• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Next to Last Resort: Baton?

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I'll admit right off that I may be wrong, but I believe the expandable (police) baton is illegal to carry. And that's a problem for me given the emphasis on use of a defensive firearm as a last resort. The question is if the intruder/assailant isn't producing a gun as a part of his threat why would a baton with proper training not be a viable use of force to avoid or at least precede use of one's defensive firearm? That then leads to the bottom line question: Why is a baton illegal to carry? :confused:

Generally, because the baton is viewed as among the trappings entitled especially to police (along with a gun, were it not for that pesky second amendment).

This is bolstered by the unreasonable fervor with which police enforce anti-baton laws where they exist.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
i once saw a guy walk out of wally world with a machetti on one hip and a dagger aprox. 18 inches long on the other hip.
i made the assumption that he was not allowed to carry firearms, OR he may have been fantasizing about defending himself in a very
upclose personal fashion....but i didnt ask.
this was in denver, n.c.

I made the [strike]assumption[/strike] conclusion that you think entirely too much about others' exercise of their rights.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
I hear you Bikenut. However somethings like a dog attack etc...may and can be fended off without automatically going to guns. I would much rather mace a dog with poor training than kill it out-right if I have a chance. I know, I'm softy when it comes to our four legged friends. ;)
Again... either there is an immediate threat of great bodily harm or death... or there isn't.

My good friend... I hear you about dogs.. and let it be known that I personally have a soft spot for all animals (especially dogs and cats) simply because God gave us humans dominion (made us caretakers of) all animals... yet if an animal, any animal from a lap dog to a grizzly bear, is chewing on me and I believe my life/or my body is in danger of great harm... I will respond in whatever manner is necessary to stop being chewed on.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I'm softy when it comes to our four legged friends. ;)

Hard to describe something as a "friend" if it forces you to mace it, or anything else.

I'm as big an animal lover as anybody, but I never understood why some folks will give aggressive, dangerous animals second chances they would never think about giving to a person.

Sorry, but people are worth more than animals.

And if an animal endangers me or my property, it's being put down. There's plenty of love left for deserving animals, and no shortage of them either. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
@Marshaul

I think it is because in the case of dogs, it is usually a bad human responsible for a dog's bad behavior. Don't get me wrong - no other option - dog is done - but again no such thing as a "bad" dog without the help of us humans... Yes human life should come first, no question about that.
 
Last edited:
Top