ReadyontheRight
Member
Well said. Also applies to a real man.
Are people who would punch another over an offensive act/remark qualified to carry?
- Thread starter cuchulainn
- Start date
- Status
Well said. Also applies to a real man.
Orion
Member
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.
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.
wingnutx
Member
Read my signature for the answer.
PATH
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
Ledbetter
Member
True, stupid story
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.
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
Member
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
When I carry, I think I am way more likely to defuse a situation with my feet, rather than my mouth.
MJ
cuchulainn
Member
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?
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?
Last edited:
Col. Mustard
Member
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.
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.
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/remarkâ€, 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
Member
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.
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?
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.
Perhaps. Again, the onus for avoiding this lies not with me but with the offender.
Last edited:
2nd Amendment
member
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.
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
Member
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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.
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.
*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
Moderator Emeritus
Realistically, the person who punched another would be sued in criminal and in civil courts.
PATH
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
If a person has trouble with...
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
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
cuchulainn
Member
Benefit?
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked