So angry; bloody gangstah wannabes

[bmcd308 0]

>>but getting guns involved in the above situation would probably have made it very ugly<<

PhillyKev was saying that the OPTION to have one was good. I agree. This did not turn out to be a situation where deadly force was required, but it could have turned into one regardless of the actions of the good guy here.

If the bad guys choose to take it to the dark side, I'm happy that the the good guys have the option of defending themselves.

I do not think I would have defended myself with deadly force in this situation, but there are things to think about in a situtation like this. The moment physical contact with my body was made (an assault) in the face of multiple attackers (obvious disparity of force) a reasonable person would have been in fear for his life. Once multiple attackers are striking you, it is no longer about defense of property. I think that there was a reasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury here that would have been perceived by any reasonable person. Not to say that I would have drawn in this situation, but it would have been on my mind.

Glad this one worked out for the good guys, but please keep in mind that the good guy was at the mercy of the bad guys, who decided to let him slide this time. Condemning yourself to being at the mercy of bad guys is not my idea of a fun life.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[Faber 0]

want me to drop by guys like that shouldnt play around like that...

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[jfields 0]

Quote

Condemning yourself to being at the mercy of bad guys is not my idea of a fun life.

And inadvertently becoming the bad guy would not sit well with my conscience. It happens with alarming regularity when firearms are in the picture.

I'm glad everything in this case turned out well.

Score
Good Guy: 1
Bad Guys: 0

Firearms needed: 0

[bill2 0]

And inadvertently becoming the bad guy would not sit well with my conscience. It happens with alarming regularity when firearms are in the picture.

I'm glad everything in this case turned out well.

Score
Good Guy: 1
Bad Guys: 0

Firearms needed: 0
____________________________________

If he had used a firearm to defend himself against thugs like these after they attacked him, he would not have been the bad guy - even if all of the thugs ended up dead. Furthermore, everything did not end up well. These guys humiliated him, shoved him around, and may come back and do it again since they got away with it once. I would not score one for the good guys - the only reason he wasn't hurt was that the bad guys decided not to do anything more to him. As was already pointed out, leaving your survival and well being up to a bunch of thugs is the wrong way to live your life. You essentially give up control of your life to a bunch of scumbags. It should be the bad guys who are afraid for their life, not the other way around. I know some people think that pacificsm is the best way to handle this, but when you do that you cede control of society and your life to the bad guys and that is wrong, both practically and morally.

[jfields 0]

I didn't say shooting these particular people in self-defense would have made him the bad guy. Although perhaps it may have, depending on the exact circumstances.

Accidently shooting someone or being careless enough to let your kid shoot someone does make you the bad guy. It happens a lot. Add in the sense of bravado a firearm can give someone and you have the recipe for people who try to "defend themselves" and end up dead, when they could have just walked away.

Change the scenario. He had a gun. They all had guns. What is the probability that everyone walked away from the situation alive? Higher or lower than without guns?

[bmcd308 0]

When multiple assailants attack a single innocent, the total number who walk away does not matter. Only that the innocent does. If they decided to beat this guy to death, would it have been better that only one person was killed than if he had been forced to kill two or three of them to save himself?

I do not disagree with you that misuse of firearms is a problem, and there is no place for bravado in the personality of a person who chooses daily carry as a lifestyle. Since I have carried a firearm on a daily basis, I have walked away from tons of situations that I might have stuck around a little longer for back when I did not. The responsible gun owner understands the consequences of choices and behaves accordingly.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[jfields 0]

Quote

I do not disagree with you that misuse of firearms is a problem, and there is no place for bravado in the personality of a person who chooses daily carry as a lifestyle.

And I don't disagree with the right to defend yourself, even if it means the attackers (however many) end up dying.

I just disagree with the general assertions that have gaping flaws and tons of troubling exceptions.

Gun ownership does not equal personal safety.
Gun ownership does not equal responsible ownership.
Gun ownership does not equal sufficient experience for safe ownership.
Gun ownership does not equal sound judgement on the use of deadly force.

If gun owners worked on all those things, people would have a lot less problem with general firearm ownership. A huge number of gun owners really aren't qualified to have them, by any reasonable assessment of their training or level of responsibility.

[PhillyKev 0]

Agree with you Justin. And wouldn't be opposed to mandatory training/testing for gun owners. Provided that it does not require registration or record keeping of who has what guns.

[jfields 0]

Kevin,

As discussed in many, many...... many debates here on the subject, I'm not suggesting any blanket ban on ownership. I just think we can and must do a much better job in separating those that should and should not be able to own guns. (It is usually when I say that that I get slammed with the 2d Amendment argument.)

Quote

And wouldn't be opposed to mandatory training/testing for gun owners.

This would be a great step. Sadly, many gun owners see it as big brother stepping in, when the real goal is weeding out the people that aren't capable of responsible ownership. Safety-minded gun owners shouldn't want those people having them either.

If we could take a huge number of weapons from irresponsible and untrained people, it would do wonders for dropping the accidental firearm death rate you regularly hear me bitching about. Then there would be less backlash against the owners who have shown they are responsible. I also think we ought to be doing a far better job at fighting crime, which would also help lower gun deaths.

I'd make the same arguments related to automobiles. A lot of drivers (Florida seniors come to mind) just shouldn't be driving. Rather than a minimal renewal fee and a rubber stamp, people ought to have to take a driving road test (like they did to get their license) every few years. Our streets would be a whole lot safer and responsible drivers wouldn't be penalized at all.

[PhillyKev 0]

One of the main oppositions to mandatory training or testing it how it is funded. Many people believe (without bringing that argument into it) that owning guns is a constitutionally guaranteed right. If you then put a price on exercising that right, you are limiting it, which is in defiance of the definition of a right. In the same vain, some states have tried to tax hand guns so that they are less desirable. This in effect relegates the poor to losing one of their constitutionally guaranteed rights because of their income level.

At the same time, not many are willing to pay more taxes to fund training for gun owners. So how do you solve that conflict?

[jfields 0]

Quote

So how do you solve that conflict?

I don't see any conflict at all.

I'm not being sarcastic. I'll explain.

It goes back to the wording of the Second Amendment. I see it as being a right to support the defense of the country by being in an organized defensive body. A militia then, the military or police now. Those organizations provide the weapons for the use of their members. Income plays no role in keeping someone from taking up arms in support of their country.

Non-military, non-police civilians have no inalienable "right" to own firearms, much less at an arbitrarily affordable price point. So if they cost a bit more to make sure that only people get training before buying them, I don't think that is a problem. If cost were the issue, the Constitution or Amendments would state that everyone should be given a firearm.

Aside from all the constitutional issues, don't you think a it ought to be the responsibility of a potential gun owner to get the training they need? The personal responsibility of the person wanting the weapon? Should we have to provide buses to take inner city buyers out to rural ranges at taxpayer expense? How about providing them with a monthly ammo allotment so they can keep their skills current? Ear protectors, hearing tests, liability insurance, renter's insurance for the guns, gun safes, holsters, etc. Those all cost money, so should we be obligated to pay for them too so as not to limit who can buy guns? No. It is the burden of the buyer. If you don't want to pay those costs, don't buy the weapon. It is simple.

[PhillyKev 0]

Well...there is a conflict, don't really want to get into this argument since generations of constitutional attorneys can't make up their minds regarding the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. But from my poing of view, it guarantees the right to bear arms, period. The part about an organized militia was a justification for the right, not a limitation, just as is added to all the other amendments. And now taking my stance that it is a right, you can't now charge people to exercise that right.

Considering the people who are usually the first to be opressed are the poor, and therefore those most in need of some equalizing defense against the possibility of oppression, I don't think it is constitutional to charge any kind of fee or tax, or training or whatever to own guns. If the people wanted to use public money to fund the training in an effort to make gun ownership safer, I'm ok with that.

[shedao 0]

The problem with carrying a gun is that it becomes the go-to. A gang of "thugs" surrounds you.. Do you pull the gun and tell them to back off? Sounds like cowboy antics that don't work in the real world. You better be ready to kill a man if you carry one and pull it out. You better be ready to defend your life on the stand when they throw the book at you. Killings in self-defense are questioned with a skeptical eye by most legal systems. And most of all you better be ready to carry the burden of killing someone for the rest of your life. Those are all real decisions that need to be made BEFORE you decide that a gun is the answer.

I prefer not to own one myself but I'm not against gun ownership. Just treat them with the respect they deserve and don't think their gonna solve your problems with punks.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The problem with carrying a gun is that it becomes the go-to

No, for me it's a last resort.

Quote

A gang of "thugs" surrounds you.. Do you pull the gun and tell them to back off?

Nope, if I think I'm in danger for my life I'll try to retreat. If I can't I'll draw and shoot so that I can get away.

Quote

Sounds like cowboy antics that don't work in the real world. You better be ready to kill a man if you carry one and pull it out.

I firmly hold to the mantra that you don't point a gun at anyone you don't want to shoot and kill. And you only do that if it's you or them.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

You better be ready to kill a man if you carry one and pull it out.

this is the first lesson..never point it at anything you dont intend to shoot, never shoot at anything you dont intend to kill...

rather simple concepts, all aquired without recourse to any government sanctioned 'training program' which just like drivers ed classes would do little to affect the way in which people actually drive

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[jfields 0]

Okay. Let's leave the constitutional issue aside for now and just say we disagree.

So, based on your take on it....

Shouldn't guns be free, so as not to further opress poor people by denying them the right to a firearm? That goes to all the tangential things required to responsibly own a gun. Do you really think it is the government's responsibility to provide them all so that everyone can take advantage of their right? Isn't that the logical extension of what you are saying. Do you want to pay for that? Is it fair to demand that everyone pay for that?

I don't think so.

[PhillyKev 0]

Sure, why not? Roads, schools, etc. are all publicly funded but are not named rights.

[bmcd308 0]

>>Shouldn't guns be free, so as not to further opress poor people by denying them the right to a firearm? <<


Ah. Finally, a new way to look at this that makes me think. Justin is suddenly getting to be more fun.

Here is an interesting example of this. Immediately following the Civil War, my home state (TN) banned all handguns in the name of public safety, with the only exception being Colt Army and Navy revolvers. The Colt Army and Navy revolvers were the most expensive handguns of thier day and were by far the highest quality. They did a good job of protecting their powder charges from water so that they would not squib as often (which leaves a bullet blocking the barrel so that the next one blows the gun up) and were therefore considered "safer".

Here is the problem. That was actually a law designed to keep blacks from exercising their rights. You see, most returning Confederate soldiers, particularly officers and cavalrymen, would have been issued such a revolver by the CSA. The CSA was in no position to be asking for it back, so they were kept. Folks with a little money could buy those revolvers. Poor folks could not afford them and so were SOL. It has been a long time since I have actually read the law, but IIRC, the law actually said that part of its purpose was to keep blacks from being armed.

What does all that have to do with your question?

I don't know exactly, but something. Everyone can afford to speak their mind, Bibles are cheap, we appoint attorneys for those who cannot afford them, etc. So it appears that as a society we do help people exercise those inalienable rights that cost money.

So, what can we do? Well, the fact that local PDs sell evidence guns for something close to nothing helps. So maybe this counts as the way we help the poor exercise this right. And it takes a pretty large set of cajones for a felon to show up at the police station looking to buy a firearm, so that probably cuts down on the "in the wrong hands" factor.

With regard to your earlier comment about people having firearms who do not know how to own them responsibly, the real question there is whether the fact that some are not mature enough to exercise a right responsibly means that all should lose it or have it curtailed. That is a policy question that has to be addressed before particular strategies to curtail the right can be discussed.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

But if you look at some of the complaints of middle-eastern (even French) cultures, they frequently cite US mass media and entertainment as having a "bad" influence in their society.

It is hilarious that the Middle-eastern cultures blame us for the "bad" influence in their society. I think part of the issue is what they consider "bad". It seems to be socially acceptable within the local Middle-eastern community (among very recent immigrants) to conduct any type of fraud against the government and community they can get away with. Crimes against other people directly are considered bad but fraud is a way of life. Cooperating with law enforcement is anti-Islamic and, if discovered, can lead to you being thrown out of the community. It is very different. Not all are like this but it is very common.

Every country and community has problems. They need to take responsibility for their own issues.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[321seeya 0]

JESUS!....Talk about clouding the topic! This thread is not about firearm ownership or the legal right to use a firearm in a defensive mode...It is about one of our brothers...being assualted by a gang of thugs.
The shit that he had to endure might not seem like a big deal to many of you, you were not there looking bodily harm and fear in the eye. Many of you say..Just stand up to them..just do this or that...BUT HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN THAT SITUATION? He stated that he is not a fighter, and even if he was those are no odds to have to deal with on your own. I am a fighter, in fact have received training in areas meant to help and deal with this kind of situation...multiple assailants, and I, Given the details of this encounter, am not sure if I would not have acted the same way. Yes he was humiliated, and yes he was assualted, but yes he is alive. Is it over? NO, with the mentality of groups like that they will continue to harrass him and even assualt him until there is some justice administered. If you cant get legal justice, get vigilante justice.

In the words of Marcellous Wallace (Pulp Fiction)

"I'm pretty fuckin' far from okay!..... What now? Well let me tell you
what now. I'm gonna call a couple
pipe-hittin' niggers, who'll go to
work on homes here with a pair of
pliers and a blow torch.

Hear me talkin' hillbilly boy?! I
ain't through with you by a damn
sight. I'm gonna get Medieval on
your ass"

BASE 3:16 - Even if you are about to land on a cop - DONT FORGET TO FLARE!
Free the soul -- DJ