The problem with Anti Gun idiots is that they are willing to bet
everybody else’s life and assorted body parts on their failed Gun
May 11th, 2012
[The criminal occupational hazard reduction organizations seem to think that by allowing those who desire to exercise their right to carry it some how forces everyone to carry. I’ve never quite understood this. What I do understand quite well is that their wants and desires affect everyone’s choices for self defense.
Their desire to limit the ability to fight back affects everyone, not just themselves. Currently there is a running theme that we must be able to fully know the intent of an attacker before we defend ourselves.
Umm, I don’t think so sparky. If someone is threatening myself or my family I am no longer required to exercise restraint. I don’t care if it ends up he just wants my wallet, there is no magic filter to separate a process criminal and a resource criminal. I cannot magically separate by immediate behavior who just wants my wallet and who after taking my wallet wants me dead. The criminal could quite easily retain his life by doing one of two things.
- Pick a different victim. See if he picks one of those anti-gunners who doesn’t believe in defending themselves it’s much safer for the criminal.
- No longer participate in a life of crime. If he wasn’t robbing and threatening peaceable citizens he wouldn’t have to worry about being shot when they defended themselves now would they?
I know there are many people who would blame the person for defending themselves for the death of the criminal. Except that isn’t true now is it? There were numerous decisions the criminal made which forced the victim into defending themselves. The criminal made the choices which ultimately resulted in their own death.
If someone threatens me and mine do you think I’m going to take the time to run him through a psychological profile to determine if I should be less afraid?
Hell no, I have already made the decision. I will fight and I will win at any cost to those who threaten or use force against myself or my family. The criminal made the decision to jump in the pit with the tiger. I have no duty to try and determine if he’s just bluffing. Shoot first, you bet. If my telling them to stop didn’t work, the universal hand signal for go away will. Even if it most assuredly reduces his recidivism rate to 0.
Besides even if the attacker actually shoots first our opponents will claim I did if my body isn’t cooling to room temperature by the actions of their main supporters.
A criminal who attacks someone else has no rights during the attack. He surrendered them in perpetrating the attack. He made that choice, not me. -B]
Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.
He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.