View Poll Results: What do you think of HankT's Postulate?

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • HankT is right on the money!

    2 3.51%
  • HankT's Postulate is ill-conceived.

    13 22.81%
  • HankT is a TROLL, but correct.

    1 1.75%
  • HankT is a TROLL and his postulate is stupid.

    33 57.89%
  • simmonsjoe is feeding the TROLL and must die.

    8 14.04%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 87

Thread: HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense

  1. #1
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    HankT: "It Is Always a Bad Strategy To Shoot An Unarmed Man."

    Flame and Defend below.
    I'm going to make popcorn.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Laytonville, California, USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    Cut off everyone's hands then it will be correct. Every person is armed. 'Weapons' are just tools, without them people are still armed and are capable of being dangerous.

  3. #3
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    411

    Post imported post

    That troll already has his own thread on his BS "postulate", please don't feed his ego by giving him any more screen space than he grabs for himself. :quirky It's already been beaten to death in numerous self-defense threads, anyone with sense can see that the "postulate" is useless.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    I'm going to jump into the fray for a second and say that I think HankT is playing word games. He's a troll, but he's right.

    Strategy is the "Big Picture" goal. One could argue that a person's "strategy" in life is to be happy. It doesn't define how to achieve that happiness. On a smaller scale, a person's "strategy" in self-defense should, in fact, never be to shoot an unarmed man. Your strategy in self-defense should be to survive with the least amount of harm to anyone involved.

    If your strategy in self-defense is to survive, then you may have to use the tactic of shooting an unarmed man, but shooting the unarmed man should not be your strategy. If shooting an unarmed man is your "Big Picture" goal, then there is another word for it: premeditated murder.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    The ONLY strategy is to survive the fight. Everything else is bull, and always has been.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  6. #6
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    Joe: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ROFLOL!!!

    I'm #2 to vote that you should die

    I wonder if HankT was vote #1
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  7. #7
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    GuitarMan270 wrote:
    I'm going to jump into the fray for a second and say that I think HankT is playing word games. He's a troll, but he's right.

    Strategy is the "Big Picture" goal. One could argue that a person's "strategy" in life is to be happy. It doesn't define how to achieve that happiness. On a smaller scale, a person's "strategy" in self-defense should, in fact, never be to shoot an unarmed man. Your strategy in self-defense should be to survive with the least amount of harm to anyone involved.

    If your strategy in self-defense is to survive, then you may have to use the tactic of shooting an unarmed man, but shooting the unarmed man should not be your strategy. If shooting an unarmed man is your "Big Picture" goal, then there is another word for it: premeditated murder.
    Hank's "postulate" is not in any sense... right. It is a carefully worded psychological propaganda statement intended to put forth a dangerous concept cloaked in quasi truth.

    That "postulate" is stated as if it has something to do with self defense.... but it has nothing to do with self defense. It is cloaked in a sanctimonious sermon from the mount type of statement implying it has something to do with self defense.

    And that "postulate" posted on a forum that has self defense as one of it's main talking points is intended for one purpose only.... to cause folks to think that shooting an attacker who is not "armed" in the general sense of having an external weapon of some sort would be unacceptable under any circumstances.

    The leftys of the world love to use wordsmithed statements like HankT's "postulate" because those things allow the anti message to be absorbed while seemingly making sense.

    It is my opinion, nay my fervent belief, that because of it's psychological sneakiness HankT's "postulate" is the single most heinous anti gun, anti self defense, anti right to protection of life, statement I've ever seen.

    From thefreedictionary.com

    deadly weapon n. any weapon which can kill. This includes not only weapons which are intended to do harm like a gun or knife, but also blunt instruments like clubs, baseball bats, monkey wrenches, an automobile or any object which actually causes death. This becomes important when trying to prove criminal charges brought for assault with a deadly weapon. In a few 1990s cases courts have found rocks and even penises of AIDS sufferers as "deadly weapons."

    So much for the "postulate" and it's "unarmed" portion.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    To further Bikenut's post above:

    (and conveniently stolen from my own post on another topic...)

    In Seattle last year nearly half of the MURDERS were conducted WITHOUT any GUN.

    Extrapolate that up the full 32,120 violent crimes in Seattle alone this year and that's an awful lot of suffering at the hands (and feet) of "unarmed" assailants.


    "The Seattle Police Department says there were 32,120 violent crimes in Seattle during 2009 (so far).
    http://www.seattle.gov/police/Crime/STATS.HTM

    Are we going to ban everything that was used as a weapon MORE times than "assault rifles"?

    Such as, well, nearly everything else? Starting with hands and feet which kill nearly 12 times as many as all rifle types combined!

    FBI murder by weapon type for Washington on 2008 (newest provided)
    Total | Guns | Handguns | Rifles | Shotguns | Other Guns | Knives | Other weapons | Hands, feet, etc.2

    190 110 82 2 10 16 32 25 23

    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.htm... "

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    The key problem with the postulate is the term "always." If the postulate said, "It is generally a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person" then it would make logical sense. Of course, we don't expect HankT to make any sense.



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    I suppose I can't propose to know his intentions, so perhaps my interpretation is incorrect.

    However, I do have my own "postulate." I postulate that it is always undesirable to kill anyone in self defense. To avoid sounding too much like HankT, let me explain. I believe that ending another person's life in self defense is always the last resort--it is the second most undesirable outcome of a self-defense situation (the most undesirable being the attacker completing his or her assault).

    Based on this (and not having read many of HankT's other posts), I interpreted his postulate to be a subset of my own viewpoint.

    Somebody tell me if I'm 100% off-base.

  11. #11
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    A better postulate would be that it is a bad strategy to shoot anyone.A strategy is aplan of action designed to achieve a goal. Unless you are a criminal, your plan should not include shooting anybody... ever.However, every good plan needs to be flexible enough to accommodate the unknown.

    As an example, say you are walking along minding your own business. Your strategy for theday is goingswimmingly. You have your dry cleaning in hand and are about to jump into your station wagon to rush onhomeand kiss the wife on the cheek and play with the kids and the dog.Suddenly youare attackedandare forced to defend yourself. If you have to shoot the attacker ('s) to save your life, it really doesn't matter whether they had a gun, a knife, a pitchfork,a black belt in Kung Fu, or just their own two hands. At no point was it your strategyto shoot them, they gave you no choice.

    A stupid postulate written by a pointy headed pontificatorwho seeks to control others to think and act as he sees fit. Some folks look in the mirror and fall in love with the genius they think they see.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    At my age......don't try to hurt me, armed or not.

    Took me a long time to get this old and NOBODY is gonna deny me more time.

    Now.....I do NOT want to ever hurt or kill anyone.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    A "strategy" is a "plan".

    No law abiding person has a "strategy" to shoot any persons, armed in the conventional sense or otherwise. Law abiding folks only have a "strategy" to protect themselves by stopping the attack. Any attack. Using what ever means will work. If stopping the attack using shooting as a means is required because of the attacker's actions that is tragic and unfortunate (and entirely the attacker's own fault) but the shooting certainly wasn't the defender's "strategy"/plan.... the "strategy" or "plan" was only to stop the attack. Hence, HankT's "postulate" is baloney for the concept of self defense.

    However, that "postulate" presented as an absolute with the wording used sounds just sensible enough to be taken as a truth and as such is a very dangerous statement for the uninformed/new to self defense folks to read.

    And apparently some folks who know better deep down inside themselves are taking that "postulate" to have some kind of validity and are busy trying to think through the wording to find that validity.... a validity that isn't there but the wording was chosen to promote folks to go searching for some kind of validity.

    Now y'all can call me paranoid but I've seen statements/wording similar to that "postulate" with the words carefully chosen to make a person start thinking and come up with their own "understanding" of what was written/said. The last Presidential campaign comes to mind....

    When words are carefully chosen to lead the reader/listener into thinking up a definition/meaning inside their own heads that definition/meaning seems to be their own idea.... and as such has much more power of belief than just the words. But the problem is.... they were carefully led right to that idea.

    That entire "postulate" is like a computer worm.... it slides around inside the mind causing folks to rethink their "strategy" of stopping the attack using shooting when necessary IF the attacker isn't using what is considered a conventional weapon.... because.... exactly what concept comes to mind with the two simple words of "unarmed person"? That "postulate" is psychological propaganda at it's worst.

    If I were to push such an insidious thing as that "postulate" I would not be able to shoulder the responsibility of just one victim of a horrific crime who didn't shoot because their attacker was "unarmed". I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

    Please note I'm not saying HankT is a bad person. I'm saying lending any credence to his "postulate" is a bad thing.:X
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    ...A "strategy" is a "plan".

    No law abiding person has a "strategy" to shoot any persons, armed in the conventional sense or otherwise. Law abiding folks only have a "strategy" to protect themselves by stopping the attack. Any attack. Using what ever means will work. If stopping the attack using shooting as a means is required because of the attacker's actions that is tragic and unfortunate (and entirely the attacker's own fault) but the shooting certainly wasn't the defender's "strategy"/plan.... the "strategy" or "plan" was only to stop the attack. Hence, HankT's "postulate" is baloney for the concept of self defense...
    Actually, you just explained right here why the statement is true. I'm not advocating the use of HankT's postulate as any sort of rule to live by, and I agree that it is completely unclear and ambiguous despite the seemingly specific language.

    If you break it down, the postulate could also be worded as such: "It is always a bad over-all plan in life to shoot any person who does not have in his or her in possession a deadly weapon." By your definition of "deadly weapon", it could be pretty much anything--including the appendages of an attacker.

    Rationally, his statement is true, but you're right that I would never present it to someone who is uninformed as to the loaded wording. I'd hate to be responsible for someone taking it to mean that they should not shoot a rapist or other attacker who is only armed with his or her appendages.

    In my personal opinion (and INAL), if you fear for your life or the life of another, you have every right to use deadly force to defend yourself or that other person, whether the attacker is "armed" in the traditional sense or not.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    914

    Post imported post

    HankT is the biggest troll on these forums.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    Bravo_Sierra wrote:
    HankT is the biggest troll on these forums.
    With that, I can, without reservation, whole-heartedly agree.

    :celebrate

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Bravo_Sierra wrote:
    HankT is the biggest troll on these forums.
    Yes, which is why I can't understand the existence of this thread.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    GuitarMan270 wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    ...A "strategy" is a "plan".

    No law abiding person has a "strategy" to shoot any persons, armed in the conventional sense or otherwise. Law abiding folks only have a "strategy" to protect themselves by stopping the attack. Any attack. Using what ever means will work. If stopping the attack using shooting as a means is required because of the attacker's actions that is tragic and unfortunate (and entirely the attacker's own fault) but the shooting certainly wasn't the defender's "strategy"/plan.... the "strategy" or "plan" was only to stop the attack. Hence, HankT's "postulate" is baloney for the concept of self defense...
    Actually, you just explained right here why the statement is true. I'm not advocating the use of HankT's postulate as any sort of rule to live by, and I agree that it is completely unclear and ambiguous despite the seemingly specific language.

    If you break it down, the postulate could also be worded as such: "It is always a bad over-all plan in life to shoot any person who does not have in his or her in possession a deadly weapon." By your definition of "deadly weapon", it could be pretty much anything--including the appendages of an attacker.

    Rationally, his statement is true, but you're right that I would never present it to someone who is uninformed as to the loaded wording. I'd hate to be responsible for someone taking it to mean that they should not shoot a rapist or other attacker who is only armed with his or her appendages.

    In my personal opinion (and INAL), if you fear for your life or the life of another, you have every right to use deadly force to defend yourself or that other person, whether the attacker is "armed" in the traditional sense or not.
    I proved that the "postulate" is flawed in many ways, including the misleading words "strategy" (the inference is that anyone who is planning to defend themselves is planning to shoot) and "unarmed" (we already know how misleading that word is as it infers reference to a traditional weapon definition).

    I see you understand that the carefully worded "postulate" is intended to cause folks to put their own meaning into an "ambiguous" statement.

    I almost fell for that "postulate" at first reading but then good old grew up on a farm common sense kicked in and I saw it for the BS it really is.

    Political campaigns have been rife with "ambiguous" statements lately. The last one is what tipped me off to how people are being carefully manipulated with purposeful wordsmithing... and that "postulate" is a prime example of wordsmithing.

    Now... do we have any wordsmiths who can use that principle to the advantage of OC? I fervently hope so because it is an extremely effective tool.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  19. #19
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    GuitarMan270 wrote:
    Actually, you just explained right here why the statement is true.
    It seems to me that he explained why it is not true.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Bravo_Sierra wrote:
    HankT is the biggest troll on these forums.
    Yes, which is why I can't understand the existence of this thread.
    I, for one, am glad to have the opportunity to use facts and common sense to counter any and all carefully worded anti gun/anti self defense statements or "postulates" that attempt to manipulate the psyche of the average person.

    Call it a quest for truth.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    ...
    Now... do we have any wordsmiths who can use that principle to the advantage of OC? I fervently hope so because it is an extremely effective tool.
    The upshot of the OC/CC community is the straight language that most of us try to use (HankT notwithstanding). We don't need wordsmithing to get our point across.

    This is a quest for truth indeed. While you and I might disagree on the interpretation/semantics of HankT's rather convoluted statement (which, I agree, is very misleading if taken for anything but a word game), I'm pretty sure that we can agree on the fact that people have the right to defend their lives and the lives of others, and that OC is a very good thing.

    Thanks for the fun discussion, Bikenut!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    Perhaps another poll option to cover the last two responses.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    I agree on the use of the term "strategy." Perhaps the postulate should read as follows: "It is generally a legal risk to shoot an unarmed person in self-defense." I'm beginning to believe that HankT is actually an anti-gun infiltrator trying to insert subconscious ideas into the forum. The use of the term "strategy" is what raises a lot of red flags in addition to all of his other trolling. No law-abiding gun owner or carrier including sworn police officers use such a term. Nobody has a "strategy" to shoot anyone. The only logical use of the term would be among military officers who are on an offensive strike in a war. The only "strategy" gun owners should have is to live out their daily lives similar to how non-gun owners do but perhaps with a little more situational awareness and preparedness. So I've really started to make up my mind about this guy, HankT, and I think he is an anti-gun plant.



  24. #24
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Bravo_Sierra wrote:
    HankT is the biggest troll on these forums.
    Yes, which is why I can't understand the existence of this thread.
    I will admit, I instigated this for my own entertainment in reading the responses. That is why I proffered my own execution in the poll. I was also looking to others here, who are more capable at articulating their objection to the Postulate, for the purposes of self-education in the art of debate.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Generally, management frowns on threads dedicated to discussing another forum member. Although this thread on its face is about the idea coming from a certain person, at its heart it goes to the individual. No matter how you cloak it or spin it, once you named the originator and the idea, it becomes about him.

    I predict a thread-lock.

    A better approach would be to just put forth the same self-defense idea as general concept for discussion, omitting any names or personalized terminology.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •