>Mod Warning< Gun Control, Pepper Spray, Self-Defence and Liberals

All quite true, HOWEVER, we're talking about a particular scenario. And that is if a leftist decides to pepper spray you. You might or might not see it coming either. Lets say a snowflake, fortified by a little weed and booze decides he doesn't like your Glock T-shirt.

 

If he's lucky, he'll only be arrested and charged for assault.

 

I agree. As an example, I seem to remember an incident where a man shot another man in a movie theater after having popcorn tossed at him. It was not the popcorn that justified the use of deadly force, it was the fact that the person who threw the popcorn left his seat and approached and assaulted him. The shooter was not in imminent danger of great bodily injury from the popcorn, he was in imminent danger from the person who threw the popcorn.

Same with pepper spray, when used in an offensive, rather than defensive, manner.

 

I do have an old Glock Tee, but don't wear it in public.

These Marxists gremlins often have their fellow urchins film their little demonstrations. I've not seen single Leftist protesters---as they are always in groups.

So I'm being filmed, as I walk past an intersection with over a dozen of these flakes, and they don't like me as I look at them as I would an unflushed toilet. One of them whips around me and sprays me in the face. This is an assault charge. Depending on how big the attacker is, I'd likely kick their kneecap or stomp on their instep crippling them. If I could, I'd take the spray away from them as evidence, and moving away from the area, I'd regain my vision, then take photos of the attacker(s), and press charges with the police.

If they were to begin striking blows, then the gun would come out.

 

Right. If it is used to disable you to make you incapable of defending a continued attack, I would say shoot.

 

It already happened here in WA at one of Milo's speeches.

[video=youtube;X6__3E7k1FI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6__3E7k1FI[/video]

 

I assume there is a news article -- do you have a link?

 

Where was the muzzle report in the video?

 

[video=youtube;Iv1k7hZV0ds]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv1k7hZV0ds[/video]

The incident occurs at approximately four minutes and thirty seconds in the video.

 

I don't know. It could have been some kind of sound filter to cut out potentially damaging noise or something.

 

Here's something to think about. I like snubs for close in, but I really like knives. You can't carry a Fairburn-Sykes legally, but a tanto or a Browning Backlash (or something similar) represents a very fast response. Under the chin, into the nose or just in front of ear means lights out. From a legal standpoint, it could be a better option from a legal standpoint.

 

I have a couple of folding knives I sometimes carry. Typically I carry a pocket Kel Tec .380 in Injun Country. My Beretta 92FS I keep in my car. The Marxist DEMONstrators have no dared come near where I live, so I'm more concerned with the off chance of everyday thugs attacking.

 

I arm for the risk. For the snowflakes with attacks like "Polar Bear Hunting" or the recent pepper spray attacks, the proper knife may represent an alternative weapon. Of course the proper training may come into play. There are a number of different manual of arms on the subject. I've examined this carefully. I bet you didn't know that knife wounds to head and neck carry a higher mortality than gun shot wounds. It also may give you an edge if there is an attempt at prosecution.

 

Pray tell how so? Knives, just like firearms, are deadly weapons, and will be treated as such.

 

A legal knife does not require a license or a background check. Plus it's not considered an offensive weapon.

 

Depending on the jurisdiction, knives are subjected to greater degrees of restrictions than firearms.

The classification of offensive weapon depends largely upon how it was used at the time of the incident.

 

Yeah I have to agree with this, knife laws are weird as hell and vary greatly even within the same state.

 

But the definition of a legal knife is well established and in the instance we're talking about the purpose is without a doubt self defense.

 

What is and is not a legal knife, is indeed not well established or properly defined. In the state of New York, for example, a knife is illegal if it can be flicked open, or possesses any sort of locking mechanism to keep it from closing on the hand of the owner.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/opinion/new-yorks-outdated-knife-law.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-city-pays-575g-gravity-knife-goof-article-1.2339973

 

It is in mine. A knife in the OP IS a defensive weapon, that is unless you go chasing the perp down. You also have to know that prosecutors have chosen to indict persons in self defense shootings because they used a "high capacity" semi auto vs a revolver or HP (killer) bullets instead of "safer" FMJ's.

 

This is a subject that has arisen across countless forums, across countless discussions. The notion that a person could otherwise be justified in the use of deadly force, but completely unjustified because the legally owned and carried firearm that was used, was configured in a specific fashion. Magazine capacity, type of ammunition used, number of magazines carried, weight of the trigger pull, length of the barrel, visual styling of the firearm, etc. all of them are brought up at things to avoid because they could be utilized against the defendant, and used to convict them of a crime, all because their legal firearm did not conform to certain standards deemed to be politically correct.

Yet for all of the mention of this concept, there has not once been even one single citation by the person presenting the concept for consideration, to prove conclusively that this is the truth. There has not been citation of a single prosecution, let alone a conviction, based solely on these irrelevant trivialities.

If such has indeed happened, then it must be presented to prove conclusively that it is a fact, rather than a rumor that has been perpetuated for years to the point that it has come to be accepted as being fact.

 

Knives only really work at arm's length, unless they are thrown. Handguns allow me get out of the creature's grasp and still attack him/her.

 

Really? We only to have look at homeowner in Detroit that fired shotgun through his door after a drunken, drugged, out female with a criminal record tried to knock down his door. He killed her and his claims of using "fear of life was ignored." The fact that he used a "deadly shotgun" was also taken into consideration. He was convicted and sentenced to a long term in prison.
The other fact is that defensive use of knife is very rare and that the majority of the manual of arms written on the subject involve two things, knife on knife or sentry removal.

 

My point exactly as related to the scenario of the OP. Nothing else. We're not talking about armed robbery here. The knife is strictly defensive and might just keep you out of trouble.

 

Typically have both the Spyderco and the handgun if in hostile lands.

If I did see a Marxist demonstration going on, I'd want to think I'd avoid it, but being a curiosity seeker, I might have to look at it.