Are people who would punch another over an offensive act/remark qualified to carry?


PDA






cuchulainn
January 3, 2003, 08:40 AM
Are people who would physically attack another person over an offensive act or remark qualified to carry or own a firearm?

I'm not asking whether they should be disarmed. No, they have the right no matter how unqualified. I'm asking whether they are unqualified in the way that those bozos at the range who know nothing about muzzle control or other safety practices are unqualified.

My answer: Yes, they are unqualifed. My line for initiating physical violence is to protect life, safety or rights (including property). But offensive behavior threatens none of them.

BTW: by "offensive behavior," I mean in the extreme like burning a flag or spitting on a religious symbol.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are people who would punch another over an offensive act/remark qualified to carry?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mec
January 3, 2003, 10:09 AM
agree. A lot of them simply like to fight. Sometimes they don't survive to adulthood and those that do are often disqualified from carry licenses because of disorderly conduct or assault charges.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 3, 2003, 10:12 AM
Absolutely, a willingness to offer violence to someone else when they have not threatened you is definitely a precursor to more serious assaultive behavior.

St. Gunner
January 3, 2003, 10:13 AM
cuchulainn,

I once in my youth mouthed off to a member of a different race using a not so nice racial slur. He and a few of his buddies jumped on me and beat the tar out of me. Even then I think all of them where well within their rights and didn't cross any lines. But I also come from a family where boxing gloves, headgear and mouthpieces are owned by all.:D

I think their is a time and a place for using fists and to be honest I think a good fistfight is good for you most of the time. Look at the early days of the congress and the fistfights that broke out in chambers. Whether we like to admit it or not, fighting is a part of our heritage and unless someone is striking another not capable of defending themselves or sucker punching folks for the fun of it, I really don't think it is as grave an infraction as some people seem to.

So no I don't think it makes people unqualified to carry. I once whipped a guy who I had caught destroying my mailbox several times with a pistol tucked away in my waistband and the thought of pulling it out never crossed my mind.

I don't think the two issues even belong in the same catagory for most folks.

KMKeller
January 3, 2003, 10:16 AM
Where I'm from there are lots of offenses that are rewarded with a pop in the chops. Most of the time, it revolves around chivalry and honor and is in lieu of calling the fuzz for a minor infraction. Just like we have our own "down home" way of dealing with men who beat their wives and kids.

I was raised in a cowtown in northeastern NM where the cowboy code is still alive and well.:D

Tamara
January 3, 2003, 10:18 AM
So no I don't think it makes people unqualified to carry. I once whipped a guy who I had caught destroying my mailbox several times with a pistol tucked away in my waistband and the thought of pulling it out never crossed my mind.

That would have made a bummer of a news story for Drizzt to have to post:

"Texas man shot while beating local youth for vandalizing mailbox. Youth snatched handgun from man's waistband and fired in self defense."

Kahr carrier
January 3, 2003, 10:22 AM
:what:

Blackhawk
January 3, 2003, 10:25 AM
Yes.

Children have trouble managing anger.

ahenry
January 3, 2003, 11:13 AM
I actually had a response with lots of reasoning for my view all written up, but I don't feel like justifying myself to you or anybody else. Let me just state succinctly that I don’t think a belief that there are times for a “pop in the jaw” makes you unqualified to carry a gun. Interestingly enough I notice that so far all the people from Texas responding to this question feel as I do. Man I love my state!

Leatherneck
January 3, 2003, 11:14 AM
Qualified/not qualified? Does not compute. A. You have the right. B. With a CCW where required, you're legal. C. With the proper training, practice, thought and self-discipline, you're ready. I would hope that if I were carrying, I would be in a far more "turn-the-other-cheek" mindset regarding personal affronts. You'd be in a world of trouble if you responded to the offensive action/language physically and the confrontation escalated to the point where a weapon was needed. In that regard, CCing is a handicap to your ability to respond with less than lethal force.
TC
TFL Survivor

Redlg155
January 3, 2003, 11:29 AM
I think we all pretty much agree that we are held to a higher standard while carrying a weapon. Sometimes you just have to let things slide until the confrontation becomes a physical, and then only initiated by the other party. In that case I'm dropping you to the ground most haste in a very ungentle way.

I don't think "qualified" is the word I would use, since to me it implies a legal disqualification, such as being involved in a domestic violence case. Actually I can see the day where you would be disqualified on the basis of a misdemeanor assault case. A bunch of us would be out of permits.

Hotheads with permits will soon find themselves incarcerated or without a permit. In all honesty I believe the majority of folks who take the time and effort to get a permit are pretty much level headed. It's the hot headed guys that you catch carrying without a permit.

Good Shooting
RED

ahenry
January 3, 2003, 11:38 AM
That would have made a bummer of a news story for Drizzt to have to post:

"Texas man shot while beating local youth for vandalizing mailbox. Youth snatched handgun from man's waistband and fired in self defense." Like how cops always get shot with their own gun when they have to take down a man resisting arrest? :rolleyes: It happens, but we’re not talking about a super common event here.

Viking6
January 3, 2003, 11:50 AM
If you are carrying, you have a legal obligation not to get in a situation --make that stay in a situation-- that would lead to further violence. Having said that, I think in our youth most of us older guys have been in our share of fists fights and altercations growing up. But it was a simpler time for us and the worst I ever got and more than I ever gave was a black eye. Nowadays it can get bad fast. At the same time, I don't go to a lot of the same type places as I used to. But we all have our particular buttons and hopefully we can do a manual over-ride when they get pushed.

2nd Amendment
January 3, 2003, 12:02 PM
There are times in life when the proper response to an offensive idiot is a pop in the nose. There used to be a time when both parties understood this and the idea of calling the law, or that doing so somehow made you a violent person, was unthought of.

There's a huge difference between someone taking a certain retribution for a specific offense and a basically violent person who should not be armed.

Calif. Hunter
January 3, 2003, 12:03 PM
I stopped fighting when it started taking longer for the broken bones to heal. Fighting stopped being a matter of "black eyes" when I was still in the service. Short of defense of self or rights, there is little reason to resort to violence. I won't be pushed around and I won't let anyone else be victimized, but harsh talk doesn't hurt me.

HS/LD
January 3, 2003, 12:04 PM
"It is the duty of a gentleman to know how to ride, to shoot,
to fence, to box, to swim, to row and to dance. He should be graceful.
If attacked by ruffians, a man should be able to defend himself,
and also to defend women from their insults"

Rules of Etiquette and Home Culture. 1886

Interesting Post...
It made me think for a few seconds.
I concluded that:

You try insulting my wife in my presence and I will show you regardless of wether or not I am qualified to carry a gun. I am qualified to kick your ass.

Regards,
HS/LD

Triad
January 3, 2003, 12:06 PM
Are those who would spank thier children unqualified to raise children? No, because there is alot of difference between spanking a child and beating them to the point they end up in the ICU or the morgue. There is also alot of difference between hitting a man because he did something offensive, and shooting him for the same.

Triad
January 3, 2003, 12:08 PM
You try insulting my wife in my presence and I will show you regardless of wether or not I am qualified to carry a gun. I am qualified to kick your ass.
LMAO :D

treeprof
January 3, 2003, 12:20 PM
There are times when acts or words might "deserve" a physical response in the name of chivalry or common decency. But, the danger to someone who carries is that the situation could rapidly escalate, and if you ultimately use your weapon in defense of your life, you're the one who initiated force and will be the one doing time. Or, if you respond physically to a non-physical act in one setting and later use your weapon defensively in another setting, you are likely to be portrayed as someone prone to initiating violence, which could well contribute to loss of freedom in a criminal case or almost certain loss of property in a civil case.

gburner
January 3, 2003, 12:22 PM
Say what you want of me...I've probably been insulted more by people I respect.
However, DO NOT trash talk my wife or my family.

I learned to fight while working in the DOC. It ain't pretty and it's over fast. Otherwise, it's a case of 'sticks and stones...'

That said, I would prefer not to be around hot heads who throw hands at the drop of the hat especially if they're armed.

HS/LD
January 3, 2003, 12:23 PM
Quote:
which could well contribute to loss of freedom in a criminal case or almost certain loss of property in a civil case.
______________________________

Once again we are more worried about getting sued than doing the right thing!
:mad:
HS/LD

Oleg Volk
January 3, 2003, 12:27 PM
Runt and I would consider putting distance between us and the offending critters to be the right thing to do. Fighting over words isn't worth the risk, in my opinion, even if it were legal to do so. Why get into a firefight (you punch, they shoot back) over someone else's stupidity?

Propensity to respond physically to an insult is only funny in the movies. In real life, you might beat them only to be ambushed and shot the next day or next week. De-escalation is a duty: armed society is a polite society because armed people, by and large, know their duty of peacemaking.

A real lady is above non-physical insults. Physical insults gather a 200-grain response.

Jim March
January 3, 2003, 12:30 PM
In the states that require training to score CCW, I believe that the only really beneficial part of said training is where some lawyer or senior cop sits you down and explains the legalities of shoot/no-shoot, and the horrific financial and other costs associated with screwing that up.

It's useful in two situtions:

1) Where some idiot has a bit of a temper - he's just been given massive incentive to curb it.

2) Where somebody isn't a "gun culture" type and has little familiarity with US standards in the area. (In places like California, this includes a lot of immigrants from places that never had a "gun culture", or places like Pakistan where it's a very different "gun culture" indeed. I'm not saying they should be barred from arms(!) but familiarization with US practices is a good thing.)

The rest of the training? *Maybe* I can see a written test on basic safety practices. Everything else is BS.

Now, the problem with training is that if there's a cost involved, it will deter some people from scoring CCW, at which point even with the above benefits the training is a net *negative* and should be scrapped. And we have the example of Washstate with no training for CCW at all, and no significant problems.

So the question is, how do you very effective training in these "use of force" areas for free?

Easy. Use the police ride-along program. Take a CCW applicant, stick him in a cop car for three-four hours with a senior street cop, and tell the cop "explain to this guy how deadly force law works and what'll happen to him if he blows it, willya?".

Zero police resources used, zero cost, gives the permit applicant a better look at what the cops are really like, fosters better communication between cops and CCWers...what's not to like?

Granted, there's a possibility that something major will happen that night and the full discussion doesn't happen. That's maybe a 10% risk at worst (civilian ride-alongs are already commonplace, all you have to do is ask at most departments)...if that happens, re-schedule. It's one of the risks the applicant runs under such a free program, no big deal in my opinion.

Comments?

ReadyontheRight
January 3, 2003, 12:30 PM
I think carrying a weapon should turn you into one of the most even-tempered people in the room in response to remarks or non-violent acts. If it doesn't, you won't be carrying legally for long.

And...unfortunately in our world, I'm sure there are thousands if not millions of lawyers out there who are willing to take away your rights and try to take most of what you own for fighting while carrying -- even if you don't pull out your gun.

Mastrogiacomo
January 3, 2003, 12:32 PM
I would say yes, there are some people that shouldn't be allowed to carry. Heard about a wedding guest that refused to leave his gun home even though the bride and groom requested it. He was quick to fight AND also Bipolar. Gee, wonder why everyone was so nervous?:uhoh:

ReadyontheRight
January 3, 2003, 12:33 PM
A real lady is above non-physical insults. Physical insults gather a 200-grain response.

Well said. Also applies to a real man.

Orion
January 3, 2003, 12:47 PM
To all those who said yes the person doesn't deserve a right to be armed if they use violence against another for something that was said.

I will ask you:

What if they say something nasty and push you? Not a life threatening push mind you just a push?

What if they stroke your pre teen daughters face in suggestive manner? Not life threatening mind you but still...

What if they do anything that is non life threatening but not necessarily illegal?

I will judge each case on a case by case basis. Until you've seen a stranger come too close to your daughter or niece in a water park. Or you've been pushed by a punk with his friends just to see if they can intimidate you you don't know what you will do.

I will try to leave an area but I won't be intimidated and I won't have me or mine threatened in any manner.

If that's too much for you to handle perhaps you don't understand a measured defense.

HSMITH
January 3, 2003, 12:51 PM
There are people that have earned a good old fashioned butt whoopin. I have earned one myself and it did me good to recieve it. If someone earns one I will give it. This has NOTHING to do with ability to carry responsibly.

wingnutx
January 3, 2003, 12:56 PM
Read my signature for the answer.

PATH
January 3, 2003, 01:04 PM
Words have no power save the ones we give them. I will only respond physically if I or my family is physically put upon.

When by myself I find myself avoiding confrontations like the plague.I don't have to prove my manhood at this stage of my life.

I will not under any circumstance allow my wife or family to be physically assaulted. I will use neccessary physical force to protect them up to and including deadly physical force should that become neccessary.

My friend who is a diminutive chap believes in "pepper spray and run away"! Only in self defense though.

In the end if you cannot control your temper then you should reconsider carryingf a gun IMHO. Disqualification.....I leave that to individual circumstances.

Ledbetter
January 3, 2003, 01:07 PM
Guy in front of me driving 15 mph talking on his cell phone, traffic all having to go around him on a crowded two lane city street. Slams on brakes at yellow light. I honk and, here's the stupid part, flip the guy off. Light turns, guy whips into the other lane as if to let me pass. Condition yellow goes on and I turn from the right lane onto a side street. Guy whips across a lane of traffic and follows me into the carwash, where there are people around.

Gets out, comes up to my car, starts ranting. Me--door open, one foot on ground, left hand on knee, right hand in pocket of coat on passenger seat with .380 in it, cocked and locked.

Guy tells me what he thinks of me, I say not one word about what an idiot driver he is. Finally I tell him I think he should go back to his car "now." His parting words, "you should be more careful who you give that signal to." Mine: "You should be very careful about coming up on someone's car like that."

Here's a tip: Never do that. Could be bad.

mjustice
January 3, 2003, 01:22 PM
Each situation is different. Generally speaking, it's probably not a good idea to throw a punch over an offensive remark. But if the speech is encouraging an agressive, physical act ("Hey man, I'm gonna punch you in the face!", etc.) I would see nothing wrong with the character of a person who took a "pre-emptive" strike at someone else.

When I carry, I think I am way more likely to defuse a situation with my feet, rather than my mouth.

MJ

cuchulainn
January 3, 2003, 01:22 PM
To those who question the word "qualified,"

Yeah, that's perhaps a confusing word in this context. I did not mean legally qualified, but rather whether they have the proper understanding of the concept of measured physical response, to paraphrase Orion's apt term "measured defense."


Orion,

Touching and pushing go beyond the type of offensive behavior I was referring to, and I agree that they can cross into the need to use measured physical force to protect life, safety or rights (such as the right to be free of unwanted sexual touching).

I agree that each touching must be judged case-by-case as to whether physical reaction is justified.

I was referring to insults and bad behavior that offer no threats to life, safety or rights, up to and including such deeply offensive behavior as flag burning, spitting on religious symbols or calling a woman the c-word.

Incidentally, no one has said that people do not deserve to be armed if they would use violence against another, but that they do not deserve to be armed if they would use violence when there was no threat to life, liberty or rights.



Man, it must be hard to carry at a waterpark? ;)

Col. Mustard
January 3, 2003, 01:24 PM
I'm going to follow a time-honored tradition of straddling the fence on this one. I think the simple "disqualification" (for lack of a better word) to carry based on a willingness to use nonlethal force to counter an offense is a non sequiter. To be sure, carrying a firearm requires us to have a much higher threshold of tolerance for offense, or a greater willingness to back down in the face of confrontation, but those accomodations ought not to be limitless; else we continue to give up our liberties, albeit perhaps in smaller increments.

To be sure, I'd have to generally default in favor of avoidance of conflict, but I'm unwilling to make a blanket condemnation of a well-deserved pop in the nose.

ahenry
January 3, 2003, 01:28 PM
In the end if you cannot control your temper then you should reconsider carryingf a gun IMHO. Disqualification.....I leave that to individual circumstances. Why do you assume that such action stems from uncontrollable anger, or even anger at all? Ever spanked your kids? Was that acting out of pure anger, or were you able to use the appropriate amount of measured violence needed to teach the lesson at hand? Why do you assume this is otherwise? I have never punched somebody over an “offensive attack/remark”, but the once or twice I would have if there hadn’t been the probability of criminal charges against myself, there was absolutely no anger on my part. There was just a lesson that needed to be taught, and I considered myself to be the most appropriate "teacher" present. In all instances, it wasn’t anything that was even directed towards me either. I get the impression that people think those that would advocate an appropriate amount of violence in these instances are walking around waiting for somebody to be rude so they can pull out their pistol and shoot them, or at least beat the crap out of them. I don’t think thats the case at all.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2003, 01:49 PM
ahenry:

Why do you assume that such action stems from uncontrollable anger, or even anger at all? .... I get the impression that people think those that would advocate an appropriate amount of violence in these instances are walking around waiting for somebody to be rude so they can pull out their pistol and shoot them, or at least beat the crap out of them. I don’t think thats the case at all.

Anger is irrelevant. I include calm choice in the proper understanding of measured physical response.

If your theshhold for initiating physical violence is low, then it raises the legitimate concern as to how low your threshhold is for initiating lethal force (or potentially lethal force) -- regardless of whether you act in anger or calm decision.

You would agree that someone who threw a punch over being called a "poopy-head" would not have the proper understanding of measured force to carry a firearm. Where is the line?

I draw it at life, safety or rights. You draw it at certain extreme insults. I respect you, but that does concern me.

Every time you throw a punch, you initiate a situation that could escalate into the lethal, regardless of the presense of a firearm. Every time.








Then again, every punch is itself potentially lethal, though to a small degree. Every punch. :(

ahenry
January 3, 2003, 02:14 PM
I draw it at life, safety or rights. You draw it at certain extreme insults. I respect you, but that does concern me. Why? Do you plan on tossing extreme insults my direction? You concern amazes me. I know a good many people I associate with on a regular basis that feel as I do about this issue. I don’t insult them, they don’t insult me and we all live and function extremely well together. We make (if you will excuse the term) an extremely armed society, a society that will use violence as necessary, and an incredibly polite society. Where is the problem?

Every time you throw a punch, you initiate a situation that could escalate into the lethal, regardless of the presense of a firearm. Every time. Absolutely. Never thought otherwise. Also doesn’t change my view. [edited to add] 2nd Amendment makes a point I neglected to. While the possibility is there for escalation, the chances are pretty slim.

Then again, every punch is itself potentially lethal, though to a small degree. Every punch. Perhaps. Again, the onus for avoiding this lies not with me but with the offender.

2nd Amendment
January 3, 2003, 02:18 PM
Every time you throw a punch, you initiate a situation that could escalate into the lethal, regardless of the presense of a firearm. Every time.

Are we really to that point in this country? I haven't been in a brawl in 20 years, almost, but when I was in them I never had the slightest thought of it becoming lethal. To the very best of my knowledge neither did any of the others involved. That wasn't what it was about. There was simply an insult to be avenged. A point of honor to be clarified. Sometimes they were even legitimate points.

I think you need to differentiate a little more on this. We've gone a long way down the slope over the past decade or three but I don't think we have yet slid so far that every confrontation involves people willing to kill each other. I also don't think that a willingness to settle some disputes with a fight makes someone violent or irresponsible. Then, too, I've never accepted the old adage that violence never solves anything. Fact is it solves quite a lot, when properly applied.

thumbtack
January 3, 2003, 02:19 PM
If you offend me, my wife or son, I will try to educate you on better manners by inserting my fist into your mouth.

Oleg Volk
January 3, 2003, 02:24 PM
A verbal insult or a rude gesture can be dismissed as "lower life forms' hissing". In fact, they are useful as warnings to a possible follow-up with a physical attack. Your cat cannot offend you even if it hisses at you -- but using claws are another matter. Same with humans.

Defense of honor is, in my view, a concept which has a much narrower interpretation that what you suggest. Honor is internal consistency with your ethical standards, living up to the benchmark set by you or by your closest, most admired friends. Thus hostiles who are but strangers cannot impinge on your honor, try as they might.

ahenry
January 3, 2003, 02:24 PM
Allow me to also add that I can’t think of an occasion where somebody about to get punched doesn’t have the opportunity to avoid the whole thing. Lets take a made up extreme to illustrate my point. You and I are talking and an old lady walks up. I say something about old lady’s being a drain on our nation and we’d just be better off if they’d all croak. You tell me to apologize to the lady. I do and we continue on, me slightly embarrassed, you a tad hacked at me, and the little lady saddened but likely to not hear a rude comment from me again. Or change things around and I refuse to apologize and after a bit or two you pop me in the jaw. After I wake up*, I realize that it might not be in my best interest to say rude things when you are around, or perhaps when somebody that can kick my butt is around. Its enforced civility, but civility nonetheless.



*I already admitted the situation could escalate beyond this but for the purposes of the point I am trying to make, I omitted that. No need to bring it to my attention as I am aware already.

Oleg Volk
January 3, 2003, 02:29 PM
Realistically, the person who punched another would be sued in criminal and in civil courts.

ahenry
January 3, 2003, 02:33 PM
And there lies the problem Oleg.

PATH
January 3, 2003, 02:36 PM
ahenry,

I assumed that we were talking about someone who had become angered and initiated violence. Someone who iniated violence withour anger in some contexts be seen as a sociopath. Every case of violence has it's own context and must be viewd thusly.

I have never had to spank. Never saw the need. I might have if I felt it neccessary. Never did though.

I make no judgements on others use of force as I am not qualified to make such a determination. Violence however is a last resort and a flight from reason. I avoid violence. I don't say that people have to emulate me in any way.

I choose to carry myself in a fashion I feel comfortable with. Folks are free to choose how they will carry themselves. I don't judge others but I won't apologize for my behavior either.

I don't think that I percieve anyone who wants to throw a punch as a sociopath just waiting to commit mayhem. I make no such assumptions.

thumbtack
January 3, 2003, 02:36 PM
Realistically, the person who punched another would be sued in criminal and in civil courts.

No not really if you verbally assault someone and they physically assault you, here in Texas it is considered mutual combat and both parties are guilty and nothing really happens.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2003, 02:56 PM
What does "slim chance" have to do with responsible behavior?

Pooh-poohing the slim chance of a punch escalating into lethal violence is akin to pooh-poohing the slim chance that you'll need a fire extinguisher in your kitchen, or that you'll need your carry weapon, or that you will die if you drive drunk, or that your baby will die if you leave her asleep while you go out for two hours.

Every one of the above dangers has a tiny statistical chance of happening.

ball3006
January 3, 2003, 02:57 PM
anger management, they shouldn't be allowed to carry. If they can't control their temper they can't control a gun either. I had my share of fist fights when I was a youngster but grew out of it. The chance of me getting into a fist fight or anyother kind is about as remote as me winning the lotto. I am hearing impaired and have adjusted my lifestyle to accomodate this. There are too many thugs that get more angry when you don't respond to their insults than if you reply. I cannot understand someone unless I concentrate on their speech or I am "keyed into" their voice like at work. When it gets dark out I stay home. Restaurants are no fun anymore, and bars are history......chris3

ahenry
January 3, 2003, 03:00 PM
No its like pooh-poohing the slim chance that if you are in a car accident your seatbelt will not be enough to help (actually that's not that slim of a chance) and so choosing to never drive in cars. Its a cost benefit analysis.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2003, 03:13 PM
Benefit?

spacemanspiff
January 3, 2003, 03:20 PM
i started reading some of the replies but got lazy and just decided to jump in with my .02;

i'm not a violent person. i can walk away from an offensive comment or even an offensive act done to me. to steal the dialogue from 'way of the gun',
"dont you think its funny that if i grab a womans arse and she punches me, shes fighting for her rights.
but if a faggot grabs my arse and i punch his lights out i'm a homophobe?"

some perv makes a move on my family, they're going to get all the wrath of hades i can summon up delivered to them.


with that said, i apparently did make offensive statements one time when i was extremely drunk, called my buddies mom and the rest of his family some things that i didnt really mean to say. i got my butt kicked pretty damn good. i cant express the shame and embarassment i felt over that.

Blackhawk
January 3, 2003, 03:30 PM
if they use violence against another for something that was said.

I will ask you:

What if they say something nasty and push you? Not a life threatening push mind you just a push?

What if they stroke your pre teen daughters face in suggestive manner? Make up your mind, Orion. You limit your hypothetical to "something that was said" then describe physical assaults.

Verbal abuse is assault, but unwanted deliberate physical contact of ANY kind is battery.

triggertime
January 3, 2003, 03:30 PM
Those that are quick to punch are also quick to shoot regardless whether their actions are justified or not.

So should those that possess a quick temper be allowed to carry a gun? I'd say that it depends entirely on whether they're able to control/manage their rage and if they fully understand the responsibility that comes with going armed.

As Oleg has already pointed out, an armed society is a polite society, so when an individual chooses to go armed, they should be automatically inclined to avoid altercations rather than to initiate and to escalate them regardless if someone has insulted their honor or not.

Carrying a gun is a large responsibility which requires a larger amount of self control, restraint and maturity. If an individual fails to understand that, then no, they probably shouldn't carry because they place the safety of others at risk.

Dennis
January 3, 2003, 03:35 PM
“Are people who would punch another over an offensive act/remark qualified to carry?”

Even if “offensive act” does not include force or touching, my answer is “Yes, depending upon the totality of the circumstances.”

I strongly disagree with the comment, “A real lady is above non-physical insults. Physical insults gather a 200-grain response.”

1) A passing insult by some troglodyte may not even require acknowledgement.

2) Walk up to my wife and start screaming insults in her face and you will be met by force, for I consider such an action to be threatening. Deadly force, however, may or may not be called for, depending upon the vague illumination of intelligence in the offender’s brain (and his/her subsequent actions).

3) A "punch" surely has its place in the force continuum.

4) When faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death, I'd select a 230-grain response rather than the 200-grain response. :D

Weakness and cowardice create both bullies and victims. Each of us must choose carefully and wisely whether to respond at all to each insult under the conditions at hand.. Avoidance is still the best plan. When avoidance is no longer an option, excessive force is NEVER called for—only the minimum amount of force to resolve the problem. And "minimum" might even mean ignoring the insult.

Personally, I'm too old, too physically unable, and too mentally stable to engage in a fight for the "fun" of it. I'll walk away when possible. But if I am faced with what I perceive to be an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death, I will not merely win, I will dominate.

Therefore, I’ll join my fellow Texans in warning people who engage in offensive remarks and acts to consider their words and actions carefully. VERY carefully! Your very existence may depend upon the perception and values of your intended victim or of some bystander.
- - - -

PS: "Those that are quick to punch are also quick to shoot regardless whether their actions are justified or not."

Triggertime, change "are also quick" to "may be too quick" and I'll agree with you. However, the two acts are not as closely related as most people assume.

dinosaur
January 3, 2003, 03:37 PM
I took the original post to mean someone who has a propensity (what a poseur word:D ) towards violence. In that case I agree.

The problem is there is no such thing as what we called "a fair one". You get your button pushed, you push back, your protagonist either has 5 friends or a weapon, or he calls the police. :banghead: So much for the old days.

Tamara
January 3, 2003, 03:42 PM
Some two years ago, I lived in a gated apartment complex. My roommate and I were leaving for dinner one night in my car, and noticed a "gate crasher" attempting to get in through the out door. As was my wont in these situations, I pulled my car just far enough through the exit gate to let it close behind me without letting the interloper through. The occupants of the vehicle changed their cries from "Hey, lady, we've got friends in there!" to "You _____! You ______ ____!" in short order. My roommate was aghast. I maintained silence, but did not shun eye contact, at the same time keeping my hand out of their sight on my .44 snubby in case they should decide to leave the vehicle. The gate closed, and we motored off, with me keeping an eye on the rearview to see if they decided to follow.

Was my honor insulted? No. Any gentleperson from the oft-mythologized past could tell you that it is impossible for a varlet to insult the honor of a gentleperson, as they are not even conversant with the meaning of the noun. Had they attempted to lay hands on me, however (thereby transforming their status from chimps hooting unintelligably to an actual threat) I would have shot them until they ceased doing so.

To me, there is a very real and substantive difference between words and the actual laying of hands on myself or my property. One is merely a regretful indication of lack of breeding on the part of some churl, and the other is an affront to my person which will be met with lethal force.

Oleg Volk
January 3, 2003, 03:43 PM
2) Walk up to my wife and start screaming insults in her face and you will be met by force, for I consider such an action to be threatening. Deadly force, however, may or may not be called for, depending upon the vague illumination of intelligence in the offender’s brain (and his/her subsequent actions).


Agreed. Crowding someone can be taken as aggression. I was referring to verbal insults.

If someone comes up to my grandmother and tells her how Hilter was right about the Jews, I would be very much inclined to do something to the perpetrator. That said, I'd simply try to get my grandmother away from the critter and provide for a safe exit. Even ugly words aren't worth a firefight.

Any escalation from words would result in the use of force, and I don't trust my fists enough to rely on them when a pistol is handy. But lethal force would require an overt threat to life and limb, not just verbal abuse. "I'll see your rude comments and raise you a 45" works fine in movies. It works where trespassing or attempted battery are happening concurrently. Much as I have no use for some oxygen thieves, I will err on the side of mercy and refrain from offing any over verbal provocations.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2003, 03:46 PM
2) Walk up to my wife and start screaming insults in her face and you will be met by force, for I consider such an action to be threatening. Deadly force, however, may or may not be called for, depending upon the vague illumination of intelligence in the offender’s brain (and his/her subsequent actions).

As might I. We would be responding to the screaming, not the insults. We would perceive a threat. Yes, I can see situation where a physical response might be justified. But the best physical response -- if possible -- would be to move yourself between the screamer and your wife and be ready for his violence.

We are talking about things that offer no threat, such as being offended by flag burning or spitting on a crucifix.

3) A "punch" surely has its place in the force continuum.

No question. Everyone here agrees that it does. There are no absolute passivists here.

My problem is with those who would throw a punch in a situation where there was no possibility of construing a threat.

dave
January 3, 2003, 03:57 PM
I think the real problem here is the way, the NEW way, some people seem to have no value for life. That, and how some seem to give no thought to the consequences of their actions. Or perhaps, to put it better, they know the consequences but just don't care.

In past days, most floks knew what could happen to them and others if something was carried to far. Their parents and society both taught them this. If one stepped across the line one knew what COULD happen, therefor many didn't. It appears, to me at least, that today many people don't have that same understanding. No one, parents or society in general, has taught a large part of the younger generation that, if one acts a certain way, they can expect certain reactions. They seem to feel that they have a "right" to act any way they please and no one should be able to interfear. They are now taught that anyone attempting to "show them the errors of their ways" deserves what they get, up to and including death.

The simple fact is tha over the past few decades, people have been "taught" that anyone who tries to hold them to any sort of "common decency" is really just trying to limit their "rights". They have been taught that this "limiting of their rights" is, most likely, done by those who see them as less than what they are. I mean, today it seems they believe if anyone expects them to hold themselves to a common standard it's because they are being discrininated against, that they are being told "your actions show you to be different, and being different means you're less than we are, you're BAD.". That isn't always the message being sent, but I think that's, more often than not, the message being received.

People today seem to feel the proper response to this perceived "put down" is to react with violence. They are taught to let no one treat them that way, doesn't matter if the person doing the correcting doesn't mean it that way, all that matters is how the one being corrected takes it. By acting this way they are showing the world that they have "value", that they are a "man" and will not be treated as anything else. They seem to feel they are standing up to "oppression". They want respect, even if it's at the point of a gun. They have not been taught how to get it any other way. Even the "lowest" person feels they deserve the same respect as some one who has spent a lifetime earning their's. And yes, we all understand that, as a human being they deserve a certain amount of respect. I'm talking about the "extra" respect one earns thru a lifetime of education, hard work, and "good living" (for lack of a better term). Some feel they are due this "extra" respect simply because they want it. This is what they have been taught.

We, as a society, tried to make up for mistakes we made in the past by teaching new generations that "everyone is created equal". That may be, but what one does after they are created usually determines what sort of "respect" they receive in life. It's not how much money one has or one's "social station" that EARNS them that. It's what sort of person they grow to be. Seems we forgot to teach them that. It's how they learn and use the simple things, disrespecting someone's wife results in a quick leason on how one is expected, and supposed to act. A leason that many don't suffer well.

Who is to teach the next generation what they need to know about respect? I'm not sure the present teachers know enough about it. "Punch me in the nose and die" is not really the message I would like to see passed on.

ahenry
January 3, 2003, 03:59 PM
Any escalation from words would result in the use of force, and I don't trust my fists enough to rely on them when a pistol is handy. But lethal force would require an overt threat to life and limb, not just verbal abuse. "I'll see your rude comments and raise you a 45" works fine in movies. I think I agree with what you’re saying. That for you any violence would move immediately to lethal force encounter (by your own willingness) and comments don’t justify lethal force. I agree with that. However, wouldn’t you say that this sentiment of yours (“I don’t trust my fists enough...”) would be an individual sentiment. IOW, not necessarily a view that would apply to somebody else? If this is a personal view of oneself (which I certainly don’t fault a person for holding) then where does that justify the belief that another person who does “trust his fists” would be wrong to use a lower level of force at a lower level of need? I guess what I’m getting at is you seem to have made the choice that any and all attempts at violence will be completed with a bullet. Fine. No problem, you will use no violence until lethal force is justified. Other people have made the choice (or would like the freedom to) that there is a lower level of violence that can be utilized in situations that would not justify deadly force but would justify less than deadly force.

dave
January 3, 2003, 03:59 PM
Sorry about spelling errors. I can't seem to edit.

schmo
January 3, 2003, 04:00 PM
So... can somebody describe a VERY SPECIFIC SITUATION where we would have a disagreement on the response?

Tamara
January 3, 2003, 04:01 PM
No problem, you will use no violence until lethal force is justified. Other people have made the choice (or would like the freedom to) that there is a lower level of violence that can be utilized in situations that would not justify deadly force but would justify less than deadly force.

Suppose that the person whose manners you aim to improve with a thrashing has made the same choice Oleg has?

Like how cops always get shot with their own gun when they have to take down a man resisting arrest? :rolleyes: It happens, but we’re not talking about a super common event here.

Apples and anvils.

The police officer's gun is in a retention holster, he has (hopefully) recieved at least rudimentary training in weapons retention, and (most importantly) he has to arrest the guy; it's his job.

Joe Citizen, on the other hand, is doing nothing but risking a gun snatch if he moves into grappling range with a gun held loosely in his waistband. With the gun in your waistband, why waste time with schoolyard antics like fisticuffs? ;) Hold the vandal at gunpoint, call Johnny Law, and fer society's sake, press frickin' charges and follow through with them when the heat shows up. :D

ahenry
January 3, 2003, 04:08 PM
Suppose I’m able to handle the situations I choose to put myself into?

We could “suppose” all day long, but I’ll bet you my entire bank account (don’t get excited, I think you could just make a meal out of it ;) ) that people that feel as Oleg don’t go around making insulting comments and further, if they inadvertently did, they would be quick to apologize to the offended party and seek to make it right. I have certainly accidentally made rude comments before, after all I am a guy and I don’t always think before I speak. However, I’ve never had a problem doing my best to rectify my mistake and I can guarantee you that if there was (and at times there has been) somebody present willing to physically put me in my place, I would make real sure that I did what it took (lest you mistake what sort of person I am, I speak mainly of when I was a little kid).

Big Al
January 3, 2003, 04:22 PM
For the record, Big Al is an awe-inspiring 5'5" and 170# (of muscle, though:D ). Before I got my CCW, I had a pretty bad temper, and was quick to jump into a fracas (young and dumb). But when I got my CCW and the legal repercussions were made abundantly clear, things changed.

I've had three incidents in the recent past that spring to mind:

(1)A female friend of my fiancee and I were at a dance club one night, and three drunken, power-drinking, 40 year old gymrats decided to "corral" her on the dance floor. She quit dancing and sat with me, telling me how their hands were all over her, etc. I told her we should go (I was stone sober, but armed), and she agreed - but she headed to the bathroom first. As soon as she got out of sight, these three brave fellows pulled up chairs at my table and began telling me how bad they were gonna cave in my skull before they took my "woman" from me. I just smiled really big and nodded my head. I saw my friend coming back, and got up to meet her and head for the door - and one of these goons got up and cut me off, walking backwards as I was walking forwards, leaning over in my face going "where ya goin', pussy?" over and over again. I said "we're leaving" and he looked back at his buddies and yelled "awww - he's leavin' 'cause he's scared" and I said "no, I'm leaving so I don't have to fill you and your buds full of holes like a sieve. But if you and your butt-buddies want to follow me out into the parking lot where I'd be cornered, feel free." The guy just stood there with a dumb look on his face. We left - situation de-fused. I didn't feel bad about it.

(2)Another time we were outside of a movie theater when two drunken youths were circling each other in the parking lot, directly in front of my truck. My fiancee was driving, and was shying away from getting near my truck, but we managed to get in anyway. We couldn't pull out, because of the crowd, but I figured when she started the engine and turned on the lights, they'd get the hint. Wrong. One of the fight participants ripped off his shirt and jacket and pitched them on the truck hood, shouting obscenities at the guy he was going to fight. So I rolled down the window and said "hey pal, can you get your stuff? we're trying to leave - if you wanna fight, let us leave first." He then decided I might be an easier target - he came around the front of the truck yelling "what the ***k did you say?" His mood suddenly changed when he looked in the truck and saw my 629 Classic laying in my lap (I had been to the range before the movie). He then started babbling "I'm sorry" over and over while getting his stuff off my hood. Situation de-fused.

(3)Another time we were in an Applebee's-type restaurant when a local guy got a little plastered and went "ape-feces", suckerpunching my best friend for no reason at all. They started wrestling around, and I jumped in trying to break it up (we were all friends). A friend of mister "ape-feces" took this as a two on one situation, and while I've got my hands full attempting to break them up, this guy starts hammering me from behind. I ended up having to leave without even thowing a punch because I was armed, and I didn't want the legal troubles (losing my CCW). I ended up looking like Rocky Balboa.

To make a long story short, being heavy can be a good thing or a bad thing. If you're armed, you're obligated to walk away from most confrontations, whether you like it or not. Just be prepared for the consequences of carrying.

Betty
January 3, 2003, 04:30 PM
If you're armed, you're obligated to walk away from most confrontations, whether you like it or not. Just be prepared for the consequences of carrying.

That sums it up for me.

Had a guy yank my hair in the middle of a grocery store once. He darn well deserved to get smacked, but I walked on after shooting him a dirty look. If I punched him (sometimes I DO feel like it's my Offended Female Right), his buddy would've been all over me, and I'm not tangling with both of them.

I did leave with a smile, knowing that I had the ability to make hin into an entertaining display, all perforated and spread eagled on a bed of lettuce and radishes.

Russ
January 3, 2003, 04:38 PM
Someone like that should not be allowed to carry. I think the definition for someone like that is a nut. People who have temper tantrums do not need to be licensed to carry and should be reported if discovered. That's my 2 cents.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2003, 05:06 PM
People today seem to feel the proper response to this perceived "put down" is to react with violence. They are taught to let no one treat them that way, doesn't matter if the person doing the correcting doesn't mean it that way, all that matters is how the one being corrected takes it.

Unfortunately, misunderstanding the concept of "defending one's honor" has a much longer tradition than the modern concept of dissing.

So... can somebody describe a VERY SPECIFIC SITUATION where we would have a disagreement on the response? Flag burning. Spitting on a crucifix. Calling a woman the c-word.

Blackhawk
January 3, 2003, 05:22 PM
Now as the original definition of the offensive behavior is getting broadened beyond what the original poster's intentions were, a few more logs on the fire are in order.

A casual offensive remark is one thing. It doesn't rise to the level of a verbal assault, and is probably nothing more than an unthinking crack. I often direct them against other drivers where there is no possibility of them hearing me, and if others are in my car, they don't even make it out of my mouth.

Directed, repeated, and provocative remarks ARE assault, and they may well precede battery or physical assault. If someone resorts to fists upon such provocation, it's probably because they don't have a CCW even though they need one.

There's no benefit to slugging or being slugged, so feet are a better option. But sometimes those confrontations cannot be avoided, and a person may well be in mortal danger. Yes, such a person should be qualified to carry since that's another choice for protection from battery beyond ineffective fists or the likely soon appearing knife.

As already pointed out, CCWs change your way of thinking. In the developing hypothetical, "am I in fear of my life yet?" If so, use whatever it takes because everybody is qualified to defend themselves however they can and need to....

Sean Smith
January 3, 2003, 05:39 PM
I don't see how someone can look at punching someone in the face as NOT a dangerous escalation. Forget guns and knives. I can kill you without them, and really so can any healthy adult male with a modicum of knowledge and a sufficiently ruthless mindset. I'm not talking Turtle Technique Kamehameha Fu, I'm talking street fighting 101. Brawls hospitalize and, yes, even kill people with regularity.

If you don't think hand-to-hand can hurt you, then you are flat-out ignorant. And if you are counting on someone you just hit in the head to restrain his use of force to good-ol'-boy swingin', you have a funny concept of risk assessment.

These scenarios always seem to assume that he can "take the guy" in question with ease. But if you only defend your "honor" against the weak, what kind of honor have you got? The honor of the coward?

For what it's worth, it never crossed my mind that someone could affect my honor at all. My honor is mine. I don't need to prove it to anyone but myself, and I don't defend it from anyone but myself. And I certainly don't care what anyone else thinks of it.

tobeat1
January 3, 2003, 05:43 PM
I could say that I would never respond to insults and would probably be right most of the time. However if you feel that you are in danger of passing your insult threshold you should leave the area with all speed. If you are not able to... well they are going to get what they deserve. To answer the question of the post I believe if you are prone (ie. multiple recorded instances) to popping someone in the jaw without physical provocation you should not be packing.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2003, 06:53 PM
And if you are counting on someone you just hit in the head to restrain his use of force to good-ol'-boy swingin', you have a funny concept of risk assessment. Yep. Thank you for putting it so well, Sean

Thumper
January 3, 2003, 07:19 PM
This horse was beaten to death over at TFL.

I've met many who claim that they are incapable of a violent reaction to "mere words." In my experience, these folks fall into three categories:

1.) Those possessed of extraodinarily high pacifist principles. (Very rare.)

2.) Those physically incapable of response. (Even more rare.)

3.) Physical cowards. (Pretty darn common.)

I think a lot of this argument is cultural. I also believe that cultural difference is the reason that folks are generally much more polite in my neck of the woods.

Sean Smith
January 3, 2003, 09:26 PM
Thumper,

Maybe you should come over to my house, polish my medals, and then tell me which category I fall under?

:evil:

Just kidding.

I think a better way to characterize it would be that some people like to have a good reason when they use force, or actually know enough about using force to know that doing it lightly is stupid.

On the other hand, I'm also sure that at SOME POINT it is possible that almost anyone could be verbally provoked into a violent reaction if you tried at it hard enough. It just shouldn't be a desired, glamorized outcome when it would probably be more accurately described as bad impulse control.

Give me a real threat I can't reasonably avoid, and I'm more than happy to use all the deadly force I've got handy to resolve it. Using force per se isn't bad if you have no real alternative. Give me an annoyance and I avoid it.

Sean Smith
January 3, 2003, 09:49 PM
I agree this is a dead horse, but it might not be glue yet. :D

cuchulainn
January 3, 2003, 10:03 PM
Thumper,

Imagine the absolute worse insult someone could give you.

Something that you would 100%, beyond any doubt haul off and pop them a good one, maybe even give them the whooping of their lives.







































Now imagine that a woman said it to you. Would you hit her? If not, would it be because you are:

1) An extreme passivist?

2) Physically unable?

3) A physical coward?




Spare me. :rolleyes:

If you are a mature man, you should be able to restrain your violence no matter what a woman says.

Period.

If you can do it with a woman, you can do it with a man.

Tamara
January 3, 2003, 10:11 PM
I've met many who claim that they are incapable of a violent reaction to "mere words."

It has nothing to do with "capable", Thumper. It has everything to do with impulse control. When I was a child, fisticuffs were the only way to settle playground insults. Now that I am an adult, with a gun on my hip 24/7 (which means any exchange of blows could become lethal), I refrain from the impulse to respond to the hooting of lower primates with force.

However, I will not have hands laid on me. Period. Pushing and shoving and rolling in the dirt are for little boys & girls; when one is an adult that becomes "assault & battery" and will be responded to accordingly.

...and maybe that's why folks are so polite around here. ;)

telewinz
January 3, 2003, 10:25 PM
NO!:cuss:

sonny
January 3, 2003, 10:37 PM
Texas sounds like my kind of place!.....Yee Ha!

When I was younger a fist fight was just that ...a fist fight ...and me and my three brothers were not the types to walk away from one ......not on our block...or in our neighborhood for that matter.
We were very territorial and respected the rules of the neighborhood and insisted that others respect them as well.The rules were based on common sense and it was clear when somebody was out of line......a punch in the nose was the sollution most of the time and the cops took the word of the locals almost without question.
Times were good and everyone felt safe...old ladys and children included.
.................................guess what?...............................................

NYC has since changed.....and I am scared to death at the idea of having to strike someone in fear of what the courts might do to me.......people lie and bear false witness to the police when they see a man on his A** and they ask no questions as to who is right or wrong......only that the man who struck this poor fellow should be locked up.....think I'm kidding?.....I'm not.

As for the question...

Are people who would physically attack another person over an offensive act or remark qualified to carry or own a firearm?

Yes.....Can we define offensive act or remark?......I think a good man or women CAN........but I KNOW the legal system most certainlly CAN NOT.

So.......Where does that leave us...Pick your fights carefully.

Col. Mustard
January 3, 2003, 11:25 PM
Let's change the focus here a tad. Suppose you have a favorite venue, such as a public park. This public venue is the hangout of a particularly offensive individual. You regularly visit this venue with a significant other, or perhaps a child. The offensive individual gets in your face, making suggestive comments about your SO or child. The first time, you leave quietly. The second time, you warn him to leave you alone; he doesn't, you leave. The third time, you bring the cops. He behaves until the cops leave.

Your choices are, basically, to stop visiting the park (an encroachment upon your rights) or to re-educate the offending individual. The cops are unlikely to be of assistance, since they saw no evidence of misbehavior.

Are we obligated to avoid places where we may expect to meet with unpleasant behavior? Should we change our lifestyle to accomodate antisocial people? I think not.

dave
January 4, 2003, 01:27 AM
"Are we obligated to avoid places where we may expect to meet with unpleasant behavior?" posted by Col. mustard



Just wondering sir, why wouldn't one avoid (avoid, not stop going to at all) a place where they EXPECTED to meet such people? I mean, if one knew there was a strong likelyhood that one would be exposed to this type of person and knew, in advance, how he/she would react to such a meeting, why would one go? I understand that sometimes, one has no choice whether one will be at a given place. I also understand that there are times and places where one never knows who they will meet. Again, I'm only asking about those places one doesn't have to be at, yet chooses to, knowing they can't control themselves. If one can control theirself, then I agree with you.

As for one changing one's lifestyle to accomodate antisocial people, I don't think one needs to do that. But I see nothing wrong, or cowardly as some have suggested, with one accomodating one's self by attempting to avoid those with "unpleasent behavior". Even if one can control theirself when meeting such people, the expereince can prove to be something one doesn't wish to have.

Sir, I guess what I'm asking is, when someone avoids an unpleasent person or place, just who is being "accomodated", the person doing the avoiding or the person being avoided?

dfrog
January 4, 2003, 01:29 AM
Are people who would physically attack another person over an offensive act or remark qualified to carry or own a firearm?
He didn't shoot the person did he? By restraining from aerating the aggressor, I would say he is qualified.

Edward429451
January 4, 2003, 03:33 AM
Where I come from, hesitation to defend a real ladies honor is an insult to the lady.

Dont be skeered. Jump down their throat with both feet.

Wildalaska
January 4, 2003, 04:48 AM
Are people who would physically attack another person over an offensive act or remark qualified to carry or own a firearm?

No to both..to strike another person (except to defend oneslf from the use of physical force) is a crime that demonstrates total disqualification to own or carry a firearm.

If you cant control your anger, you have no business possessing lethal weapons.

Dennis
January 4, 2003, 07:14 AM
Wildalaska,

You say, "If you can't control your anger, you have no business possessing lethal weapons."

I'll agree with your statement, although I don't believe I'm taking it the way you mean it. I can control my anger. That does NOT mean anybody can do anything to me or my family that does not involve force.

You also note, "...to strike another person (except to defend oneself from the use of physical force) is a crime that demonstrates total disqualification to own or carry a firearm."

Sorry, friend, I believe you mis-spoke. Furthermore, there are exceptions which are recognized by law in Texas.
- - - - -

A drunken wino (panhandler) blocked my wife's way as we came out of a theater. The doorway (a back exit we never will use again) was narrow—we couldn't pass. Your statement requires me to stand there and debate with him or retreat backwards into the flow of people pushing us forward.

Sorry, but the "debate" was short-lived. When he refused to let us pass I reached around my wife and pushed my finger into that little hollow spot at the base of his neck (supra-sternal notch) and helped him out of our way.

I wasn't angry. I didn't hurt him. I used a very minor "pain compliance" technique to move him backwards.

I was NOT going to argue with a drunk or wait until he sobered up.
I did NOT know if he had cronies prepared to attack us.
I won't play by HIS plan. If my way is blocked, I will (after a short "request" session) either retreat or attack (with restrained, non-lethal force so much as possible).

I will not insult you by believing what you said is what you meant, but I will pay you the respect of agreeing with you that excessive force (for each circumstance) calls into question a person's judgment. Recall the legal phrase "totality of the circumstances."

So you make your choices for your family, I'll make mine. Folks who threaten others should remember there are still a few old buggers like me out there should they plan to intimidate another person—even with mere abusive language or demeanor.

Yeah, I live in Texas. But I have a cousin in Connecticut who has a much shorter fuse than I have, so would-be intimidators should not rely upon mere geography for their safety when acting obnoxious. ;)

1goodshot
January 4, 2003, 07:29 AM
If they are quick to punch someone then they will probley be quick to shoot someone. People who cant control themselves should not have quick access to a gun.

Orion
January 4, 2003, 09:50 AM
I've never drawn my pistol on anybody that didn't end u under arrest and that's the truth of the matter.

I've never struck anybody that didn't need restrained (on or off the job)and that's the truth of the matter.

I've never shot anybody that I didn't mean to kill and that's the truth of the matter.

Ahenry, Shame on you for insulting little old ladies, (even hypothetically) Get to church and beg forgiveness.

Blackhawk, Where I'm from a shove is not battery. The Ohio Revised Code specifically states that there must be a liklihood of injury. A shove on the shoulder isn't likely to cause injury.


I will step back and qualify my remarks with the original context of this thread as was clariied by the originator.

Calling a woman a C@#$ doesn't offend me at all and I would walk away leaving that person with the information that they are low class.

Burning the Flag (of the United States) I probably have a minority opinion on this matter and it was forged by my former First Sergeant.

I put on the Uniform of the United States Army to give every moron the right to express his opinion including those that see it fit to burn the flag. I would defend his or her right to be an ********* again if required.

The last one I had to try to remember since I'm not a Christian.

This one has very little effect on me aas well. People of low class will be people of low class regardless of how many lumps they recieve. I fully realise that I can't and won't change the world with my defense of any of these situations. In fact I don't really consider these situations at all.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are people who would punch another over an offensive act/remark qualified to carry?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!