To carry a gun or not?

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
I wouldn't.

Big proponent of having guns in your home to protect you, your family and your property. And self defense laws are far better for a home owner in the case of an intruder.

But having a gun on neutral ground in public? If you pull it better be prepared to use it. And if so, the consequences could easily be left in the hands of a jury made up of far left lunatics.

And at your size you should be intimidating enough if need be, that you'd be passed on for an easier target.

My take is, avoid confrontation and escalation in public, but defend your home and family with an iron fist.
Sorry but I have to say this is really not sound advice.

If two people come up to you to rob you and one has a knife but you're a big dude...now what?

I mean maybe if you've got a real appetite for violence and brutality you'll be able to fend them off... But I wouldn't risk that.

It's kind of a duh statement to say if you pull a gun on someone you'd better be prepared to use it. You're threatening deadly force when you pull a gun out...so yeah...

Self defense laws vary by state, but self defense is self defense. If you're following the law and the intent of the law, you're better shooting someone who's threatening life or grevous bodily harm vs not.

Being a big dude doesn't mean you won't get robbed. And it also doesn't mean you won't be marked. It's true hard targets are less appealing than soft ones... But simply assuming that means one won't be a target because you're a big dude is very very foolish.

You should absolutely avoid confrontation. In fact, having a gun on you will do so because you'll recognize that if it escalated beyond a certain point, someone is gonna get shot.

I also carry a knife, I dont fight with folks then either even though I could just ae easily kill them with it?

Having a gun and carrying it is about being a competent and responsible adult.

My wife carries a gun everywhere she goes also. It's just common sense.

Eventually it's no different than remembering your wallet or your keys. You feel naked with out it.
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
I actually asked my Godmother about this yesterday, she said it's better to carry, even in situations where you're not "supposed" to, because people are crazy now and as a father you will not forgive yourself if something happens to your family because you weren't carrying. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Carrying a gun in itself is not a moral issue.
No more a moral issue than carrying a knife, a pencil, or driving a car.

A gun is a tool.

You might say it's immoral not to protect yourself or your family though.
 

Elipe

Ostrich
Protestant
The question is: as a man, are you meant to have teeth or not? It is women who should fret about weapons, not men. It is in the nature of women to cower before weapons, and in the nature of men to wield weapons.

When you used to play with toy weapons as a kid, that wasn't some random thing. You were a boy exercising the male instinct to learn to fight. Your DNA deep in knows you are destined to have that kind of power to protect your family and tribe. When you avoid weapons, what you are doing is you are delegating your male duty to others. In essence, you're cucking yourself.

If your 5 year-old self could see you right now he would call you a cuck. The essence of being a man is to have power but consciously not using it on a mere whim. It is having the capability and the self-restraint to use it properly. That is what 5 year-old you were trying to do when you played cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, power rangers, or whatever on the playground - developing that capability. It is your birthright.

And I realize that maybe in a modern society, you can really get away with not having weapons and generally be fine. But then, modern society isn't exactly the pinnacle of manliness, innit?
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
The question is: as a man, are you meant to have teeth or not? It is women who should fret about weapons, not men. It is in the nature of women to cower before weapons, and in the nature of men to wield weapons.

When you used to play with toy weapons as a kid, that wasn't some random thing. You were a boy exercising the male instinct to learn to fight. Your DNA deep in knows you are destined to have that kind of power to protect your family and tribe. When you avoid weapons, what you are doing is you are delegating your male duty to others. In essence, you're cucking yourself.

If your 5 year-old self could see you right now he would call you a cuck. The essence of being a man is to have power but consciously not using it on a mere whim. It is having the capability and the self-restraint to use it properly. That is what 5 year-old you were trying to do when you played cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, power rangers, or whatever on the playground - developing that capability. It is your birthright.

And I realize that maybe in a modern society, you can really get away with not having weapons and generally be fine. But then, modern society isn't exactly the pinnacle of manliness, innit?
Mostly the foreigners or liberals or rich kids I deal with here in the US say they couldn't own guns because they don't know if they could trust themselves.

I think that's a pretty sad state of affairs not to have control over your self and your emotions and not recognize that you have to work on it.
 

BasilSeal

Kingfisher
Catholic
Gold Member
A wee video of a guy using his gun in self-defence. Just what did the attacker expect when challenging a man with a gun?


This is a legitimate use of lethal force? I kind of doubt it, although there is not much context. To me, it illustrates my earlier point about responsibility and maturity.

I hope there is more to go on for a jury than this video clip alone, for the sake of the shooter.

[Edit] Armed with a knife, at the shooters house, where there was already a restraining order in place. Carry on, good sir...!
 
Last edited:

prisonplanet

Robin
Other Christian
Love West Highland Terriers as an early warning system. They're small (usually 15-20lbs full grown) but unlike most small dogs are tough little bastards--they were bred to hunt everything from rodents as individuals up to badgers and foxes in teams so they're also good for rodent control when not keeping the midnight watch.

Maybe not so good for guys with home gardens though unless you can keep the dog away!

dog-518805.jpg
I've got a rat terrier currently. Terriers in general are ideal smaller dogs. Great watch dogs like pretty much all small dogs, but definitely tough as well. Mine stood up to a full grown German Shepherd once, actually made the shepherd back down.
 

Papist

Kingfisher
Trad Catholic
This is a legitimate use of lethal force? I kind of doubt it, although there is not much context. To me, it illustrates my earlier point about responsibility and maturity.

I hope there is more to go on for a jury than this video clip alone, for the sake of the shooter.

[Edit] Armed with a knife, at the shooters house, where there was already a restraining order in place. Carry on, good sir...!

I'm not from the US, as I have made clear. However:

1) The guy drops the gun to aim for the body, so I'm not sure it is lethal force.
2) The other guy was clearly intent on attacking him, and looked like he was stronger and would win an unarmed fight. What was he supposed to do? Drop his gun and let the guy batter him and jump all over his head?

If you carry a gun for self-defence and are attacked, regardless of whether the aggressor is a stalker or not, surely you're entitled to use it in self-defence. Imagine that the gun carrier was a frail old lady, would that make it acceptable?

The aggressor knew his prey was carrying a gun and proceeded to attack him anyway. Tough luck.
 
Last edited:

BasilSeal

Kingfisher
Catholic
Gold Member
Well, the other facts make it clear there was more to the story.

He didn't make any attempt to get away from the lunatic, which makes sense because he was presumably protecting his family at his house. In other circumstances, that is an option. Walk off, run off, drive off, go indoors, close and lock doors, etc. Call police, yell for help, etc.

Self-defense, yes. Use of lethal force should be irreproachable. But your points are valid in terms of how he handled it given what the video does not show, that the above links explain.

Lethal force definition includes serious bodily injury.
 
Last edited:

Papist

Kingfisher
Trad Catholic
Well, the other facts make it clear there was more to the story.

He didn't make any attempt to get away from the lunatic, which makes sense because he was presumably protecting his family at his house. In other circumstances, that is an option. Walk off, run off, drive off, go indoors, close and lock doors, etc. Call police, yell for help, etc.

Self-defense, yes. Use of lethal force should be irreproachable. But your points are valid in terms of how he handled it given what the video does not show, that the above links explain.
What if he couldn't outrun his attacker and/or get to his door first? Again, I see nothing wrong with this even if he was out for a stroll and happened upon an aggressive, but unarmed, man who he'd never encountered in his life before.
 

BasilSeal

Kingfisher
Catholic
Gold Member
What if he couldn't outrun his attacker and/or get to his door first? Again, I see nothing wrong with this even if he was out for a stroll and happened upon an aggressive, but unarmed, man who he'd never encountered in his life before.

Well, I hope you have a sympathetic jury. The laws in the U.S. would probably not be in your favor when, not if, it comes to trial.
 

Papist

Kingfisher
Trad Catholic
Well, I hope you have a sympathetic jury. The laws in the U.S. would probably not be in your favor when, not if, it comes to trial.
Which I find bizarre. You could be armed and attacked by someone like Mike Tyson and are just expected to take a beating or even be killed? You're not allowed to use your gun, even if the attack is unprovoked?
 

BasilSeal

Kingfisher
Catholic
Gold Member
Which I find bizarre. You could be armed and attacked by someone like Mike Tyson and just expected to take a beating or even be killed and you're not allowed to use your gun, even if the attack is unprovoked?
Not at all, if it's fairly evident that doing so was very likely your last or only option.
 

Papist

Kingfisher
Trad Catholic
Not at all, if it's fairly evident that doing so was very likely your last or only option.
So what if the prey had a cramp in his leg and couldn't run, or feared he couldn't outrun his attacker? He had his gun drawn, surely it's reasonable to expect the aggressor to desist? If he didn't, as in this case, surely that would make the armed man draw conclusions about his mental state and/or his intentions?

If you were aggressive towards a man and he pulled a gun on you and told you to back off, would you not? If not, why not? I certainly would.
 

BasilSeal

Kingfisher
Catholic
Gold Member
Unless it is unimpeachable, whatever your justification was for the use of lethal force, it will need to stand up to a jury. That's all.

And, there is no doubt they they may get it wrong.
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Well, the other facts make it clear there was more to the story.

He didn't make any attempt to get away from the lunatic, which makes sense because he was presumably protecting his family at his house. In other circumstances, that is an option. Walk off, run off, drive off, go indoors, close and lock doors, etc. Call police, yell for help, etc.

Self-defense, yes. Use of lethal force should be irreproachable. But your points are valid in terms of how he handled it given what the video does not show, that the above links explain.

What attempt should he have made in a perfect world? Turn his back and run so he can get brained from behind?



Lethal force definition includes serious bodily injury.
You're not honestly suggesting calling the police is a viable option are you? Maybe you missed the Uvalde thing...

I have a lot of cops whom I'm friends with and some in the family. Everyone of them recommends carrying a gun because cops know they can't get there in time.

Have you ever been in a life or death situation? I'm starting to think you're talking about hypotheticals and not reality. Yell for help? Seriously? Why do people can get out there phone and yell "Worldstar" while you're getting your face bashed in Zimmerman style? These are not viable courses of action man.

It's not a black and white thing...but you have a right and obligation to defend yourself. It's sad when you have to shoot someone... But it's not irreproachable. It's irreproachable to kill an innocent person, not to defend yourself.

No one is saying that you should make a point to shoot someone's just because you have a gun.

You're going to get sued, and face a world of issues with legal fees ECT... But when you have to shoot someone, you really don't have much or an option it's either they get shot or you/your family is attacked. You'll have to live with the anger of why this person made you shoot them...but your family/you'll still be alive... And that's what's important.
 

BasilSeal

Kingfisher
Catholic
Gold Member
If you call the police, nobody on a jury will ask the question, "Why didn't he just call the police". If you scream for help, likewise. Either or both may help your claim that you believed your life or severe bodily harm was at stake. Or, that of your family.

Of course, do the right thing. But, use of lethal force will set off a whole chain of events that may not end up in your favor. And that may be how the cards fall.

I generally don't comment when I don't know what I'm talking about, from actual personal experience. On that note, I'm checking out.
 

NotaBene

Robin
Protestant
I feel like everyone in Michigan these days have a gun on them and unfortunately it's mainly the people who you don't want having a gun on them.

MA is way different, it's simply not cultural to carry here, which I kind of like. People are so surprised when they see me printing (sometimes on purpose). I haven't been messed with yet by cops but I know it's coming. All kinds of mandatory prison sentences for one misstep in this dumb state.

For instance, I heard a story about a janitor in MA who picked up a *spent* casing and put it in his car. Police pull him over, and the guy volunteers that he just picked it up to throw away. Unfortunately he was on camera saying that and the janitor got a year in prison, because neither the cop nor the judge could do anything about it.

Anyway I didn't grow up with guns, but it's been a fun hobby and I recommend carrying (open or concealed). It makes you more aware and forces you to plan ahead and hone your moral thinking - how you would respond in crazy situations. But yes, in blue states there is more risk of jail for breaking stupid laws that go against common sense.

I never wanted my fingerprints on file.

The first time I went for my license, they wouldn't let me in the back to fingerprint me because I refused to wear a mask. But I agree, it's a huge invasion of privacy to get a gun license. It's supposed to be a RIGHT granted under the Constitution. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right. You should not need a license to exercise a right.
 
Top