Friend shot while on the phone

[Glockoma]

The student who posted about potentially getting pepper spray for protection while on campus should perhaps look into carrying a nice folding knife that can be opened with one hand. Knife carry legality varies, but even here in Kalifornistan I can (and do) carry a folder, and it was legal to have it on campus.

Some hiking or tactical pants have long narrow pockets on the thigh ideal for a knife. At bad-breath distance, a knife is excellent to have. I don't see myself carrying a spray, save to repel mosquitos.

[ChowYunFat]

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/reada...?ArtNum=158500

I've been busy, but here's the article to read.

Interestingly racist opinions. Do most of the members here agree with them?

[PinnedAndRecessed]

I couldn't get your link to work. Here's the link provided by the original poster:

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/reada...?ArtNum=158500

I'm not sure I know what you're saying.

[pax]

:barf: What a nasty site.

PAR, try reading the whole page.

pax

[Trip20]

Is that what an unmoderated forum looks like?

Makes me all warm and fuzzy when I think of TFL and THR.

[JohnKSa]

PinnedAndRecessed,

It's entirely possible that you reacted perfectly to the situations that you found yourself in. It's also possible that you could have done things differently and still remained uninjured.

I get the distinct feeling that you are under the impression that by acknowledging that there are other possible and reasonable courses of action you would also be admitting that you were wrong or cowardly for taking the approach that you did.

That's not the case, and furthermore you are unfairly limiting and directing the discussion by taking that stance.

[PinnedAndRecessed]

I get the distinct feeling that you are under the impression that by acknowledging that there are other possible and reasonable courses of action you would also be admitting that you were wrong or cowardly for taking the approach that you did.

I entertain no such thought.

Gun at your head. You will do what you're told.

The only exception is if you have trained for the eventuality.

99.9% of gun owners train for no such eventuality.

They will do what they're told.

That's not the case, and furthermore you are unfairly limiting and directing the discussion by taking that stance.

You are wrong. It is the case.

I assume you must be one of the legions of self-defense experts with extensive combat and martial arts training. You and your sensei have doubtless theorized countless hours as to neutralizing the attack.

But until you have implemented your theories in real world events, they remain nothing but theories. In fact, not even theories. Mere hypotheses.

Therefore, if you have not actually used such training, you cannot prove your argument.

And any argument without proof is useless.

[XavierBreath]

Your assumption that a criminal will not take your life after you comply with his demands is also nothing but theory.

[Bud Helms]

P&R said, among other things:

... if you have not actually used such training, you cannot prove your argument.

And any argument without proof is useless.

For most of us, this is not the case. We may present evidence in several ways to support a given position. That evidence is not required to be proof.

also:

... until you have implemented your theories in real world events, they remain nothing but theories. In fact, not even theories. Mere hypotheses.

This is supposed to discredit the argument of the other side? Your argument may also be considered a hypothesis.

I'm going to shut this thread down for half a day to give everyone a chance to read and catch up with the positions and arguments made here. And maybe for some of us to read our own posts and consider what's been said.

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by PinnedAndRecessed

You are wrong. It is the case.

Umm... It IS the case that "you are under the impression that by acknowledging that there are other possible and reasonable courses of action you would also be admitting that you were wrong or cowardly for taking the approach that you did"?

Either you are not "entertaining such thoughts", or "it's not the case"--but it can't be both.

I assume you must be one of the legions of self-defense experts with extensive combat and martial arts training. You and your sensei have doubtless theorized countless hours as to neutralizing the attack.

Not even close. I don't claim to be an expert at anything, I've never had a sensei, and the only thing even approaching martial arts/combat training that I've taken is a year or so of foil fencing.

Gun at your head. You will do what you're told.

The only exception is if you have trained for the eventuality.

99.9% of gun owners train for no such eventuality.

They will do what they're told.

This is your theory, with the only proof offered being your actions in a similar incident. It is an incorrect theory, if only because it is stated without qualifications. There is no way you or anyone else can accurately predict the actions of ALL untrained gun owners with 100% accuracy.

Furthermore, EVEN IF it WERE true, what a person WILL do is not necessarily what a person SHOULD do.

Lastly, proof and implementation are two different things. It's nice to have both, but they can each exist without the other.

Your comments/theories/suggestions seem to be quite clearly centered around defending the way you reacted in your personal experiences. I'm not saying you reacted incorrectly, just that what you did is not the only reasonable course of action.

In addition, I'm saying that it appears that you are so wrapped up in protecting the personal investment you have made (by living through the experiences you were put through and by sharing them publicly) that you are passionately defending your actions at the cost of allowing this debate to continue in a constructive fashion. I think that more evidence of this (should anyone want it) is this thread that you posted on THR. The fact that you immediately started a thread on another forum but this time with a question carefully stacked to get the responses you clearly want seems to be an attempt to reassure yourself that you did the right thing. I'll tell you right now that you did the right thing! You're here and you're uninjured--clearly your approach was best for YOU in the PARTICULAR situation(s) you found yourself in.

But I am not saying that was the ONLY right approach you could have taken nor am I saying that it's always the right approach for any other situation that resembles your experience. There are just too many variables to make statements like that.

Everyone will not react the way you did.
Everyone's situation will not be exactly the same as yours.
Everyone's mindset will not mirror yours.
Other actions can have positive outcomes.
Other actions can be reasonable.
People can follow your example and still be injured, shot or killed.

None of those things are even debatable, and yet you become hostile when they are suggested.

Take a step back and understand that your two experiences do NOT define the entire world of gun owners/carriers--not even those who do not have "extensive combat/martial arts training".