"An armed society is a peacful one."

WOD said:

Some "full-on" fights can strictly remain just that... a fistfight. Whether you are getting your ass whooped, or are doing the whooping, there is no reason to pull a gun... unless... they pull a knife, broken bottle, chair, or they go for your/their gun, thereby escalating the threat level. As soon as something other than a fist, foot, or body part comes into play, the level of life endangering threat goes up, respond accordingly.

Click to expand...

Just remember though, if someone is attacking you and you are in fear for your life, you have the rite to protect yourself by any means.

Wow?

XXXXXXXXXX said:

Does law permit you to use your weapon when you are in danger ?




Pinellas County Lawyer

Click to expand...

You are a lawyer?
You ask that question?
You are serious?

remove your address from your location. Is that your real name? change that too...

Mamaliberty said And, as one who carries a gun, I am constantly reminded to be even more polite, courteous and patient than even my ordinary nature might cause me to be. I am aware at all times that I have no right to impose myself or be unpleasant just because I am armed. I have found that the most polite and reasonable people around me are the ordinary men and women who carry. It can't be just a coincidence after all these years.

THIS is well said and exactly the way I feel.

Aariondo said Just remember though, if someone is attacking you and you are in fear for your life, you have the rite to protect yourself by any means.

No, I don't think so. Not in every State. Some places require you to "run and hide". Not so in Washington State, we get to "Stand our ground"

MSG Laigaie said:

No, I don't think so. Not in every State. Some places require you to "run and hide". Not so in Washington State, we get to "Stand our ground"

Click to expand...

You would most certainly have the RIGHT to defend yourself. That right is yours by the virtue of your being alive. The "state" does not create that right, and can't legitimately deny it.

But it certainly can do so _illegitimately_. I often wonder why anyone is willing to live in such a place.... Why would anyone agree to live where the state "required" you to be a helpless victim? Why do people tolerate that?

Legitimacy does not come from the "state," but from life. If you give that power to the "state," just what would you be complaining about? sigh

[Please note: the "you" is rhetorical, and not directed at any person in particular.]

MamaLiberty said:

You seem to be forgetting the "disparity of force" part of this thing. If two men of equal ability begin to fist fight, either one introducing a weapon into the deal would be seriously escalating the level of force and become the overall aggressor - regardless of who actually punched first. They each have a, more or less, equal opportunity to injure each other or to prevail otherwise.

But if that initial aggressor was larger, stronger, more able than the person he/she assaulted, we have a whole different dynamic. The stronger/larger person could quite easily cause great bodily harm or death to the less able victim. For that victim to draw a gun in that situation, there is only a matter of self defense.

Now, realize that this is not always clear in the heat of the moment, and there are endless variations possible, which is why a grand jury or coroner's jury may well be required to sift the evidence and decide that after the fact.

This is why the gun is considered the "equalizer." No, it's not perfect... but it most certainly does help.

And, as one who carries a gun, I am constantly reminded to be even more polite, courteous and patient than even my ordinary nature might cause me to be. I am aware at all times that I have no right to impose myself or be unpleasant just because I am armed. I have found that the most polite and reasonable people around me are the ordinary men and women who carry. It can't be just a coincidence after all these years.

Click to expand...

I'll be 60 this year. That in and of it's self doesn't put me at much more danger then the average person. But I have COPD and other health problems. I can't walk 50 feet without being out of breath and having to rest a minute. Queen Elizabeth or Ron Paul could stomp my rear end into the ground. Therefore While I might not (nessasaraly) consider my life to be in jepordy, I would be in fear of great bodily harm and LIKELY use my firearm. I also am much politer when I carry than when I don't. There use to be places I avoided because I wasn't armed and those are the same places I now avoid because I am armed.

William Fisher said:

I'll be 60 this year. That in and of it's self doesn't put me at much more danger then the average person. But I have COPD and other health problems. I can't walk 50 feet without being out of breath and having to rest a minute. Queen Elizabeth or Ron Paul could stomp my rear end into the ground. Therefore While I might not (nessasaraly) consider my life to be in jepordy, I would be in fear of great bodily harm and LIKELY use my firearm. I also am much politer when I carry than when I don't. There use to be places I avoided because I wasn't armed and those are the same places I now avoid because I am armed.

Click to expand...

This your wife?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dooGrI0FHkU

I personally disagree with the quote but what do I know.

xmanhockey7 said:

I personally disagree with the quote but what do I know.

Click to expand...

You're not prohibited from sticking your head in the sand to keep from seeing history. Manners originated from an armed society where those who had none would be in many more duels (and thus more likely to die) than the polite. Manners and etiquette have been declining with the end of duels and a truly armed society. The evidence is against you.

Daylen said:

You're not prohibited from sticking your head in the sand to keep from seeing history. Manners originated from an armed society where those who had none would be in many more duels (and thus more likely to die) than the polite. Manners and etiquette have been declining with the end of duels and a truly armed society. The evidence is against you.

Click to expand...

^^^ 100% On -Target.
Granted, some of the "issues" over which some folks used to duel are out-right silly, in all respects,but...
Just look around at a lot of the attitudes out there in society in the days since Dueling fell out of fashion (and yes, fell out, in some states, including mine, Dueling still hasnt been officially "out-lawed" ) -lot of smart mouths, and a lot of behaviors that Im pretty sure folks would not be inclinded to attempt, were their target standing there with a .45 in plain view on his/her hip...

Elimsitna said:

While the thought of using a gun only in a non-lethal capacity to beat on someone is hilarious, and would certainly make a point to your assailant...
I would make a similar point to Raven....
That wielding a gun as a "rock" is a 'Threat of lethal force' and would cause escalation. If the guy started the fight with a knife, almost everyone here would agree he would get shot. Just cause a broadsword can be used as a bat for non-lethal doesn't mean others see it as anything less then a sword.
So pulling your gun is asking for the other guy to escalate/retreat, but by continuing the force-exchange you're causing a third party who may enter to see a lethal force scenario.

Just $0.02

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that a person knowing you are armed and still approaching you in a threatening manner, even if they are not armed, can be a justified use of your firearm. The perp knowing that you are armed and still coming toward you is an escalation.

Personally, I would tell the person right off the bat, the first thing that comes from my mouth is "I am armed." The next step is theirs, and it could be their last if they keep coming toward me, unfortuantely.

j4l said:

^^^ 100% On -Target.
Granted, some of the "issues" over which some folks used to duel are out-right silly, in all respects,but...
Just look around at a lot of the attitudes out there in society in the days since Dueling fell out of fashion (and yes, fell out, in some states, including mine, Dueling still hasnt been officially "out-lawed" ) -lot of smart mouths, and a lot of behaviors that Im pretty sure folks would not be inclinded to attempt, were their target standing there with a .45 in plain view on his/her hip...

Click to expand...

I just wonder who is going to clean up the mess of regular duelings? For the first little while I see an increase in death by shooting. Nothing says "leave me/us alone" (typically) like a beretta92fs at your side, and a Glock 26 at your partners side.

No, I am not forgetting the disparity of threat, I am only speaking for myself. I can only speak for myself, and my experiences. I'm not telling anybody how they should deal with a perceived threat, or an escalation of any threat. I was just stating a fact, that not all confrontations justify a "pull my gun out and shoot them!" response from me. There are too many variables to any situation, to have a one response fits all solution. Every time I put my holster on, I have the capability of ending someone else's' life. The only justification I have regarding that capability is entirely situational. I assess the level of my perceived threat, the same way anybody else does, that is human behavior we all share. How I react to any situation is my choice, no one else's, and that is all I can control. Respond accordingly.

There was a time when Honor was highly valued, and a man or woman's honor, was held higher than the value of their life. Hence, dueling was a common solution, although, used much less frequently than fiction would have us believe. With that belief that honor was everything, people carried themselves as a given situation dictated. They were polite, mannered, and courteous, (to those who were of equal station and higher) regardless of whether they were armed or not, only if that was the appropriate response. These individuals were not the majority, they were the privileged and aristocrats. The commoners of the era, were not allowed to possess weapons, much less capable of being able to afford anything larger than a dagger, and were treated as less than human. These were Feudal times, and we're a bit beyond that now. Honorable men and women still exist, but they value life over honor; when it comes to a life and death situation, most will choose life. Appropriate response for most humans, we have that choice, armed or not, chances are better if we're armed. But, that in itself does not add up the thread title.

It is very easy to imagine threats behind every bush, and project our insecurities onto others, and make up hypothetical scenarios and argue what ifs. The reality is, every persons' decision to behave in any manner, directly influences the reaction of and by another. The other half of the equation is incalculable, being that, the perceived intention of the original action is subject to scrutiny by the second party, and can directly or indirectly cause an inappropriate response/reaction, based on the second party's subjective assessment of the initiators' action. Unlike particles of matter, humans are not governed by the same simple laws of physics. A simple "Hello", can return a completely unequal reaction, depending upon, whether or not, the respondent has had their morning coffee, or not. Again, this is situational, and has too many variables, so I can only control what I do, or, do not do next. This is all I was saying in my original reply to the thread. Respond accordingly.

I've witnessed full on fights between bikers, after which they stood up and made friends and bought the other a beer. Then again, you swap out 'bikers' with - between an Outlaw and a Hells Angel (circa 1970-1985ish), and you'll get a completely different outcome. Again, it is entirely situational, both in lethality and the many factors involved, in any time, place, setting. An Armed Society Is A Polite Society, is a quaint saying, but really should be A Polite Society Is A Polite Society, and arms have less to do with it, than respect and education.

"An armed society is a polite society" seems to imply that individuals require coercion to be polite; I wonder if that is the case.

Beretta92FSLady said:

"An armed society is a polite society" seems to imply that individuals require coercion to be polite; I wonder if that is the case.

Click to expand...

I have a love-hate relationship with this quote. It’s an excellent quote once you understand it, and most people don’t get it until they actually carry in public.

Since the anti-self-defense crowd never carries, they interpret the statement’s meaning exactly as you stated, its coercion to act politely because, as they perceive, you might get shot otherwise.

Once you carry in public (assuming you’re a responsible, thinking person) the real meaning becomes obvious: YOU are polite because you have the power to take someone’s life, something you’re willing to go to great extents to avoid at all costs. You become willing to walk away from the petty arguments that might have brought you to fisticuffs in the past. You’re not willing to rise to the bait of taunts and jeers. You walk away from insults because in the grand scheme of things it’s just not worth the risk that it might escalate to the level of taking someone’s life.

It’s the carrier of deadly force that becomes polite, not people out of fear that they’ll be shot. They’ll behave as they always have.

We're the ones that change.

O2

O2HeN2 said:

I have a love-hate relationship with this quote. It’s an excellent quote once you understand it, and most people don’t get it until they actually carry in public.

Since the anti-self-defense crowd never carries, they interpret the statement’s meaning exactly as you stated, its coercion to act politely because, as they perceive, you might get shot otherwise.

Once you carry in public (assuming you’re a responsible, thinking person) the real meaning becomes obvious: YOU are polite because you have the power to take someone’s life, something you’re willing to go to great extents to avoid at all costs. You become willing to walk away from the petty arguments that might have brought you to fisticuffs in the past. You’re not willing to rise to the bait of taunts and jeers. You walk away from insults because in the grand scheme of things it’s just not worth the risk that it might escalate to the level of taking someone’s life.

It’s the carrier of deadly force that becomes polite, not people out of fear that they’ll be shot. They’ll behave as they always have.

We're the ones that change.

O2

Click to expand...

+1. Well said.

WOD said:

Some "full-on" fights can strictly remain just that... a fistfight. Whether you are getting your ass whooped, or are doing the whooping, there is no reason to pull a gun... unless... they pull a knife, broken bottle, chair, or they go for your/their gun, thereby escalating the threat level. As soon as something other than a fist, foot, or body part comes into play, the level of life endangering threat goes up, respond accordingly.

Click to expand...

Sorry, this does not play out in reality most of the time, at least not for me.

2 reasons this would not be how an altercation went down for me.

1) I have broken my back twice. I am effectively a glass man, a fist fight could render me paralyzed, so I would do everything in my power to prevent a physical altercation. At 6'4 260 lbs I look capable, but looks are deceiving.

2) If after exhausting my powers of persuasion, or not being giving the chance to use them I am forced into a physical encounter, I would fear for my life and limb and would draw my firearm. I did not ask for a physical encounter, and if given the opportunity would try to defuse, or retreat and thus once someone decided to endanger my life and limb they will then receive a deadly force response. A tazer, pepper spray, or less capable response would open me up to severe injury or death, and since I am of the mind to avoid this at all costs its unfair to expect me to respond in a way that offers the attacker a chance of injuring me just to prevent his own endangerment.

ie its his (the attackers) decisions that are ultimately endangering the attackers life, not mine, mine are forced on me by circumstance.

What people fail to realize is that once you loose a fist fight, or a wrestling encounter, you are now vulnerable to a kill blow, kill choke, or kick to death encounter. Why allow your attacker the opportunity to get you into a position where his choices are the difference between life and death?

Basically the idea of honorable fighting is naive, immature, and stupid. If you want to fight honorably, join competitive MMA style sports or boxing, the real world is just too dangerous of a place to have an honor fight (and this IMHO is true regardless of disability)

In my opinion just because a society is armed does not mean they are polite. I do find myself to be more polite to people if I'm open carrying but as a society overall I don't think guns make a difference as to how polite they are.

Beretta92FSLady said:

"An armed society is a polite society" seems to imply that individuals require coercion to be polite; I wonder if that is the case.

Click to expand...

Mutual civility requires mutual respect. Some have said that fear, "coercion" works where respect and civility fail. That seems quite explicit in Heinlein's next line, "Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life".

xmanhockey7 said:

In my opinion just because a society is armed does not mean they are polite. I do find myself to be more polite to people if I'm open carrying but as a society overall I don't think guns make a difference as to how polite they are.

Click to expand...

One person does not a society make.

We've changed, as a society, when it comes to firearms. When this country was founded, the head of the household was required, by law, to have a firearm, and a certain amount of ammunition. Over the years we've become a more violent society and it seems related to the amount of gun control, associated with the increase in anti-gun efforts. Which came first?

I think, when we know our neighbor or the person we're shopping next to is openly carrying, or may be concealed carrying, then we will all become more polite.

xmanhockey7 said:

In my opinion just because a society is armed does not mean they are polite. I do find myself to be more polite to people if I'm open carrying but as a society overall I don't think guns make a difference as to how polite they are.

Click to expand...

Legal open carry does not an "armed society" make, as far as the quote goes. It also takes legal dueling.