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

I didn't say don't keep both. In fact, some guru's are saying to carry two guns in high threat areas.

 

I don't think I could find anything in any demonstration worth stopping for. Except maybe a protest for equality with regards to going shirtless.

 

If I needed to carry a rifle and a handgun it would be in a WROL situation---unless I'm at the range.

 

The individual in question, Theodore Wafer, made the initial statement that the weapon was discharged accidentally. It was only after that he changed his story and admitted that it was deliberately fired. Furthermore, Theodore Wafer admitted at trial that he fired his shotgun immediately after opening the front door, without first verifying the situation to determine any relevant information about the deceased individual.

The above incident does not address the fact that was presented. There has been no citation of evidence that would conclusively prove 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. If such were the truth, why would the national rifle association not be front in center with covering such cases, to show conclusively that such is what legal firearm owners face when defending themselves against threats of harm?

Which is not relevant to the discussion.

 

I think he meant 2 handguns.

In the winter sometimes I carry both my P09 in a shoulder rig and my shield iwb. Mainly that has to do with driving and the bulky coat though.

 

It's totally relevant and demonstrates intent. A reason why old time thugs carried a razor was because of this. ( most razor guys carried a gun too ) The razor was a lot less lethal.

 

Pray tell how is usage of a knife in a defensive role relevant to what has been, and is currently being, discussed? How is usage of a knife rather than a firearm any less likely to result in a hypothetical overzealous prosecutor pursuing an indictment, if that is the primary concern in defensive engagements against a credible threat?

 

Precisely and then they will try it on someone who STILL manages to kick their rump or uses pepper spray on them in turn and then they will hunt up an attorney; because THAT's how leftists . . . roll. So we return to the O.P., and so most likely you will end up in court whether you justifiably kill your attacker or merely retaliate aggressive act for aggressive act.

I could see a good citizen actually being fined less and experiencing no jail time simply for killing his or her leftist attacker. We live in strange times, yes?

 

I wrote the OP. The topic is about self defense in the face of a pepper spray attack and to what level of response can be legally applied. It's really that simple.... or not. First there is intent. What is it for you? Correct answer is to defend yourself. A knife in this scenario is strictly a defensive weapon. However, the topic is not just about knives in particular, it includes the use of firearms or anything else for that matter. Here's what we do know. It will be different in different locales.

 

That is an excellent response. Rest assured that if said snowflake survives that he will try to sue you or if he does not his family will. Further if the snowflake survives he will be to express his own intent ( meaning that he will show himself as a snowflake and harmless)

 

Just got back from the range shooting with friends. Anyway, to me that's overkill unless I was in a dangerous job or had to be in a really bad area.

Instead the weight of an extra handgun, I'd wear a Level IIIA vest, and have an extra magazine.

 

Ah it's not that bad. With a good shoulder rig you don't even notice the weight.

I like it because there's nothing better for when you're driving. The shield weighs nothing.

 

The definition of a legal knife is not well established in all states. The FL statutes, to give one example, are very vague on the issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Evidence for the above.

 

More importantly, handguns give you the chance to have the other guy give up, which is the ideal. The last thing you want to do is shoot somebody. A knife doesn't have that ability. You have to get in close to use a knife, and pretty much you have to use it when you get in range, or it's useless.

 

My guess is the above is because there was a door in between them. He didn't have a reasonable threat to his life. Now, had she succeeded in breaking down the door, he would. Unless I knew somebody had a gun, I wouldn't shoot through an exterior door.

 

that's a good point. If you read Massad Akoob's books or have attended his LFI classes, he teaches that when a cop or private citizen is confronted with a criminal waving a knife or a club or nunchucks etc, the proper response is to draw a firearm. That gives the perpetrator an easy way out-surrender. If you pull a knife or a baton, its essentially challenging the guy with a similar weapon to fight. A perp who backs down and drops his knife or club when the intended victim produces a knife or a club, is going to be seen as a coward by his peers. A guy who drops his knife or club when someone aims a Glock 17 or a Colt 45 at him is not going to be seen as gutless.

 

I see this both ways.
-Drawing the gun lets the perp know you are willing and able to defend yourself with deadly force superior to his and may end the encounter
-Drawing the gun may qualify as escalation, at which point you can no longer claim self-defense.
Not sure which I buy.

 

if the other guy has a weapon, knife or club, that is lethal force and you are justified in drawing a weapon, we are assuming the other person started the action

 

Yes - you are certainly reacting to a legitimate threat.
IMHO, best to never draw the gun unless your very next act is to pull the trigger.

 

There was a case in Houston where the door was being broken down by a drunken Brit tourist. The homeowner fired through a closed door killing him. There as a complete no bill. Of course that is Texas.

 

Should have been a manslaughter charge, IMHO. It's just not right to kill somebody who's not a danger to you. Now, anybody inside your house is a danger to you. Banging on your door is no danger, until the door breaks.

 

Agree - once the door is breached, the threat becomes actionable.
Based on the description, above, that may have been the case.

 

I disagree, drawing a gun in reaction to someone displaying a method of imminent threat of death or great bodily harm does not disqualify you from claiming self defense. There are also many influencing factors that can be used in claims of self defense that should be noted.

Beyond that, a mindset that if you draw your weapon you are going to pull the trigger can have criminal repercussions. Remember there are far more crimes prevented by exposing or displaying weapons than by actually using one in self defense.

 

It's not "your" opinion. The guy said he was in fear of his life and state law as well as the DA agreed. Case closed. No bill. Why should I wait till someone gains access to my home?

 

So you don't shoot the British tourist for no good reason....