protects us..... don't want to have Police only there to count the points and tell how was right and who was wrong LoL. Try vote in favor of a REAL police service that "protects" the citizen, this will decrease the need to carry a gun. Less guns = less accidents

You seem to have it all figured out. Guess France an Germany can relax now since everything is completely under control.

 

[Anduril]

I just had the weirdest thought...
But first, some background.

A friend of mine recently took his CCW class (Florida).
He said there were more than 60 students, which apparently, is a strong uptick in attendance.
I suspect gun sales and gun manufacturer stock prices are also climbing, given the oftentimes sad state of the world these days.
Anyway, he was told to expect a 4 to 5 month wait for the permit, when the usual is a month or two, due to the recent high number of CCW applicants and backlogs.
So, if you're planning to get a CCW in your state, you might want to get that process started now.
Not everyone decides that carrying is "right" for them, of course.

Back to the weird thought: A combination metal detector + firearm.
Just think: If you're out metal detecting and ever have to defend yourself, you could just raise the coil and fire a few rounds out of the metal detector's shaft.(*)
Or, plan-B: You just spent 10 minutes digging up your upteenth million pull-tab so you blast a round into it for good measure.

(*) A "metal detector + firearm" concept probably requires a review of the '21-foot rule', where supposedly, a knife is better than a gun.
I think Mythbusters did an episode on this. Thankfully, I've never had the need to test it myself - and hope I never do.

 

[SouthFLdigger]

Some are under the false belief it is the police's legal job to protect citizens, that is not the case, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police officers at all levels of the government have no duty to protect the citizens of this country. It is the job of police officers to investigate crimes and arrest criminals.

Hello TH!

Well, in Europe we try to have a police that protects us..... don't want to have Police only there to count the points and tell how was right and who was wrong LoL. Try vote in favor of a REAL police service that "protects" the citizen, this will decrease the need to carry a gun. Less guns = less accidents


If you have time TH, try to watch this little movie...

This individual and his movie is the least credible and least scientific source of any found to base ones opinion on when it comes to firearms. The issue is clear, the right to defend ones self and self reliance is fundamental.