Are people who would punch another over an offensive act/remark qualified to carry?
- Thread starter cuchulainn
- Start date
- Status
triggertime
Member
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.
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.
“Are people who would punch another over an offensive act/remark qualified to carry?â€
Even if “offensive act†does not include force or touching, my answer is “Yes, depending upon the totality of the circumstances.â€
I strongly disagree with the comment, “A real lady is above non-physical insults. Physical insults gather a 200-grain response.â€
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.
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.
Even if “offensive act†does not include force or touching, my answer is “Yes, depending upon the totality of the circumstances.â€
I strongly disagree with the comment, “A real lady is above non-physical insults. Physical insults gather a 200-grain response.â€
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.
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.
I took the original post to mean someone who has a propensity (what a poseur word ) 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.
) 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
Senior Member
Something to mull over, with illustration...
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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
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
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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...â€) 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.
Tamara
Senior Member
ahenry,
Suppose that the person whose manners you aim to improve with a thrashing has made the same choice Oleg has?
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.
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?
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. 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).
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
Member
I'll throw my two cents in -
For the record, Big Al is an awe-inspiring 5'5" and 170# (of muscle, though ). 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.
For the record, Big Al is an awe-inspiring 5'5" and 170# (of muscle, though
). 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.
Last edited:
Betty
Member
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.
cuchulainn
Member
Unfortunately, misunderstanding the concept of "defending one's honor" has a much longer tradition than the modern concept of dissing.
Flag burning. Spitting on a crucifix. Calling a woman the c-word.
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....
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
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.
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.
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
Member
Yep. Thank you for putting it so well, Sean
Thumper
Member
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Thumper,
Maybe you should come over to my house, polish my medals, and then tell me which category I fall under?
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.
Maybe you should come over to my house, polish my medals, and then tell me which category I fall under?
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.
Last edited:
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
I agree this is a dead horse, but it might not be glue yet.
cuchulainn
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked