The Case for Arming Yourself

[tombogan03884]

Guess I should have said in my earlier post that he showed great restraint.  I don't know whether he ever thought he would be in that kind of situation but his actions were exemplary (SP?).

Richard

My spell check marked it when I quoted it  

A little "Old West Justice" might get things back to where they ought to be.  
(not that I'm advocating vigilantism, or taking the law into one's hands.....but in a case where there is no doubt.....)

In the absence of any other option, whether cops can't get there in time, or there are no cops, the citizen has a duty to intervene to the best of his ability.
At one time, before the English people were castrated, citizens were required to answer the "Hue and cry". While the populace would not generally, kill a thief on the spot, they would hold him for the constable, or until one of Sir Robert's "Peeler's " arrived on the scene. That how ever requires a generally armed public.

[2HOW]

Is this really a thread? Whiskey Tango foxtrot   

[PegLeg45]

In the absence of any other option, whether cops can't get there in time, or there are no cops, the citizen has a duty to intervene to the best of his ability.
At one time, before the English people were castrated, citizens were required to answer the "Hue and cry". While the populace would not generally, kill a thief on the spot, they would hold him for the constable, or until one of Sir Robert's "Peeler's " arrived on the scene. That how ever requires a generally armed public.

And, I expect folks would generally be nicer to each other too..........once all the Darwin award candidates were weeded out.

[tombogan03884]

Is this really a thread? Whiskey Tango foxtrot   

How about," Excuses for buying more guns" 

[tt11758]

Over the past week I've given a great deal of thought to how I might've reacted, had I been in Tucson last Saturday.  And in the final analysis, I'm left with more questions than answers.

Would I have fired on the attacker, given the opportunity?  The best answer I can come up with is "maybe, maybe not".  And here's why I reach that conclusion:

The BG has advantages;  he knows what he intends to do, who he intends to shoot, where he intends to move, etc.  All information that I, as a responsible citizen, lack.  And unlike you and me, the BG doesn't have to worry about collateral damage.  In a crowd, is somebody going to step between the muzzle of my gun and the BG the instant I press the trigger?  What if I miss?  What if I fire a round that goes clean through the BG and kills somebody behind him?  All of these variables MUST enter into the decision of whether to shoot or not shoot.  Even though I have a gun and the training to use it properly, is that my best course of action? 

I guess it all comes down to situational awareness, and common sense and preparation.  The gun on your hip MAY not be the best tool for the job at hand.  In short, be psychologically prepared for anything, and have a plan to deal with the contingencies you can envision, and even those you can't.  If the gun is the best tool at hand, use it.  If a tackle, or a smack to the back of the head with a cane, a fist, etc appears a better alternative, use it. 

God bless the victims of the Tucson shooter, and their families.  And may common sense prevail in the shooting's aftermath.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

MB addresses this on the podcast. As soon as you draw your pistol, in the eye's of everyone else you become a potential "2nd gunman" they don't know you, or where you are aiming. Your best bet is flight unless he is shooting at you.