• 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.

HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense

What do you think of HankT's Postulate?

  • HankT is right on the money!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • HankT's Postulate is ill-conceived.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • HankT is a TROLL, but correct.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • HankT is a TROLL and his postulate is stupid.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • simmonsjoe is feeding the TROLL and must die.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
G

GuitarMan270

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
22
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
P

protector84

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Arizona, U.S.
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.
 
S

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

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

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 
T

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

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

For your amusement? Really? They call that "trolling" in the rest of the internet. Stirring people up just to get a rise out of them.

In another thread you sounded like you were felt threatened by a forum member. WTF?
 
HankT

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Here's an insightful commentary on HPCSD[suP]©[/suP].

deepdiver got it. It's really not that hard, gents.

BTW, the OP didn't quote HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] quite right. Here it is:

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person[suP]©[/suP].




deepdiver wrote:
Going to have to agree with Hank here.

It's kind of like: Killing civilian non-combatants in war is bad strategy.

However, if you have 10 high value enemy combatants battened down in a house with 2 civilians blowing the heck out of you with heavy small arms fire, it may be a tactical necessity to call in an air strike and destroy the house, thereby killing everyone, including the 2 civilians.

Strategically we continue the policy of Killing civilian non-combatants in war is bad strategy, and recognize the tactical reality that sometimes it is necessary to violate that strategic tenet.
Click to expand...


http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum60/6340-1.html
 
S

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

Citizen wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
How can I do that? He's started putting the little copyright thingy after it. Maybe it was a little too personal. Thanks for the advice I'll be more thoughtful about that in further threads.
 
S

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

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

For your amusement? Really? They call that "trolling" in the rest of the internet. Stirring people up just to get a rise out of them.

In another thread you sounded like you were felt threatened by a forum member. WTF?
Click to expand...
CITE PLEASE. I did no such thing.
 
HankT

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:
.... HankT's own thread about 'cases in support' seem to show cases that are in-line with how we really feel about "unarmed" assailants.
Click to expand...


Yes, indeed. For the original thread, which you can look to for, uhm, less biased information,please go to:

HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cases In Support

The Vernon Allen case was added justtoday. Yet another case supporting the power and wisdom of HPCSD[suP]©[/suP]. It was never been refuted.

And it never will be!



BTW, SJ, why did you quote HPCSD incorrectly? It's rather concise (one of it's many nationally-famous strengths) so it should have been easy for you to quote it properly.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
imported post

HankT wrote:
-snip-

HPCSD[sup]©[/sup]. It was never been refuted.

And it never will be!



-snip-
Click to expand...
Keep telling yourself that Hank.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:
LOL.

I'm not sure if I love or hate HankT.
Click to expand...
I have never met HankT so I have no opinion about the man himself.

I do have an opinion about his "postulate" and his motivation(s) for spreading it all over the 'net.

I also have the opinion, nay the belief, that it is incumbent upon everyone to counter misleading misinformation whenever and where ever it is encountered.
 
ixtow

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

The option I want is not present:

"It would be accurate if you KNEW the target were unarmed. And HankT is a douche."

Add that one, and I'll vote it.
 
J

joshcdc

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
85
Location
, Washington, USA
imported post

HankT, define unarmed. If you mean a person without any arms, then maybe your postulate is correct. Except for the no armed man who allegedly headbutted someone to death (I found that on these boards somewhere, not sure if it's true or not). If you mean no firearm, then your postulate is ill conceived because courts have found many items, including aforementioned infected penises, to be deadly weapons. If you mean no visible weapon, what about concealed weapons? Even if you are sure the assailant has no weapon, what about hand to hand training? Humans are fragile and lethal force can be exerted by most people with their hands if they choose to. Strangulation, for instance. If you want to claim that your postulate has never been refuted, you must define your terms. Is being strangled or raped by an AIDS infected penis a good strategy? What would you propose as an alternative strategy to prevent these horrible fates? What does unarmed mean to you Hank T?
 
J

joshcdc

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
85
Location
, Washington, USA
imported post

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20844553/
Person with no arms headbutts someone to death. The victim is dead, proving that Hank T's postulate is refuted. Shooting the no armed man would have saved the victims life, but due to the bad strategy of not shooting unarmed men, the victim is six feet under. The measurement of a strategy is whether long term goals are achieved, this man's long term goal of remaining alive was not achieved, therefore not shooting this unarmed man was a bad strategy. It is always a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed man, refuted. Debate me Hank T.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top