Skip to main content

Last week over at The Truth About Guns, Robert asked the following question.
Have You Ever Felt You Needed A Gun and Didn’t Have One?

Commenter Josh offered this.

 

 Within 5 minutes of getting off the bus at the station, a drunk and presumably cracked out homeless man came running at me swinging a 2×4. I was sick, tired, and in a place i’d never been. Adrenaline started pumping, and I started thinking about how I was gonna avoid getting hit in the head with this 2×4.

    When the guy got about 3ft from me, he just stopped dead in his tracks, laughed, burped, and walked off the otherway.

After reading a dozen similar stories, I responded.

 

  Doesn’t the fact that you lived to talk about it indicate that in fact you didn’t need a gun? Doesn’t the fact that you and Robert and others are looking back on situations you all survived and admit that you wish you’d been armed, say something about your fear and paranoia and insecurity?

    I think it does.

    These are the worst kind of examples. These should be posted on my site as proof that you are paranoid. The ones you need here are the guys who were shot or killed when they were not carrying. Those would make your point for you. But what you’ve got here is quite the opposite.

In reflecting back on this exchange, I've taken it one step further. We all agreed that the ones who truly did have a need for a gun are dead and can't tell their tale. I guess that was some kind of reluctant acquiescence on their part although not one of the commenters or moderators said I was right or that I had a point.

The next logical question is,

What would have happened if you'd been armed?

Since we now know that every one of the past scary situations described was one in which no gun was needed for survival, we can conclude that ANY use of the gun would have been unnecessary and therefore criminal. That would be from simple brandishing to killing someone.

One more logical step: EVERY one of those cases in which the gun came out unnecessarily, would have been called a legitimate Defensive Gun Use. What else is a gun owner to do? It's not his fault when someone gets too close to him or scares him in some way. In describing it to the police afterwards, naturally he'd feel justified since he'd felt his life was in jeapardy.

Robert Farago calls his readers and commenters "The Armed Intelligentsia."  I feel there's good reason for that.  As a group they are intelligent and knowledgeable, they continually reinforce the importance of training and gun safety.  I've described them as "fanatical," which, I don't know if they realized it, was a compliment.

If among such superior examples of gun ownership, and I mean that sincerely, we have such a bleak picture of the uselessness of carrying a gun, imagine how much worse it is among the general gun-owning public.

Guns are bad news and concealed carry makes it worse.

(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  tipped for the following (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mikeb302000, randomfacts
    EVERY one of those cases in which the gun came out unnecessarily, would have been called a legitimate Defensive Gun Use

    To admit otherwise is to confess to excessive use of force.

    How many genuine DGU's occur I have no idea.

    How many of those could have been resolved without a gun, I guess quite a few.

    The example that springs to mind is Granny shouting throught the door at kids retrieving theoir football from the garden

    "I gotta gun here and git off my property"

    For some that's a DGU, for me its nonsense.

    "Lethality is the prime function of a firearm why pretend otherwise?" 2dimeshift!

    by senilebiker on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 12:03:56 AM PDT

  •  Let me give you an example of the thinking: (14+ / 0-)
    Doesn’t the fact that you lived to talk about it indicate that in fact you didn’t need a gun? Doesn’t the fact that you and Robert and others are looking back on situations you all survived and admit that you wish you’d been armed, say something about your fear and paranoia and insecurity?

    One of my fellow instructors went into a gas station and was standing in line when the young woman in front of him yelled "THIS IS A STICKUP!!" He wasn't carrying a firearm. His response was to back up and get away.

    Which didn't matter, because the stick up was the young lady flashing everybody in the Citgo.

    He went out and bought a carry firearm immediately after this.

    Not because he was in any danger this time but because he had no response if it had been a true threat and he did need to defend himself.

    For SB: it's kind of like how going down for your first time (on a motorcycle) makes you appreciate your leathers more even if you wouldn't have gotten hurt if you hadn't had them on. (This happened to me and is one of the reasons why my gear is on 99% of the time.)

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 12:17:16 AM PDT

  •  Not making sense to me... (10+ / 0-)
    Since we now know that every one of the past scary situations described was one in which no gun was needed for survival, we can conclude that ANY use of the gun would have been unnecessary and therefore criminal. That would be from simple brandishing to killing someone.

    So, because these people were lucky enough to avoid a harmful situation, but felt that they were close to such a situation, they shouldn't be worried?

    I really don't follow your logic.

    Plenty of situations could be diffused by "brandishing".  The story with the bum and the 2x4, for example.  So the potential victim was "saved" by the whim of the potential attacker--but the potential attacker could have taken another 2 steps forward just as easily.  

    If the victim had been carrying, revealing the weapon would have been a solution to the situation, and probably would have resulted in no injuries to either party.  

    Wanting to feel personally safe and secure is not a sign of "fear and paranoia and insecurity."

    •  . (8+ / 0-)

      See, e.g.:

      Authorities in South Carolina have charged four men with first-degree lynching in the beating death of a 42-year-old man who was struck in the head with a 2-by-4.

      Deputies with the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office said Ronnie Gene Wallace of Charlotte died on Christmas night after being attacked in Indian Land.

      Maj. David Belk said Sunday that deputies arrested 22-year-old Steven Ray Steen on Christmas night. On Saturday, deputies arrested 24-year-old Marty Player, while 28-year-old Evan Starck and 33-year-old Shawn Starck turned themselves in to authorities.

      ‎"Our greatest asset as advocates is a deep cognizance of our own ignorance, plus a willingness to do something about it." -Joseph Mitchell Kaye, 1966.

      by JR on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 12:36:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sometimes his leaps of logic are out there (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mikeb302000

      but the underlying point is that anyone who ever uses a gun, real or imaginary in a conflict situation will call it a justified DGU, irrespective of what would have been the outcome without the gun.

      In a similar way, someone who is carrying a gun is likely to use that gun ( as a threat, or even to discharge it), even if it is not neccessary. This could be as banal as warning someone they are arguing with that they are armed, showing the weapon, brandishing whatever.

      Mike's point is that in all of those cases the idividual will have claimed a successful DGU, and will tend to inflate the preceived threat to justify the use of the gun.

      That is not to say there are no genuine DGU's, but simply the reported numbers are probably inflated.

      "Lethality is the prime function of a firearm why pretend otherwise?" 2dimeshift!

      by senilebiker on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 12:40:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm still not following how (9+ / 0-)

        that jumps from DGU/unnecessary DGU to armed aggression.

        •  A little hyperbole perhaps nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mikeb302000

          "Lethality is the prime function of a firearm why pretend otherwise?" 2dimeshift!

          by senilebiker on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 12:51:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really? On this subject? (11+ / 0-)

            I'm sorry, I'm really really trying here.

            Inflammatory words advocating for gun control costs us votes.  A large portion of this country takes gun rights very, very seriously.

            I was mystified by my dad's voting habits growing up--in every conversation we ever had about politics, he was very liberal.

            But he voted mostly Republican up to the 2004 elections--and was quite annoyed with himself for voting Kerry.  To be fair, the majority of the R's he voted for were moderate as a function of his location (CT).  

            I guess I get it now.

            •  caliQ, I'm sorry you're having such a hard time. (0+ / 0-)

              I honestly don't believe you.  I think you're playing hard to get, that's all.

              In the 2X4 story, can we agree the guy did not need a gun?

              If you say yes, I ask you, if he'd had a gun, what would have happened?

              If you say brandishing, at least, I say that would have been unnecessary brandishing, which is a crime.

              And he would have claimed lethal threat and that he was justified, which already know was not the case.

              Please tell me you understand what I'm saying.  Disagree all you want, but then you have to explain why.  

              •  If someone comes at you with a weapon, it would (11+ / 0-)

                not be unnecessary brandishing.

                We found out it was unnecessary AFTER he had closed the distance, not before. You can't read someone's mind.

                We know NOW that it was not a lethal threat. We didn't know when the culprit was closing the distance, weapon in hand. It's easy to look back and second guess....

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 01:29:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, this is exactly the reason I have mentioned (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas, Unit Zero

                  the incidents where people have approached me in attempt to sell me a gun- I have no idea of their intent or motive but as they close up that distance between themselves and me with a gun in their hand the closer they are to me setting the wheels of self defense in motion that I cannot take back or get a 'do over' for if there were no nefarious intent.
                     I told you about the clown at the convenience store and the other one years ago walking up my driveway with guns in hand- not cool, I don't go to the corner store to buy a gun nor expect some idiot to approach me with one trying to sell it to me but it has definitely happened. If I legally had a gun on me who knows what may have happened. I take it as a definite threat if given no reason to suspect otherwise, I have yet to read peoples minds.
                     Personally if I were in a position to carry I doubt very seriously that I would. I used to be very heavily into guns but after being banned for as long as I have I found that I really don't have a reason to BUT I cannot judge those who do. They have their own reasoning and it is their right to do so and I am certain most, if not all, would rather be safe than sorry.
                     I have some problems with some who have this right and how easily guns are obtained by those who shouldn't have them but it is now a clearly defined constitutional right and you won't find me fighting against ones rights.
                     What everyone need to remember on both sides of the issue is that it has only been a short time since the USSC ruled on this and as with any ruling there will be bugs in the system and those don't change overnight. Will they be? I think so eventually. Because this surge in gun sales is so new I also believe the true effects and repercussions are yet to be felt or realized and until the true statistics are in and studied a few years down the road that the importance of curtailing this mass of legal guns from getting into the hands of those they shouldn't be will fly under the radar. There are solutions to the problem and both sides need to come to terms to what they may be.
                     It gets shrill on both sides, very much so, but us screaming at each other about our differences of opinion about what to do brings us not one bit closer to resolving any of it.
                     I happen to agree with the premise of RKBA (much to your surprise I am sure), that Dems taking this on as a issue is political suicide. I have always cringed hearing a Dem running for any office talking about gun bans, it doesn't go over well with folks who have always had guns and always been responsible with them and even though they may agree with 95% of ones platform on which they are running, the anti gun sentiment is a turn off of major proportions. I don't ask that any of them openly support the current state, just that they do not speak on stomping all over ones constitutional rights- that is a non starter for many people and does not help in their election effort. I am an Indy that has always voted Dem, I don't generally go for pols that vote against constitutional issues (Obama and FISA anyone, he promised to 'revisit it and he sure did, they are still spying on Americans to this very day) because the way I figure it is if they are willing to subvert, pervert, or bastardize constitutional law then they have no business in the political arena, period. They are supposedly law makers, enough law breakers around, why elect one to office?

                  Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

                  by teabaggerssuckbalz on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 05:42:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  If I were in that situation (9+ / 0-)

                I would most certainly say I wanted a gun.  

                I do think that brandishing is justified in that situation.

                There was a case linked up thread where a guy was beaten to death with a 2x4.  The difference between the 2 situations is that in one, the attackers decided to continue the threat, and killed the victim.  In the other, the attacker decided to back away and the victim was unharmed.

                Sorry, but I don't like those odds.  You're advocating for a victim to place their LIFE solely in the hands of someone who was inclined to run at them with a 2x4.  No thank you.

                As far as what would have happened if he had a gun, neither you or I can answer that question.
                A) the guy says "Listen buddy I've got a gun, watch it"
                B) the guy brandishes the gun
                C) the guy incapacitates the attacker with the gun

                Also, I'm not playing hard to get.  I am truly not that aware of gun control advocacy--the only experience with guns I have is what I learned as a little kid with my dad.  I have fond memories of target shooting in our backyard with a mini .22 "Chipmunk" at the age of 6 or so.  So I don't know if it's because I've lived in states that already have fairly strict gun laws (CT & MA), but gun control has never seemed extraordinarily important to me.  My impression has always been that the criminal gun users are the ones already breaking laws--and the ones who will continue to break new gun laws if they're enacted.  So my amateur analysis of it leads me to think the cost:benefit ratio is just not there.

                •  There are significant differences between stories (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mikeb302000, Tamar

                  in the diary case, it was one drunk, hopped up individual in a city street.

                  In the other it was four guys who set out to kill a black guy (charged with lynching) and the weapon of choice was a 2by 4.

                  It could have been a baseball bat, or a tyre iron or a Calloway 3 iron. Bearing in mind this was an alleged lynching in South carolina, I would expect at least one if not all of those guys to be carrying guns at the time. So I don't see the two incidents as comparable apart from the 2/4 as a weapon.

                  The side of the argument often left out is how often does the presence of the "defensive" gun escalate the situation rather than diffuse it?

                  There is a you tube of a bunch of guys in a MacDonalds getting into a pissing vontest, then all of a sudden guns are drawn, and they lose of something like 25 shots. That is the risk.

                  "Lethality is the prime function of a firearm why pretend otherwise?" 2dimeshift!

                  by senilebiker on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 02:26:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  No, really..... (9+ / 0-)

                ...we can't.  The fact that the wielder of the 2x4 backed off doesn't mean that DGU wouldn't have been entirely justified.

              •  Another (7+ / 0-)
                I honestly don't believe you.  I think you're playing hard to get

                personal attack, this time on the commenter's integrity.

                "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

                by kestrel9000 on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 03:16:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I call shenanigans (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mikeb302000

              First, who uses inflammatory language?  I really don't see those advocating common sense gun control saying things like:
              1. Gun control=genocide
              2. Gun control is socialism/communism
              3. Gun control leads to Govt tyranny

              And this from the NRA/RKBA folks on this site.  Go to a conservative website and you'll find much, much worse.

              Second, I'll guarantee abortion rights costs us far many more votes than gun control.  In fact, there are probably about a 100 issues that cost us more votes than gun control.  Do you want us to cave on choice and things like clean air and water, too?

  •  This bit's fun... (6+ / 0-)
    I guess that was some kind of reluctant acquiescence on their part although not one of the commenters or moderators said I was right or that I had a point.

    Or, just maybe, they just didn't think that you were right or that you had a point...

    "Holy crap a freaking pirate. That's awesome ... pirates are awesome."

    by theatre goon on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 03:31:36 AM PDT

  •  I have felt the need for a gun 3 or 4 times (8+ / 0-)

    Every time was in a traffic setting with people being very threatening. I can't kung fu somebody inside a car very well.

    I DOUBT I would have used it and clearly I got through it, but there's a LOT of people who probably could have used a gun in a pinch, didn't have one, and have been dispatched to the next life.

    These anti-gun posts are patently ridiculous.

    Guns are legal and that won't be changing.

    Republicans HATE America. Deal with it. / It's the PLUTONOMY, Stupid!

    by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 03:38:53 AM PDT

    •  Recently got a Glock 9... (5+ / 0-)

      after a rash of break ins in my neighborhood.

      Have never used it and likely never will. But I sleep a little better, God forbid.

      You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

      by Eric Stratton on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 03:52:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am not sure whose argument you are making. (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      mikeb302000
      Hidden by:
      Unit Zero

      You want a gun for when you get caught up in road rage.

      For all those who defended themselves there are probably an equal number who snapped and killed someone else. I mean road rage killings are not unheard of.

      This is the second time in your thread where you take a position that I find worrying. You seem to set a higher value on your personal space and proprty that on the lives of others.

      In your road rage cases nothing happened, and in your property post, you never claimed to have been burgled or inavaded or whatever, but here you are telling the world you need a gun to sort out these so far non existent problems.

      "Lethality is the prime function of a firearm why pretend otherwise?" 2dimeshift!

      by senilebiker on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 04:37:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are a series of very stark assumptions (5+ / 0-)

        you have made prior to composing that crap.

        One is that I am the perpetrator of said "road rage'.

        Wrong.

        I am ALLOWED to protect "MY PERSONAL SPACE" from the bullshit of others. It's a very normal part of life.

        I am not all warm and fuzzy in embracing victimhood like you clearly do, as evidenced by your irritation and "concern" that somebody might want to protect themselves.

        From assault.

        From crime.

        You simply type away cluelessly, betraying your silly values.

        Republicans HATE America. Deal with it. / It's the PLUTONOMY, Stupid!

        by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 07:27:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  HR'd for insinuating that Dr Z was in road rage (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, oldpunk

        Read what he wrote - The other driver was caught up in road rage and was threating him.

        Your disingenuous insinuations are crap.

        -6.25 -7.08 The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty. The glass is just twice as large as it needs to be. If you play Microsoft CD's backwards, you hear satanic things, but that's nothing, because if you play them forwards, they install Windows.

        by Unit Zero on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 01:23:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pretty common with this user. (4+ / 0-)

          Take something posted so completely out of context to try and accuse the poster with something that is quite obviously false from the context and the original post.

          I once thought it was projection, but now I'm fairly convinced his only concern is outright trollery.

          "Holy crap a freaking pirate. That's awesome ... pirates are awesome."

          by theatre goon on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 03:38:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your reading skills are crap (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mikeb302000
          You want a gun for when you get caught up in road rage

          That does not say or even imply he was the instigator, on the contrary, it implies he was passive as in "caught up"

          As for his comment that he wished he had had a gun, the question then comes what would he have done with it? The answer of course is he would have escalated the situation to another level.

          Another bullshit HR = enjoy them while you can, they are not long for this world.

          "Lethality is the prime function of a firearm why pretend otherwise?" 2dimeshift!

          by senilebiker on Sat Aug 27, 2011 at 01:18:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Very nice appeal to emotion. (6+ / 0-)

    How many times has this happened?

    a drunk and presumably cracked out homeless man came running at me swinging a 2×4

    How often does it end this way?

    When the guy got about 3ft from me, he just stopped dead in his tracks, laughed, burped, and walked off the otherway.

    Or how often does it have an alternative ending?

    "The police reported that the assailant used a 2x4 in his attack....."

    If you are going to cite anecdotal, improbable incidents as proof, you deserve to be mocked for your lack of honesty and due diligence. If you actually have a valid point to make, you should provide supporting proof.

    Here's a suggestion:

    A man in the UK has survived miraculously after falling off 1,000 feet from the top of a Scottish mountain — he even walked after the accident, a media report said.
    - http://www.indianexpress.com/...

    Since he survived, why don't you go jump off a cliff. It MUST be safe, right? He even walked away.

    Public Safety Notice. This is Snark. Thank you.

    Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

    by IndyGlenn on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 05:06:27 AM PDT

  •  Speaking personally (6+ / 0-)

    the bum with the 2x4 wouldn't have to worry about being a bum anymore.  He would have taken up permanent  residence in a box or urn.

    And no, it wouldn't have bothered me.  Self defense doesn't require getting your head split open before defending yourself against an attacker.

    Sarcasm. Just one more service I provide.

    by Grannus on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 05:29:20 AM PDT

    •  Oh, Grannus, you are such a tough killer. n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  True that, but what should happen to those who (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, mikeb302000

      went overboard with their sense of self preservation or loss of property? Wasn't long ago, last year or the year before we had a case where some young idiot crept up under cover of darkness and stole this guys weedeater off of this landscape trailer. He had been ripped off before and was laying for the next thief to come along. He shot and killed the thief from an easy 100' away from his doorway.
         Stealing ones property does not warrant deadly force if it is not in the context of a robbery, burglary or in your face sort of crime. A hundred feet is a long distance to claim one feels threatened, as mentioned above, announcing you have a gun and will use it is generally all the more it would take to make a thief drop your stuff and run like hell while shitting down his leg or freeze in fear while pissing all over himself. This guy shot to kill from 100' away standing in his doorway where he could have easily gone in and locked the door if he felt threatened.
         It was ruled a justified shooting.
         How so?
         When the wrong decision is made what should be done? Strange to me in researching these cases that if one has legal ownership and further, a CC permit is that in most cases nothing was done even when blatantly wrong about the use of force. Calling it right doesn't make it so particularly in cases of gross negligence such as dropping guns in public or dropping 'suspects' who are of no threat. Supposedly the cops can't do this and get away with it, why should a civilian?

      Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

      by teabaggerssuckbalz on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 07:36:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Different states, and even counties (4+ / 0-)

        have different views on justifiable shooting.  I would not call that a justifiable shooting personally.  Someone running at me swinging a 2x4 falls in a different category.

        Calling it right doesn't make it so particularly in cases of gross negligence such as dropping guns in public or dropping 'suspects' who are of no threat. Supposedly the cops can't do this and get away with it, why should a civilian?
        Cops do it all the time.

        Sarcasm. Just one more service I provide.

        by Grannus on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 01:17:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is exactly why I wrote (0+ / 0-)
          supposedly
          Damn right they do. As I also said, calling it right doesn't make it so, (Danzinger Bridge ring a bell?)by them or anyone else. Coincidentally , we had an incident at work today- customers bike was stolen last night. As the victim and my boss were looking at the surveillance footage from the time of the deed who goes riding by on said bicycle? They took off in a car guessing his direction and dumb ass goes pedaling right up to them. Guy pushed my boss trying to get away, the other guy clocked him upside his head and he took a chill pill until the cops got there to give him a ride to his new home.
             If one of them carried the dumb ass could have legally justifiably been shot dead. Obviously neither of them carried but how is it that if they were and killed his dumb ass it'd be called justified but if he'd beat him to death with a lamp cord, a log, a rose bush a damn door knob or their fists they'd be facing some serious charges? Stand your ground, equal protection under law, yada yada?
             Seriously, ever give that fact any thought? It is almost as if they have picked the gun as an acceptable legal default for deadly force but all others some sort of torture or something. What's the real difference?

          Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

          by teabaggerssuckbalz on Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 06:06:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Probably because (0+ / 0-)
            It is almost as if they have picked the gun as an acceptable legal default for deadly force
            with other weapons, you have to get up close and personal.  This puts the smaller people at risk.  A firearm puts them on an equal footing. 6'4" 240lb man versus a 5' woman, not a good match-up in a knife fight.  6'4" 240lb man versus a 5' woman with a pistol, woman has a chance.

            Sarcasm. Just one more service I provide.

            by Grannus on Sat Aug 27, 2011 at 05:33:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What does any of that have to do with ones right (0+ / 0-)

              to defend themself under either 'stand your ground' or 'castle doctrine'? If you have a gun and intend to use it on me I have nothing but my hands. If I get your gun away it still does not remove you, the threat, it only removed the means by which you were going to implement your intent. By any means necessary- up close, upside down, right side up, why would it matter if I had to beat you to death to eliminate you as a threat vs shooting you?

              Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

              by teabaggerssuckbalz on Sat Aug 27, 2011 at 09:21:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site