Self Defense with a firearm

[Lonestar_logic]

How many fistfights end in one of the participants being killed? What percentage? Before joining USMB, I had no idea that there were so many chickenshit Americans who think that shooting someone is a proper answer to getting punched.

You are so frightened. How do you go outside?

I agree. But you totally avoid the fact that when people punch others they can and often do get unexpected results.


I've known people who got shot for less.

I am not avoiding it. This thread is about that. The fact that the guy that got shot was also wrong does not vindicate the shooter. The fucking response was more than needed. ESPECIALLY in a well populated place like a fucking Wal Mart.

The Wal Mart shooter was wrong. Period. He overreacted.

What you think doesn't matter. You were not the one being attacked. You have no idea what words were exchanged or if the man did in fact feel threatened for his life.

I will tell you this, if I am ever attacked I will shoot and keep shooting until the threat is eliminated.

 

[nodoginnafight]

How many fistfights end in one of the participants being killed? What percentage? Before joining USMB, I had no idea that there were so many chickenshit Americans who think that shooting someone is a proper answer to getting punched.

You are so frightened. How do you go outside?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that USMB posters are a representative sample of the real world.

 

[Iceweasel]

How many fistfights end in one of the participants being killed? What percentage? Before joining USMB, I had no idea that there were so many chickenshit Americans who think that shooting someone is a proper answer to getting punched.

You are so frightened. How do you go outside?

I go out everyday just fine. You let someone punch your brave face. My face belongs to me, not you. I'll decide what the response will be, not you. I don't know how many have died in fights, but fights typically start with a fist.

 

[Iceweasel]

Sounds like a lot of paranoid people. Guess the United States is a lot more violent than civilized countries.

You misspelled prepared.

 

[Pheonixops]

It would appear from the recent shooting at a Walmart that the left is opposed to self defense as well. A man was physically attacked and defended himself and people like Luddy call him a criminal.

So all the claims in the past about self defense not happening isn't the point, what they mean is no one should ever shoot anyone even in self defense.

Then we have the useful idiots that remind us some lefties own firearms. usually with the claim that because of that no one is trying to take them away.

How many examples do we need of high profile democrats demanding just that? A ban on firearms and a confiscation of privately owned firearms?

Add to that the refusal of some to acknowledge the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right not dependent on belonging to a militia. And further that it applies to the States.

A man throws a punch, the other man shoots him dead. What is wrong with this scenario?

"Don't bring a fist to a gun fight?"

I don't know what story this is about, I don't know who the aggressor is, but a street fight is not based on the Marquess of Queensberry rules. A punch or series of punches can do serious damage to someone.

 

[Mathbud1]

How many fistfights end in one of the participants being killed? What percentage? Before joining USMB, I had no idea that there were so many chickenshit Americans who think that shooting someone is a proper answer to getting punched.

You are so frightened. How do you go outside?

I agree. But you totally avoid the fact that when people punch others they can and often do get unexpected results.


I've known people who got shot for less.

I am not avoiding it. This thread is about that. The fact that the guy that got shot was also wrong does not vindicate the shooter. The fucking response was more than needed. ESPECIALLY in a well populated place like a fucking Wal Mart.

The Wal Mart shooter was wrong. Period. He overreacted.

The video shows the guy pretty much slamming the other guys head into a low wall, trying to put him in a headlock, and continuing the attack after the guy tried to retreat.

WAY more than just trying to punch the guy. The fact is the attacker instigated a violent confrontation and ended up dead. Would you be happier if the guy had hit the attacker in the head with a rock and killed him that way instead?

 

[Spiderman]

Yeah but hands and feet have multiple uses. A gun has one. Shooting stuff.

And that still does not invalidate my statement of fact does it?

And a gun can diffuse a situation without ever having to be fired can't it?

So you werent making a point that hands and feet are just like Guns? So what was the reason for stating hands and feet harm people more than guns? Or are we just stating random facts like "A Doberman is a type of Dog not a man"

I never once said hands and feet are just like guns.

What I said was more people are killed by hands and feet than by assault rifles and that's what I meant.

Because Idiot this post is about a guy defending himself from a person who assaulted him with his hands.

it is prudent to assume that anyone who attacks you even if it is with hands and/or feet is going to do you serious bodily harm or possibly kill you so using a weapon is warranted.

 

[Pheonixops]

A fight and an attack are two different beasts.

Not when an attack turns into a fight. And no one appears to know what was said that started the fight. There are ways to prevent fights too.

You can't prevent an unprovoked attack.

Look I don't give a shit if you think you're Bruce Lee and can fight anyone on the planet bare handed.

I was attacked and beaten quite severely for doing nothing but walking home after an 18 hour shift. I still have the scar on my temple from the bike chain that was wrapped around one guy's hand. I had a cracked rib from getting kicked with steel toed boots and was laid up for almost a week.

If you don't assume that anyone who attacks you might kill you then that's your choice. A stupid choice but yours to make.

I glad that you were only laid up for a week, I know it was really bad but the results could have been worse. I hope those bastards got caught and or got their own beat downs.

 

[MikeK]

so to you ...all gun owners are cowards? please explain

I have never found it necessary to carry a firearm for protection. I think that it is ridiculous. When I lived in New York City we used to go to after hours clubs I Harlem to hear jazz and salsa clubs in the South Bronx. I had a girlfriend who lived in Harlem and used to walk her dog at 4 or 5 in the morning when we got home. I never felt the need to carry a firearm, and there was no need.

I never felt the need either, but know you are deluded here.

I lived in Ft. Greene on Ft. Greene Place in the 1980s. Only white dude on the block (nearby BAM). Neighbors who were white started moving in nearby. I told them be careful. Like you they were clueless. Heads bashed in with metal pipes and other robberies and assaults followed.

Knowing where you are, who is around and having the good sense to run or move away can save your life. I fit in most everywhere I've been, but I'm not like most people.

I was born and raised in the Waterfront district (Columbia Street) of Brooklyn (in the 1930s) and fortunately managed to end up in a Park Slope brownstone on Carroll Street. We moved to New Jersey when I retired in 1985 and while I rarely go back to Brooklyn I am quite familiar with the Fort Greene district you've mentioned. Having heard that neighborhood has been considerably gentrified I have no idea what it's like today, but before I left Brooklyn it was exactly as you've said -- a very dangerous place, especially near the Projects, and especially for Whites.

There are neighborhoods in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, and Queens where carrying a gun is the sensible option if it's available.

I had a neighbor (Richard) on Carroll Street who was a smart-ass 23 year-old teacher at Alexander Hamilton High School. I once mentioned in conversation with him that some of the students in that school were real bad-asses and advised him to be careful in that neighborhood. He criticized my "insensitivity" and virtually accused me of latent racism.

No more than two weeks later I learned Richard had been mugged on Bergen Street while waiting for a bus after leaving an evening PTA meeting and he was in the Methodist Hospital.

As I said, Richard was a real smart-ass.

 

[Spiderman]

How many fistfights end in one of the participants being killed? What percentage? Before joining USMB, I had no idea that there were so many chickenshit Americans who think that shooting someone is a proper answer to getting punched.

You are so frightened. How do you go outside?

OK Internet Bad Ass. We all know you're a 100th degree black belt tough guy.

NOT

 

[Little-Acorn]

There is no doubt in my mind that the Second Amendment grants the right for every individual American to own a firearm.

Well, it doesn't grant it, it assumes the right was there long before the amendment was written (a minor but important point). It merely forbids government from interfering with it or taking it away.

I am concerned, however, that so many seemingly minor altercations are winding up with someone shot and killed.

Very few, actually. But every one gets blazing headlines when it happens. Unlike incidents where someone uses a gun to ward off a criminal and he runs away - that happens by the millions every year in this country. But when did you last see even one, mentioned in the media?

CDC Gun Violence Study Didn't Give Obama White House Outcome It Wanted - Investors.com

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

When we have 100% perfect people, we will have NO incidents of minor altercations leading to gunfire. Until then, we'll have to take the (occasional) bad results with the (hugely more numerous) good results of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Pheonixops]

It would appear from the recent shooting at a Walmart that the left is opposed to self defense as well. A man was physically attacked and defended himself and people like Luddy call him a criminal.

So all the claims in the past about self defense not happening isn't the point, what they mean is no one should ever shoot anyone even in self defense.

Then we have the useful idiots that remind us some lefties own firearms. usually with the claim that because of that no one is trying to take them away.

How many examples do we need of high profile democrats demanding just that? A ban on firearms and a confiscation of privately owned firearms?

Add to that the refusal of some to acknowledge the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right not dependent on belonging to a militia. And further that it applies to the States.

Once again from this post we see that the right continues to be ignorant of what constitutes a fallacy, as again many on ‘the left’ own and carry firearms.

Consequently the premise of the thread fails.

And yet it is the left that demands more gun laws, demands bans, demands no carry, demands the Supreme Court change the ruling that made the 2nd n individual right. Demands that private ownership be barred and all private weapons confiscated.

As for your claim that most carry, that is a bald faced lie too. Most are in the cities and they either are barred by law from owning one or are afraid of them.

Not this Liberal. I think that you should be able to purchase a firearm with a valid ID that shows that you are over 18 and nothing else (like buying cigarettes). I think that there should be no need to obtain a license to carry and I think that businesses do have the right to have a "gun free" zone (bars, nightclubs, etc.). My state has open carry, I see nothing wrong with that, but I prefer to be more discreet (concealed carry).

 

[Mathbud1]

As a cop told me one time. Words> fist> foot> knife> gun.
The shooter escalated it from fist to gun. The crime is on him. Had he simply used his fists back there would be no story.

Uh huh.. so you don't like us carrying firearms and you now advocate us carrying a complete arsenal in case of various styles of attacks??

Sorry... I will make sure I suppress with superior firepower in any way, shape or form for my and my family's defense... If I am only carrying a firearm, I am not going to hold off defending myself if you are trying to get me with a knife or have already punched me from behind or whatever else... you may only get shot in the leg or the reproductive parts, you may be killed outright, or you may somehow get the upper hand and defeat me and get what you want.. but you're not going to just get away with it while I rely on someone else to stop you... the criminal makes the risky move by choosing to commit the initial crime or attack... they assume the risk that they may get hurt or worse, and not just get away with their crime

where did i state any of this?
someone has a chip on their shoulder.

The point is that it seems you are trying to say that if someone attacks you with words, words are your defense. Fists to defend against fists etc.

That would require you to carry a lead pipe to defend against pipe wielding foes, a knife to fend off knife carrying enemies, a baseball bat to protect yourself against... well you get the picture. If that is not what you were trying to say, then please explain.

Otherwise, please explain how you are sure my fists will always be enough to defend me against all other people's fists.

Why should I be required to carry the risk of meeting force with supposedly equal force when I was not the one instigating the violent encounter? I'm just supposed to hope that my fists will be enough to keep someone from caving in my skull?

 

[Spiderman]

You do not meet force with equal force. You meet force with superior force.

If a guy hits you once do you only hit him back once or do you hit him enough times so as to make sure he can't hit you a second time?

Why hit him with a fist at all when you can end the confrontation with a weapon? If a guy hits me with his fist why shouldn't I hit him with a baton or a sapper?

Why shouldn't I point a gun at him to make him stop?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yes nutters! You must have the right to bear arms....to prevent your government from tyranny......while buying underwear at Wal Mart. It says so in the Constitution.

Oh! Wait! You think the constitution was referring to your personal safety? No wonder.

I don't give a shit about the government.

And I have a right to defend myself from any and all attacks with deadly force if necessary.

Like I said if you don't assume that anyone who attacks you is trying to kill you then you are an idiot.

This.

When someone is assaulting me, I cannot read their mind and know at which point they are going to stop assaulting me, they may have already committed to killing me, how would I know? Would you say mid-fight:

"Time out! I want to know if you intend to kill me!"

Anyone who attacks me, while I have a firearm, is a dead man.

 

[Spiderman]

Yes nutters! You must have the right to bear arms....to prevent your government from tyranny......while buying underwear at Wal Mart. It says so in the Constitution.

Oh! Wait! You think the constitution was referring to your personal safety? No wonder.

I don't give a shit about the government.

And I have a right to defend myself from any and all attacks with deadly force if necessary.

Like I said if you don't assume that anyone who attacks you is trying to kill you then you are an idiot.

This.

When someone is assaulting me, I cannot read their mind and know at which point they are going to stop assaulting me, they may have already committed to killing me, how would I know? Would you say mid-fight:

"Time out! I want to know if you intend to kill me!"

Anyone who attacks me, while I have a firearm, is a dead man.

The guy in the video was trying to put a choke hold on the man who was attempting to walk away.

Sorry but if some guy is trying to wrap his arm around my neck I am going to assume he means to kill me not kiss me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am not avoiding it. This thread is about that. The fact that the guy that got shot was also wrong does not vindicate the shooter. The fucking response was more than needed. ESPECIALLY in a well populated place like a fucking Wal Mart.

The Wal Mart shooter was wrong. Period. He overreacted.

some people panic when put in a strangle hold by complete strangers. we live in a different world than our parents did.

Time for bullies and people with temper tantrums to stfu or face a firing squad

Perfect world you envision. Just perfect.

not really, but if that is what you think

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I have never found it necessary to carry a firearm for protection. I think that it is ridiculous. When I lived in New York City we used to go to after hours clubs I Harlem to hear jazz and salsa clubs in the South Bronx. I had a girlfriend who lived in Harlem and used to walk her dog at 4 or 5 in the morning when we got home. I never felt the need to carry a firearm, and there was no need.

I never felt the need either, but know you are deluded here.

I lived in Ft. Greene on Ft. Greene Place in the 1980s. Only white dude on the block (nearby BAM). Neighbors who were white started moving in nearby. I told them be careful. Like you they were clueless. Heads bashed in with metal pipes and other robberies and assaults followed.

Knowing where you are, who is around and having the good sense to run or move away can save your life. I fit in most everywhere I've been, but I'm not like most people.

I was born and raised in the Waterfront district (Columbia Street) of Brooklyn (in the 1930s) and fortunately managed to end up in a Park Slope brownstone on Carroll Street. We moved to New Jersey when I retired in 1985 and while I rarely go back to Brooklyn I am quite familiar with the Fort Greene district you've mentioned. Having heard that neighborhood has been considerably gentrified I have no idea what it's like today, but before I left Brooklyn it was exactly as you've said -- a very dangerous place, especially near the Projects, and especially for Whites.

There are neighborhoods in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, and Queens where carrying a gun is the sensible option if it's available.

I had a neighbor (Richard) on Carroll Street who was a smart-ass 23 year-old teacher at Alexander Hamilton High School. I once mentioned in conversation with him that some of the students in that school were real bad-asses and advised him to be careful in that neighborhood he criticized my "insensitivity" and virtually accused me of latent racism.

No more than two weeks later I learned Richard had been mugged on Bergen Street while waiting for a bus after leaving an evening PTA meeting and he was in the Methodist Hospital.

As I said, Richard was a real smart-ass.

I sublet in Carrol Gardens for about 6 months in 1984/1985.

and yes, I've known far too many Richards

 

[Mathbud1]

You do not meet force with equal force. You meet force with superior force.

If a guy hits you once do you only hit him back once or do you hit him enough times so as to make sure he can't hit you a second time?

Why hit him with a fist at all when you can end the confrontation with a weapon? If a guy hits me with his fist why shouldn't I hit him with a baton or a sapper?

Why shouldn't I point a gun at him to make him stop?

My point exactly. Even if you know that your fists are equal to the other guys fists (not a guarantee by the way) fighting on equal ground you still risk the other guy getting lucky (unlucky) and killing you by accident or at the very least injuring you so you miss work recovering (if you ever do) and can't provide for your family. Is it responsible to risk the welfare of yourself and/or your family on being trained enough, strong enough, fast enough, and lucky enough to avoid being seriously hurt in a brawl?

[MENTION=24391]NoNukes[/MENTION], I'm glad you have been lucky enough to avoid serious injury in your supposedly many fights, but I think you are a fool if you rely on luck that that will always be the case.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no doubt in my mind that the Second Amendment grants the right for every individual American to own a firearm.

Well, it doesn't grant it, it assumes the right was there long before the amendment was written (a minor but important point). It merely forbids government from interfering with it or taking it away.

I am concerned, however, that so many seemingly minor altercations are winding up with someone shot and killed.

Very few, actually. But every one gets blazing headlines when it happens. Unlike incidents where someone uses a gun to ward off a criminal and he runs away - that happens by the millions every year in this country. But when did you last see even one, mentioned in the media?

CDC Gun Violence Study Didn't Give Obama White House Outcome It Wanted - Investors.com

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

When we have 100% perfect people, we will have NO incidents of minor altercations leading to gunfire. Until then, we'll have to take the (occasional) bad results with the (hugely more numerous) good results of the 2nd amendment.

No. No it does not.