Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by cuchulainn, Jan 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,297
    Location:
    Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
    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.
     
  2. mec

    mec Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,458
    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.
     
  3. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Absolutely, a willingness to offer violence to someone else when they have not threatened you is definitely a precursor to more serious assaultive behavior.
     
  4. St. Gunner

    St. Gunner Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    379
    Location:
    Devine Texas
    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.
     
  5. KMKeller

    KMKeller Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,633
    Location:
    NC
    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
     
  6. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,325
    Location:
    Hoosieropolis
    St. Gunner,

    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."
     
  7. Kahr carrier

    Kahr carrier Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,060
    Location:
    WESTSIDE
  8. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,882
    Yes.

    Children have trouble managing anger.
     
  9. ahenry

    ahenry Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    633
    Location:
    Texas
    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!
     
  10. Leatherneck

    Leatherneck Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    No. Virginia and Northern Neck
    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
     
  11. Redlg155

    Redlg155 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,724
    Location:
    NW Florida
    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
     
  12. ahenry

    ahenry Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    633
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2003
  13. Viking6

    Viking6 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    392
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.
     
  14. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,929
    Location:
    Indiana
    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.
     
  15. Calif. Hunter

    Calif. Hunter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    25
    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.
     
  16. HS/LD

    HS/LD Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    440
    "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
     
  17. Triad

    Triad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    810
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  18. Triad

    Triad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    810
    Location:
    Texas
    LMAO :D
     
  19. treeprof

    treeprof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    773
    Location:
    Ohio
    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.
     
  20. gburner

    gburner member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    438
    Location:
    halfway there
    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.
     
  21. HS/LD

    HS/LD Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    440
    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
     
  22. Oleg Volk

    Oleg Volk Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    9,155
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    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.
     
  23. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    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?
     
  24. ReadyontheRight

    ReadyontheRight Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,335
    Location:
    Minnesota - nine months of ice and snow...three mo
    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.
     
  25. Mastrogiacomo

    Mastrogiacomo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    2,376
    Location:
    Boston
    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:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page