Violence as Deterrent
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Saturday, October 4, 2025 00:35
VIEWED: 6613
PAGE 2 of 12
Rue,
I appreciate your faith in me. In fact, I enjoy violence in my television shows, movies, and video games, but abhor it in my life. Each gun I've ever owned has been accompanied by a silent prayer. May I never, ever find occasion to draw this on a person. Violence is only ever fun in the make-believe world. I never want to do more than imagine the horror of actually ending a life. I think it would haunt me forever.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Rue,
I appreciate your faith in me. In fact, I enjoy violence in my television shows, movies, and video games, but abhor it in my life. Each gun I've ever owned has been accompanied by a silent prayer. May I never, ever find occasion to draw this on a person. Violence is only ever fun in the make-believe world. I never want to do more than imagine the horror of actually ending a life. I think it would haunt me forever.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
I agree with ya there, Anthony. I see the need for guns in our society, but don't want to own one in paralyzing fear of what might happen to me or my family because of it.
And by "see the need" I mean that we have the right to legally bear (bare?) arms. I see the need for self defense when others ignore the law for their own benefit. My concern has always been that it is the criminals who get the weapons illegally at will, while law abiding citizens have to go through a whole process to even be allowed to own one. This man at the BK thought he would rule the roost because he'd be the only one with a gun, but he was sorely mistaken. I'm saddened that ANYONE had to die, but like Anthony says, better the one who was breaking the law and threatening to kill others than the poor person at the register. I hope the guy who stood up to him recovers.
How will the law handle the man in the hospital? Should any charges be pressed?
Thoughts?
Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I very much hope we are not in the business, as a country, of prosecuting people for opposing violent criminal activity with violence.
However, it has happened before. In this country, and in other countries. I am told in England that if you jab an attacker with your sewing needles while walking home from your knitting circle, you can be charged with a crime.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
And by "see the need" I mean that we have the right to legally bear (bare?) arms.
Bare. Only Bears have the right to Bear arms.
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
My concern has always been that it is the criminals who get the weapons illegally at will, while law abiding citizens have to go through a whole process to even be allowed to own one.
The process should be difficult, there being a black market doesn't equate to making legal ownership so easy and lunatic could get one as easily as buying a chocolate bar.
AURaptor advocates child murder:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
When Pal women start dressing up their babies in suicide pampers, might be a good idea to go ahead and take care of both of them at once, before they have a chance to kill.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37443#687361
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I do not mind any reasonable process to purchase a firearm. Reasonable meaning this to me:
1) Everyone should be able to afford it. Any fee associated with the qualification process should be within the means of poverty-stricken Americans, and perhaps even payable with the aid of government assistance.
2) Every law-abiding adult-minded citizen should be able to purchase a firearm. This means if you haven't broken the law, and have the reasoning capacity of an adult, you should not be barred.
3) Mental instabilities/disabilities/illnesses should only factor into the equation if the individual either A) can not reason as an adult or B) represents a harm to others due to the nature of their illness.
4) The process for qualification should be as brisk and efficient as possible, with no artificial padding of waiting periods or other delays. If a person qualifies, they qualify.
5) The process for qualification should be routinely examined to make sure it is not being used as a tool to disallow firearms from the citizenry. Especially the process should be routinely vetted against any political leanings or influence. The basic premise of the process should always be that 'Any law-abiding adult has a right to own firearms.'
6) The process for qualification should include some sort of training for the weapon(s) in question, with a focus on legal use and basic safety. The test to confirm this knowledge should be very basic, and tied especially to item 5.
There are a lot of concessions I'd be willing to make in regards to my right to own and carry firearms. I am prepared to be very reasonable.
My problem has always been those that do not recognize my right, and who wish to enact legislation not as a tool to enable it, but rather as a tool to eliminate it.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ayep, that coulda gone much worse than it did.
What likely happened is that he CCW holder didn't properly cower and the thug got pissed off about it, cause most folk who have one are well aware of things like risk to bystanders and legal implications - the required classes handle all of that, you see ?
If he had INTENDED to draw and fire initially, he'd have done so before words were exchanged - in a situation like that it's completely legal and tactically smarter to shoot the bastard in the back unawares, if you plan to shoot him at all, which, so long as he looked like he was gonna grab and go, as you all say, ain't worth the hassle.
So prolly the thug made eye contact and took issue with the guy not being cowed, and the CCW holder realized if he didn't do something damn quick, his life was forfeit to feed some punks ego - so regardless of tactical disadvantage, he played the only hand he had even though it sucked, cause sometimes you gotta do that.
A punk who robs a McDonalds is VERY unlikely to try eliminating witnesses cause there's just too damn many, as opposed to a convenience store often staffed by a single individual, and eyewitnesses and camera footage are entirely sufficient in combination with the average stupidity of such punks to result in their quick capture if you can get the donut munchers off their ass to actually go do it.
And this does illustrate the problem of criminals expecting meek compliance and how they tend to escalate matters because of that expectation.
This was a no-fire in the initial situation, but evolved to one because of the thugs conduct, and the CCW holder managed to take the guy out despite being under fire, and if the thug shot first, likely already wounded and bleeding.
The article doesn't mention it, but there's a substantial possibility the thug shot and wounded the CCW holder and was about to finish him off when he drew and fired back - the security cam tapes would tell if this were the case or not, but I would say it's all too likely.
So looked at from THAT angle, yes, being armed may well have been the difference between a dead civvie and perp on the loose, and a dead perp and wounded civvie.
Just a thought on it, cause some asshole robbing a MickeyD's is a no-fire decision as a general rule.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Many of these restaurant robberies are by former employees, who must eliminate all witnesses...
The injured shooter and his family must now defend themselves from gang retaliation.
All this violence is because the Jewish ACLU took the 10 Commandments out of skools, courts and legislatures, for conflicting with the Babylonian Talmud:
Quote:
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not murder (self defense okay).
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
That last was removed especially for politicians. It makes Mossad's job easier.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Follow up thoughts...
Quote:
I very much hope we are not in the business, as a country, of prosecuting people for opposing violent criminal activity with violence.
Hope in one hand, spit in the other - one of the reasons I am so rabid about this is the amount of trouble I've gotten into ever since the age of eight for acts which were *CLEARLY* pure self defense.
In fact, when I was fourteen I attended a school that had an automatic suspension policy for both people involved in a fight, and when Ian decided to take a swing at me for not being as much a wrestling fan as he was, I made the active choice to shove my hands in my pockets and take the hits till the teacher and the assistant administrator, who was standing in the doorway at the time, pulled him off.
And they STILL suspended me.
(My mom blew a gasket about it too, since in front of two official witnesses, and a class of sixteen kids, I got suspended for BEING HIT.)
The vilification of self-defense in this country is downright appalling, and has lead to increased crime and social violence.
That said....
Quote:
1) Everyone should be able to afford it. Any fee associated with the qualification process should be within the means of poverty-stricken Americans, and perhaps even payable with the aid of government assistance.
Many pro-CCW folk can put you in touch with someone who will teach the classes for free if you happen to be poor, and a few times the fellow classmembers have passed around the hat to each other to cover the permit fees.
As for the weapon itself, both Bersa and Taurus make inexpensive models of respectable quality especially designed for CCW.
Quote:
2) Every law-abiding adult-minded citizen should be able to purchase a firearm. This means if you haven't broken the law, and have the reasoning capacity of an adult, you should not be barred.
Actually, I'm of the mind that if you have "paid your debt" to society and did not commit a violent/weapon-related crime in the first place, you should not have that right revoked in the first place.
We have this damnable tendancy to punish someone FOREVER, once they've been convicted of a crime, which in a society with so many often ridiculous laws they all but trip over each other, is a very real possibility when a person cannot live a normal life without violating several each and every day.
Quote:
4) The process for qualification should be as brisk and efficient as possible, with no artificial padding of waiting periods or other delays. If a person qualifies, they qualify.
This is another thing I am grateful to Jennifer Granholm for, when MI initially went right-to-carry, that is exactly what they did, and it took her actions to force them to stop doing this.
Quote:
5) The process for qualification should be routinely examined to make sure it is not being used as a tool to disallow firearms from the citizenry. Especially the process should be routinely vetted against any political leanings or influence. The basic premise of the process should always be that 'Any law-abiding adult has a right to own firearms.'
Jim March has been especially helpful in exposing that particular problem, you can find some of his stuff and reference work on the net even now.
Quote:
6) The process for qualification should include some sort of training for the weapon(s) in question, with a focus on legal use and basic safety. The test to confirm this knowledge should be very basic, and tied especially to item 5.
Usually there is, most CCW classes are actually pretty good, and the more advanced classes are worth their weight in gold if you live in a place where you're likely to NEED your weapon and unable to move away.
I am fairly reasonable too, but like you, Anthony, I find myself at loggerheads with those who's admitted intent is to eventually deny the right entire by restricting it out of existence.
In a sad irony, kind of an echo to the discussion at hand, my Colt Mustang has finally reached a point where it's no longer reliably serviceable due to
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
And by "see the need" I mean that we have the right to legally bear (bare?) arms.
Bare. Only Bears have the right to Bear arms.
Nope. Try again.
Oh - are "bear arms" anything like "buffalo wings" or "chicken fingers"?
I had enough chicken fingers for lunch to make up two chicken hands! :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And speaking of "Bear" arms . . . .
http://www.bustedtees.com/secondamendment
Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME