2018, What Armed Self Defense Looks Like

No, that wasn't my statement. It was the original statement from a European guest. And he made a good point.

 

Yeah, well, I don't see much that he posts, deliberately. However, has anyone here agree that you should be able to shoot someone merely for stealing a bicycle? No one is saying that you can or you should shoot anyone for any crime, which is what your post implied.

 

Again....silence on that post is rather telling.

 

If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I’m going to use deadly force unless he can PROVE to me that he is unarmed, alone, and not a threat to my family. Can he do that? I don’t know, but it’s not my problem and the law is on my side. My only responsibility is to make sure my target is not a family member or guest.

 

Your poor reading comprehension of my posts, or deliberate misreading, is also telling. I told you why I don't respond to his posts - 99% of the time they don't show up in my view.

For the record" "Commonsense. If someone is stealing your bike you don't get to shoot him." Agreed, but no one here is claiming that you can or should.

 

Except that you would have been alerted about his post since he replied to your post. Not to mention you had no problem seeing and replying (#320) to a post of his on the same page (16)
That being said, good to know at least YOU don't think you should be able to shoot someone for stealing your bike.

 

For the 1% that I read them, and they aren't a photo and are on topic, I try to respond.

Do you still feel that "Sadly many think it should be ok to shoot anyone who breaks the law" The inference is that breaking any law is sufficient for a citizen to shoot them. Is that what you meant to say?

 

Noted. Apologies for the misidentification.

 

Yes, still feel that way...as evidenced

The posts below were in another gun thread and in regards to stolen property.

"Beyond that matter, why should private property be held to a lower standard? What exactly is wrong with deadly force being used to protect private property against theft?"

"good riddance. I wish more people would shoot felons. Society would be better off"

"we should value the property of honest citizens more than the lives of predatory parasites"

This last quote was a reply to 'Is killing someone over a piece of gum lawful? A bike? A motorcycle?'
"Why should the individual who has made the conscious decision to victimize someone else for their own personal benefit, be provided with any claim that they should not be killed by their intended victim in response for their actions?"

I could have grabbed many other quotes but you get the idea that I wasn't just pulling something out of thin air. It was based on actual posts.

 

Sufficient enough to support your intended point, but I would still reword your phrasing.

 

I don't think this is about rewording. Rethinking on the part of those who have a need to carry a deadly weapon, and want to broaden the arena in which it can be used, is the more appropriate change.

 

Everywhere is.

The fact is that you can't psychically tell when and where a criminal will be. He will be where he will be and he will strike when he feels he has the advantage. There is nowhere in this country where there hasn't been a criminal assault.

If you want to play the odds, you are certainly far more likely to be able to walk even through the worst areas of the world without being targeted by criminals. The odds of being assaulted/raped/murdered is measured by single and double digit odds per 100,000 pretty much anywhere you go. If you want to embrace the mindset that since your odds are good there is no point in even thinking about defending yourself, then you're relatively safe.

BUT.....

I've seen too many people die or been brutalized because they decided "it can't happen to me." I train and live my life knowing it might happen, and as such I am ready to respond just in case it does.

 

How do you know they decided "it can't happen to me."? If you get killed or brutalized does that mean you decided it wasn't going to happen to you? Of course not.

 

I feel I have to.... but then my gun has saved my life. So.... there's that.

 

There are lots of people walking around that have used a firearm to save their lives, soldiers for example, and they don't carry a gun. So..... there's that.

 

Which obliterates your own credibility.

The lies and dishonesty of the VPC are well documented.

 

Actually, depending on circumstance (and different department/agency protocols), if the officer feels that the person being threatened with a gun is in immediate danger of being killed he is fully justified to fire his weapon to stop that threat without any requirement to identify themselves prior to firing.

 

"You're not credible, I am" is your mantra. The truth is they're, VPC, probably off on some things and on on others. Just like you.

 

depending on circumstance (and different department/agency protocols

 

So, they've made a choice I think is foolish, but they're free to do so. It's a free country after all; despite the efforts of certain people.

 

No, they're liars, plain and simple. Not "off". And your inability to comprehend reality isn't my problem.

 

Thanks in large part to those soldiers who no longer carry.

 

I highly doubt they're just a bunch of liars, and your extremism should not become this nations problem.

 

Neither do I. After all, I'm trained, equipped, and prepared to deal with an unexpected threat.

 

If an honest citizen goes forth into the streets without possessing the means to protect themselves and those they are responsible for then they are making a conscious decision to believe that they have nothing to worry about. That is, by definition, a statement of "it can't happen."