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

[cuchulainn]

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.

 

[mec]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Tamara]

St. Gunner,

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]

 

[Blackhawk]

Yes.

Children have trouble managing anger.

 

[ahenry]

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]

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]

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]

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? It happens, but we’re not talking about a super common event here.

 

[Viking6]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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

 

[treeprof]

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]

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]

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!

HS/LD

 

[Oleg Volk]

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]

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]

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]

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?