Post: #26

(11-24-2015 05:34 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I can only get outraged about something so many times before I just get worn out.

That's where I am. I have no interest in saving the Decadent West from itself. Islam will eradicate everyone who thinks I'm an appalling enemy of modernity for valuing masculinity; rational thought; discipline; effort to achieve goals; emotional resilience and strength; and heterosexual attraction to feminine women. As such, why I would I fight Islam to keep progressives in their comfortable, increasingly-detached-from-reality bubbles to keep abusing and subjugating me?

As such, fuck them all. When they're cutting off the heads of Blue Haired Obese Lesbians and Goony-Bearded Hipster Men, I won't even flinch. The muslims want to oppress, and the progressives want to feel oppressed. Let their romance be violent and brutal.

It's not even hatred speaking. It's complete and utter indifference to the fate of my home country, because it actively-demonises honour, beauty, stoicism and decency.

This is why I've been saying for months: gather your tribe. There's a better society to be built on the ashes of the old. It could take 5 years or 30, but the West is going down.

I'll be curious to see if the Police and Military Tribes will simply start abandoning entire communities to the wolves.

Post: #27

These Black lives matters mothafuckas need to look in the mirror.Do you really want to spend your time playing victim or would you rather unite the black community, and get your bread up. Take advantage of this affirmative action shit like my black ass (well mixxed lol)/and build your capital. Get those bad ass kids to hit the books while your at it and have high expectations ( like thses Asian parents) so even if they don't reach the pinnacle, they land on the clouds. "You didn't get into Harvard? Well fuck it, Cal State Long Beach will work, just blossom in that mothafucka". I swear man, this would be the best course of action.

Post: #28

(11-24-2015 06:54 PM)Phil Jackson Wrote:  These Black lives matters mothafuckas need to look in the mirror.Do you really want to spend your time playing victim or would you rather unite the black community, and get your bread up. Take advantage of this affirmative action shit like my black ass (well mixxed lol)/and build your capital. Get those bad ass kids to hit the books while your at it and have high expectations ( like thses Asian parents) so even if they don't reach the oinnacke, they land on the clouds. "You didn't get into Harvard? Well fuck it, Cal State Long Beach will work, just blossom in that mothafucka". I swear man, this would be the best course of action.

I think Bill Cosby was excommunicated from the black community for expressing this sort of attitude.

Post: #29

(11-24-2015 06:45 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 05:34 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I can only get outraged about something so many times before I just get worn out.

That's where I am. I have no interest in saving the Decadent West from itself. Islam will eradicate everyone who thinks I'm an appalling enemy of modernity for valuing masculinity; rational thought; discipline; effort to achieve goals; emotional resilience and strength; and heterosexual attraction to feminine women. As such, why I would I fight Islam to keep progressives in their comfortable, increasingly-detached-from-reality bubbles to keep abusing and subjugating me?

As such, fuck them all. When they're cutting off the heads of Blue Haired Obese Lesbians and Goony-Bearded Hipster Men, I won't even flinch. The muslims want to oppress, and the progressives want to feel oppressed. Let their romance be violent and brutal.

It's not even hatred speaking. It's complete and utter indifference to the fate of my home country, because it actively-demonises honour, beauty, stoicism and decency.

This is why I've been saying for months: gather your tribe. There's a better society to be built on the ashes of the old. It could take 5 years or 30, but the West is going down.

I'll be curious to see if the Police and Military Tribes will simply start abandoning entire communities to the wolves.

My man BOOSSSCHHHULUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS......

Post: #30

QC, I was hoping you would offer me some sage words to snap me out of it.

I recently read Christopher Isherwood's 1939 book 'Goodbye To Berlin', where he chronicles the cultural decadence of the Weinmar Republic as the Nazi's start rising into power. It used to be adored by Leftist subversives and artists, but I wondered what parallel's might be observed, given our descent into the decadent phase.

Note the narrator's self-description.

Quote:“I am a camera with its shutter open, quite passive, recording, not thinking."

This is where I am. All feeling and emotion has shut down. It's simply, watching and observing.

Guarding. Waiting. Identifying fracture points.

So, when I see people clutching at totems of conspicuous consumption, (brand name clothing, smartphones), lecturing me about my 'white privilege', when I spent a period of my teens sleeping on the street and in church shelters, often being fed by the 'evil white catholics' of the Salvation Army, knowing I would have been instantly housed if I'd been female or aboriginal, I'm less unsympathetic and more utterly-indifferent to their eventual fate.

Maybe my roll is simply to observe and record dispassionately, so I can then be able to stand firm guard against attempted subversion of the coming society. As the book says:

Quote:"Some day, all this will have to be developed, carefully printed, fixed."

C'mon mate, give me a reason to fight. This can't be healthy.

Post: #31

(11-24-2015 06:45 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  That's where I am. I have no interest in saving the Decadent West from itself. Islam will eradicate everyone who thinks I'm an appalling enemy of modernity for valuing masculinity; rational thought; discipline; effort to achieve goals; emotional resilience and strength; and heterosexual attraction to feminine women. As such, why I would I fight Islam to keep progressives in their comfortable, increasingly-detached-from-reality bubbles to keep abusing and subjugating me?

As such, fuck them all. When they're cutting off the heads of Blue Haired Obese Lesbians and Goony-Bearded Hipster Men, I won't even flinch. The muslims want to oppress, and the progressives want to feel oppressed. Let their romance be violent and brutal.

Maybe the strategy is we need to let the Muslims eradicate the progressives, then we can eradicate the Muslims and live in normalcy.

After the dust settles, we'd have to write a tight constitution to make sure cultural marxism never raises it's ugly head again.

Post: #32

(11-24-2015 05:18 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  I'm going based on GlobalMan's post on what happened here.

(11-24-2015 03:44 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  ^ But come on...shoot 5 people? Just the act of brandishing the weapon would be enough to break off a group who are following you. Even firing a warning shot in the air would've cleared them out. Why would you even bring a gun to a counter protest if you had no intention on using it? Like if you felt it would be that dangerous that you'd need a gun to get out alive, why would you even show up in the first place?

I don't understand this line of questioning when looking at a larger group of people attacking 3 or 4 others. They decided to attack these people. No one made them do it. They just picked on the wrong people and got shot for their attacks.

It doesn't matter why they had guns as long as they were carrying legally. Luckily they were carrying otherwise they may be dead themselves.

I don't consider these types of questions to be logical. As far as I'm concerned, it's putting the blame on the victims.

I could care less what color the larger group was. If the races were switched, I would be saying the same thing. They thought they had the numbers and was going to whip some people only to find out they picked on the wrong people.

My line of reasoning is that you only pull out a gun and actually shoot people if you are clearly in danger of your life. Like I said, if someone was fucking with me, harassing me, following me, at most, I'd pull the gun out and say, "get the fuck away". Unless those accosting me are suicidal, that would be enough to break off any potential attack. No need to squeeze the trigger and risk 25 to life over some bullshit. Now if one of them in turn reached for a weapon, then I can defend myself with lethal force. You don't shoot unarmed people because they are following you, bullying you or verbally harassing you. Someone, or even a group of people following you talking shit is not a threat to your life unless they actually got physical with you. And no you don't have the right to shoot someone who hasn't gotten physical with you on the speculation that they possibly may do so. It doesn't work that way. Unless you want to go to prison for a very long time.

Now maybe all the facts aren't in yet and somehow this shooting will vindicated. But from what I've seen so far, I don't think so. Whoever did this I'm pretty sure had an agenda or they wouldn't have been there with guns in the first place.

Post: #33

AB, I fear that the obese lesbians and bearded hipsters may not quite be ready for the slaughterhouse you have consigned them to.

How exactly is "the West" going to be "eradicated" by "Islam"? I mean let's say for argument's sake we've written off France and Germany and such, LOL. Do you think your very own land of Oz will be "eradicated by Islam"? That will be a neat trick. Or the Kiwis? That's a damn long way for those Islamic warriors to go in their Toyota SUVs or whatever the fuck their main vehicle is. How about the good ole Canucks, or even their much maligned neighbors to the South? All eradicated by a few falafel dudes from Dearborn, Michigan? I don't know about that, man. I'll believe it when I see it, I guess.

Maybe all that's needed to "snap out of it" is not less objectivity and "dispassionate observation", but more of it. Otherwise it's too easy to get carried away and start believing in apocalyptic scenarios that have very little connection to reality.

Post: #34

The whole situation is just filled with poor decisions on all sides. It was a stupid idea to 'counter-protest' to begin with, it's only going to lead to bullshit, and it was a stupid idea for the BLM to initiate an assault on them as well and chase them down the street.

We don't know all the facts, who knows what could come out about these three guys. They may very well be garbage. They may not have been carrying legally, we don't know. What bothers me though is the way society, the current young generation, jumps to conclusions and creates a narrative right away that suits their aims.

It is the same with the protest in general- as soon as the Jamar guy was killed the BLM was calling for 'justice' against the cops, when the investigation into hadn't even begun. 'Justice' may very well be the cops are cleared of wrong doing, or it may be that they fucked up.

They say they want 'justice', but they don't want due process, an investigation, a judicial system. The court of deranged public opinion is the only court they want.

Post: #35

(11-24-2015 08:34 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  My line of reasoning is that you only pull out a gun and actually shoot people if you are clearly in danger of your life. Like I said, if someone was fucking with me, harassing me, following me, at most, I'd pull the gun out and say, "get the fuck away". Unless those accosting me are suicidal, that would be enough to break off any potential attack. No need to squeeze the trigger and risk 25 to life over some bullshit. Now if one of them in turn reached for a weapon, then I can defend myself with lethal force. You don't shoot unarmed people because they are following you, bullying you or verbally harassing you. Someone, or even a group of people following you talking shit is not a threat to your life unless they actually got physical with you. And no you don't have the right to shoot someone who hasn't gotten physical with you on the speculation that they possibly may do so. It doesn't work that way. Unless you want to go to prison for a very long time.

Now maybe all the facts aren't in yet and somehow this shooting will vindicated. But from what I've seen so far, I don't think so. Whoever did this I'm pretty sure had an agenda or they wouldn't have been there with guns in the first place.

Dude, did you even watch the video in the very first post of the BLM protesters talking about people punching them as they tried to flea?

Post: #36

DELETE:

Ah, fuck all that. Why even argue my position and the destruction of my town that made me immigrate?

Let it happen.

One thing I've learnt about life is people always say "It couldn't happen here" right before it does.

Post: #37

(11-24-2015 08:21 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  QC, I was hoping you would offer me some sage words to snap me out of it.

I recently read Christopher Isherwood's 1939 book 'Goodbye To Berlin', where he chronicles the cultural decadence of the Weinmar Republic as the Nazi's start rising into power. It used to be adored by Leftist subversives and artists, but I wondered what parallel's might be observed, given our descent into the decadent phase.

Note the narrator's self-description.

Quote:“I am a camera with its shutter open, quite passive, recording, not thinking."

This is where I am. All feeling and emotion has shut down. It's simply, watching and observing.

Guarding. Waiting. Identifying fracture points.

So, when I see people clutching at totems of conspicuous consumption, (brand name clothing, smartphones), lecturing me about my 'white privilege', when I spent a period of my teens sleeping on the street and in church shelters, often being fed by the 'evil white catholics' of the Salvation Army, knowing I would have been instantly housed if I'd been female or aboriginal, I'm less unsympathetic and more utterly-indifferent to their eventual fate.

Maybe my roll is simply to observe and record dispassionately, so I can then be able to stand firm guard against attempted subversion of the coming society. As the book says:

Quote:"Some day, all this will have to be developed, carefully printed, fixed."

C'mon mate, give me a reason to fight. This can't be healthy.

Boschulus:


What I can say is this.

We all--myself included--have a tendency to accentuate the negative, the extraordinary, and the unusual. It is a natural impulse, because the ordinary is not exciting or stimulating.

And this can lead to skewed perspectives. Things are not as bad--or as good--as we often think. The future will be not as bad as we think, but different from what we think.

Here is a case in point.

The world went into a frenzy over the terrorist attacks in Paris. Rightly, as it was a horrible atrocity.

But France, and Paris, has been through much worse:

http://qcurtius.com/2015/11/24/pariss-or...-massacre/

Paris survived that massacre, and it will survive this one.

Europe has been through wars, invasions, carnage, famines, depressions, and the like.

And Europe will survive.

Blacks have been through horrible struggles. Whites have been through horrible struggles.

And yet: here we are. Here we are. Isn't that something! Look at us! We have survived this far!

And this is what keeps me from feeling too negative about everything.

We don't need to react to every dunce, knob warrior, or attention-whoring prick out there. Tune them out. Do not listen. All it does is feed the anger.

I am not saying that you should walk around with rose-colored glasses. No, I am not saying this at all.

What I am saying is this: you should walk around with telescopes as glasses.

That is, you should aim to see the farthest distance in the future you can.

Strain to see far into the future.

The trees obscure the forest, unless we can rise above the trees, or see beyond them.

Historical perspective is everything. We've been through worse, and survived. Europe has been through worse, and survived.

I have confidence in the human race.

And I have confidence in you.

.

Post: #38

(11-24-2015 08:34 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 05:18 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  I'm going based on GlobalMan's post on what happened here.

(11-24-2015 03:44 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  ^ But come on...shoot 5 people? Just the act of brandishing the weapon would be enough to break off a group who are following you. Even firing a warning shot in the air would've cleared them out. Why would you even bring a gun to a counter protest if you had no intention on using it? Like if you felt it would be that dangerous that you'd need a gun to get out alive, why would you even show up in the first place?

I don't understand this line of questioning when looking at a larger group of people attacking 3 or 4 others. They decided to attack these people. No one made them do it. They just picked on the wrong people and got shot for their attacks.

It doesn't matter why they had guns as long as they were carrying legally. Luckily they were carrying otherwise they may be dead themselves.

I don't consider these types of questions to be logical. As far as I'm concerned, it's putting the blame on the victims.

I could care less what color the larger group was. If the races were switched, I would be saying the same thing. They thought they had the numbers and was going to whip some people only to find out they picked on the wrong people.

My line of reasoning is that you only pull out a gun and actually shoot people if you are clearly in danger of your life. Like I said, if someone was fucking with me, harassing me, following me, at most, I'd pull the gun out and say, "get the fuck away". Unless those accosting me are suicidal, that would be enough to break off any potential attack. No need to squeeze the trigger and risk 25 to life over some bullshit. Now if one of them in turn reached for a weapon, then I can defend myself with lethal force. You don't shoot unarmed people because they are following you, bullying you or verbally harassing you. Someone, or even a group of people following you talking shit is not a threat to your life unless they actually got physical with you. And no you don't have the right to shoot someone who hasn't gotten physical with you on the speculation that they possibly may do so. It doesn't work that way. Unless you want to go to prison for a very long time.

Now maybe all the facts aren't in yet and somehow this shooting will vindicated. But from what I've seen so far, I don't think so. Whoever did this I'm pretty sure had an agenda or they wouldn't have been there with guns in the first place.

I don't care if they had an agenda or not. They may have had a terrible violent agenda, but I don't know that. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that they did. Until then, I'll assume that whatever their agenda was, it wasn't violent and they were armed as a precaution.

If information comes out that they were intending to be violent, then that's fine too.

However, none of this changes the fact that you shouldn't draw a weapon unless you are planning on firing it, especially in any situation where you're dealing with more than one attacker.

Even if you're highly trained, more than one attacker is hard to keep track of. When you brandish a firearm, they might all run away or they might decide that doing so isn't an option and attack you from all angles.

Once you draw a gun, you've raised the stakes and you have to assume that the guy that you can't see out of the corner of your eyes is about to smash your head in from behind. You also have to assume that the guy right in front of you is going to bash your head in if you turn to face the guy (potentially behind you).

So, once they gun comes into play, you basically have to start shooting.

This is why you don't draw it at all unless you are planning to use it. Because once you've demonstrated that you have a weapon capable of killing quickly, people are very likely going to respond in kind.

Don't rule out the distinct possibility that the people currently using their fists also have guns. They might not, but you don't know that.

But if they do, they are going to try to shoot you before you can shoot them, because they don't know what your intentions are.

You might tell them to get "the fuck out of here" and then shoot them in the back. They don't know. So, if they have guns, they'll have them out in seconds.

In that case, it is probably to late to eliminate any threats before they eliminate you.

Also, on the spur of the moment, you don't have time to do risk assessment calculations.

That's why you have to train to begin shooting the moment you take your gun out.

Post: #39

Thank you, AnonymousBosch and Quintus Curtius.

I needed to read that right now.

Post: #40

"White supremacy is the terrorism we should be talking about."-Random Liberal

Radical islamists kill tons of westerners(women and children)=Disenfranchised, our fault.
Random guy shoots black protestors =Blame it on all white men.

Post: #41

http://www.startribune.com/social-media-...353411111/

Updates today from my local media don't look promising. The 32 year old Hispanic has been release and the last two turned themselves in. Social media is generating a bunch speculation on why these guys were there and what really happened. While counter protesting with a weapon is probably not a great idea, they still had every right to do so assuming they're legit CCW holders. They had the same rights of the BLM protesters to peacefully protest and were attacked for doing so. They likely wouldn't be in this mess if they immediately reported the incident as any legit CCW holder would do if they acted legally. The fact that they ran and hid is what makes me think they overreacted to a poor line of thinking. While I don't support the message of these guys I do hope that they're spared from the lynch mob that is growing exponentially in my city. Mistakes were made on both sides of this matter and hopefully it will be thoughtfully reviewed before those with the pitchforks and torches get their way.

Post: #42

(11-25-2015 10:57 AM)NineAndAThird Wrote:  They likely wouldn't be in this mess if they immediately reported the incident as any legit CCW holder would do if they acted legally.

I'm not an expert on CCW law but unless there is some wrinkle I am not familiar with, I absolutely would not "immediately report" a violent incident I was involved in. If I am involved in violence I will leave the scene as soon as the trouble is over--both to avoid any further violence and to avoid involvement with the law. If I am somehow identified and contacted by law enforcement my answer will be "I do not wish to answer any questions." If arrested it will be "I want a lawyer."

By "telling your side of the story" all you do is give the other side/police/prosecutors ammunition, words to twist and use to hurt you. (Look at the BLM protesters in that video. They obviously think they are helping themselves by telling their story, when in fact their statements indicate crimes committed by their allies if not themselves.)

Suppose you are in an incident where you act in self defense. Which would you rather have happen: be charged, and after a year of anxiety and travail and thousands or tens of thousands in legal fees have the charges dismissed (or win at trial)? Or never be identified?

Yes, there's some risk that the prosecution would try to argue that leaving the scene indicated consciousness of guilt. If you are really concerned about that then contact a lawyer as soon as you can. But unless I know I am going to be identified I'd rather not get involved in the system at all.

I'd make an exception for a clear-cut situation like I come upon a knife-wielding rapist attacking a woman and subdue him--sure, then I will stick around to a be a witness. But if it is ambiguous I am out of there and mum's the word.

Post: #43

In regards to above, I also would have went to an attorney as the first thing. I would not talk to the police at all without an attorney present.

Any lawyers here care to chime in?

Post: #44

Not a lawyer, but I do hold a MN CCW myself. To get a CCW in this state we're required to go through hours of training, review of the current gun laws and demonstrate that we can safely and effectively operate our guns. A large amount of classroom time was spent with a lawyer going over when to legally use your weapon and what to do afterwards should you need to. I too would want to consult a lawyer before dealing with the authorities but state law is pretty clear. Once the threat has been eliminated you are required to immediately contact the police AND provide whatever reasonable medical aid available to your attacker. To act in any other manner will result in your arrest, which typically is going to occur no matter how legal the situation is. The class also trained us on what to say and how to act when the police do arrive on scene. Basically this was don't admit anything and keep all statements clear and simple, things like "He attacked me and I defended myself". You don't need to say anything more than that, your lawyer can deal with the details later.

The fact that these guys unloaded an entire clip (8 shots from 1911 is rumored at the moment) into a crowd of people and only managed one torso shot says they didn't know how to effectively use their weapon. Their actions afterward also point to probably not being legit CCW holders. The gray area in this story would be when did these guys "eliminate" the threat? At the very latest they should've called the police that night after they were clear of the incident and felt safe. The fact that they waited until one was arrested and then turned themselves in the next day says they know they didn't act lawfully.

I do hope I'm wrong on all this. Hopefully it comes out that they did everything possible to act peacefully and lawfully and got caught up in a bad situation. They were then so terrified by the immediate lynch mob that formed they were scared to come forward. But their actions are not currently helping their case.

MN CCW holders who follow the law have been very respectfully handled in the past. We just recently had a 15 year old black kid shot by a white CCW holder during an armed robbery. The community started the usual uprising but was quickly shutdown because the CCW holder followed the law to the letter. He was detained and questioned but never charged. They didn't even release his name to the public.

Post: #45

(11-24-2015 11:12 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:34 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 05:18 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  I'm going based on GlobalMan's post on what happened here.

(11-24-2015 03:44 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  ^ But come on...shoot 5 people? Just the act of brandishing the weapon would be enough to break off a group who are following you. Even firing a warning shot in the air would've cleared them out. Why would you even bring a gun to a counter protest if you had no intention on using it? Like if you felt it would be that dangerous that you'd need a gun to get out alive, why would you even show up in the first place?

I don't understand this line of questioning when looking at a larger group of people attacking 3 or 4 others. They decided to attack these people. No one made them do it. They just picked on the wrong people and got shot for their attacks.

It doesn't matter why they had guns as long as they were carrying legally. Luckily they were carrying otherwise they may be dead themselves.

I don't consider these types of questions to be logical. As far as I'm concerned, it's putting the blame on the victims.

I could care less what color the larger group was. If the races were switched, I would be saying the same thing. They thought they had the numbers and was going to whip some people only to find out they picked on the wrong people.

My line of reasoning is that you only pull out a gun and actually shoot people if you are clearly in danger of your life. Like I said, if someone was fucking with me, harassing me, following me, at most, I'd pull the gun out and say, "get the fuck away". Unless those accosting me are suicidal, that would be enough to break off any potential attack. No need to squeeze the trigger and risk 25 to life over some bullshit. Now if one of them in turn reached for a weapon, then I can defend myself with lethal force. You don't shoot unarmed people because they are following you, bullying you or verbally harassing you. Someone, or even a group of people following you talking shit is not a threat to your life unless they actually got physical with you. And no you don't have the right to shoot someone who hasn't gotten physical with you on the speculation that they possibly may do so. It doesn't work that way. Unless you want to go to prison for a very long time.

Now maybe all the facts aren't in yet and somehow this shooting will vindicated. But from what I've seen so far, I don't think so. Whoever did this I'm pretty sure had an agenda or they wouldn't have been there with guns in the first place.

I don't care if they had an agenda or not. They may have had a terrible violent agenda, but I don't know that. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that they did. Until then, I'll assume that whatever their agenda was, it wasn't violent and they were armed as a precaution.

If information comes out that they were intending to be violent, then that's fine too.

However, none of this changes the fact that you shouldn't draw a weapon unless you are planning on firing it, especially in any situation where you're dealing with more than one attacker.

Even if you're highly trained, more than one attacker is hard to keep track of. When you brandish a firearm, they might all run away or they might decide that doing so isn't an option and attack you from all angles.

Once you draw a gun, you've raised the stakes and you have to assume that the guy that you can't see out of the corner of your eyes is about to smash your head in from behind. You also have to assume that the guy right in front of you is going to bash your head in if you turn to face the guy (potentially behind you).

So, once they gun comes into play, you basically have to start shooting.

This is why you don't draw it at all unless you are planning to use it. Because once you've demonstrated that you have a weapon capable of killing quickly, people are very likely going to respond in kind.

Don't rule out the distinct possibility that the people currently using their fists also have guns. They might not, but you don't know that.

But if they do, they are going to try to shoot you before you can shoot them, because they don't know what your intentions are.

You might tell them to get "the fuck out of here" and then shoot them in the back. They don't know. So, if they have guns, they'll have them out in seconds.

In that case, it is probably to late to eliminate any threats before they eliminate you.

Also, on the spur of the moment, you don't have time to do risk assessment calculations.

That's why you have to train to begin shooting the moment you take your gun out.

Okay, so just follow your advice and end up getting charged with 2nd degree manslaughter.

Post: #46

Great gun advice Suits. I did not realize that Canadians in China could legally carry.

Post: #47

edi

Post: #48

(11-25-2015 11:32 AM)Ryre Wrote:  I'm not an expert on CCW law but unless there is some wrinkle I am not familiar with,

The wrinkle you're not familiar with is the fact you just shot someone, and you'd prefer to be the victim. That requires giving the police some basic information, so you're not the perpetrator being sought. The guy bleeding on the ground is the victim now because you haven't told them otherwise.

Quote:I absolutely would not "immediately report" a violent incident I was involved in. If I am involved in violence I will leave the scene as soon as the trouble is over--both to avoid any further violence and to avoid involvement with the law.

This is absolutely, definitely what [b]not to do, and it will put you in a much more precarious situation, like these guys are now in. No one is talking about talking to the police about details, your thoughts etc, You do not leave the scene unless it is not safe. Police arrive, you say you were the one that called, you were attacked, you point out any possible witnesses if applicable, you tell them you will cooperate once you meet with your lawyer. You don't need to talk the police beyond that, but you must do that to establish you are the victim.

You must be the one that calls immediately to report the incident, otherwise all the police know is there's a guy bleeding on the ground who will be the victim, and they will be searching for the perpetrator. You do not want to "avoid involvement with the law" as you say- (at least on the scene), you want to be the victim filing the compliant.

I urge anyone who might decide to carry you to get some training/education on what your responsibilities are. The details could mean the difference between freedom or 25 to life. And that's not even considering the civil suits that will make you bankrupt, even if you don't get convicted criminally, due to making the wrong decisions. Civil suits, brought by people you shot or the family of the guy you killed, only need to satisfy 'preponderance of the evidence' to be won, vs 'beyond a reasonable doubt' as in criminal cases.

If you shoot someone in self defense, you're in a different scenario than others where it might be better to not contact police. Remember- you want to be the victim.

This is the foremost expert on the issue, Massad Ayoob (ignore the cheesy video production)





Good article:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/20/step-b...-shooting/

*I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice

Post: #49

Get ccwsafe for 99 bucks a year. They cover legal your costs if you have to use your weapon in self defense.

Post: #50

(11-25-2015 01:26 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 11:12 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:34 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 05:18 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  I'm going based on GlobalMan's post on what happened here.

(11-24-2015 03:44 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  ^ But come on...shoot 5 people? Just the act of brandishing the weapon would be enough to break off a group who are following you. Even firing a warning shot in the air would've cleared them out. Why would you even bring a gun to a counter protest if you had no intention on using it? Like if you felt it would be that dangerous that you'd need a gun to get out alive, why would you even show up in the first place?

I don't understand this line of questioning when looking at a larger group of people attacking 3 or 4 others. They decided to attack these people. No one made them do it. They just picked on the wrong people and got shot for their attacks.

It doesn't matter why they had guns as long as they were carrying legally. Luckily they were carrying otherwise they may be dead themselves.

I don't consider these types of questions to be logical. As far as I'm concerned, it's putting the blame on the victims.

I could care less what color the larger group was. If the races were switched, I would be saying the same thing. They thought they had the numbers and was going to whip some people only to find out they picked on the wrong people.

My line of reasoning is that you only pull out a gun and actually shoot people if you are clearly in danger of your life. Like I said, if someone was fucking with me, harassing me, following me, at most, I'd pull the gun out and say, "get the fuck away". Unless those accosting me are suicidal, that would be enough to break off any potential attack. No need to squeeze the trigger and risk 25 to life over some bullshit. Now if one of them in turn reached for a weapon, then I can defend myself with lethal force. You don't shoot unarmed people because they are following you, bullying you or verbally harassing you. Someone, or even a group of people following you talking shit is not a threat to your life unless they actually got physical with you. And no you don't have the right to shoot someone who hasn't gotten physical with you on the speculation that they possibly may do so. It doesn't work that way. Unless you want to go to prison for a very long time.

Now maybe all the facts aren't in yet and somehow this shooting will vindicated. But from what I've seen so far, I don't think so. Whoever did this I'm pretty sure had an agenda or they wouldn't have been there with guns in the first place.

I don't care if they had an agenda or not. They may have had a terrible violent agenda, but I don't know that. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that they did. Until then, I'll assume that whatever their agenda was, it wasn't violent and they were armed as a precaution.

If information comes out that they were intending to be violent, then that's fine too.

However, none of this changes the fact that you shouldn't draw a weapon unless you are planning on firing it, especially in any situation where you're dealing with more than one attacker.

Even if you're highly trained, more than one attacker is hard to keep track of. When you brandish a firearm, they might all run away or they might decide that doing so isn't an option and attack you from all angles.

Once you draw a gun, you've raised the stakes and you have to assume that the guy that you can't see out of the corner of your eyes is about to smash your head in from behind. You also have to assume that the guy right in front of you is going to bash your head in if you turn to face the guy (potentially behind you).

So, once they gun comes into play, you basically have to start shooting.

This is why you don't draw it at all unless you are planning to use it. Because once you've demonstrated that you have a weapon capable of killing quickly, people are very likely going to respond in kind.

Don't rule out the distinct possibility that the people currently using their fists also have guns. They might not, but you don't know that.

But if they do, they are going to try to shoot you before you can shoot them, because they don't know what your intentions are.

You might tell them to get "the fuck out of here" and then shoot them in the back. They don't know. So, if they have guns, they'll have them out in seconds.

In that case, it is probably to late to eliminate any threats before they eliminate you.

Also, on the spur of the moment, you don't have time to do risk assessment calculations.

That's why you have to train to begin shooting the moment you take your gun out.

Okay, so just follow your advice and end up getting charged with 2nd degree manslaughter.

My point is not that we should all go out and shoot somebody, but rather that life isn't like a movie.

In theory, carrying a gun everywhere you go makes you safer, but there's a million things that it doesn't protect you from.

I don't take the CC and OC crowd very seriously because if they were really serious about safety and protecting themselves, they'd wear a bullet-resistant vest everywhere they go (you can wear those even when you're drinking) and if they were really concerned about being in a position to protect their loved ones, they'd all purchase two AED units and keep one at home and one in their lives.

It's far more likely in your lifetime that you'll be in a position where an AED can save lives than a situation where a handgun is going to make a difference.

There's not a single member of the CC and OC community that does these things, so I can safely conclude that very few sincerely carry out of concern for their lives, but rather that they just like carrying and playing with guns.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. I like playing with guns too and if I was in possession of firearms, I wouldn't mind having knowledge that they would come in handy if I ever needed them to protect myself. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

However, don't be fooled by logic like "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it than not have it." This logic could be applied to a million things that gun owners don't have.

As far as my comments about not drawing a firearm unless you are planning to use it -- I stand by them. That's why I make a point of avoiding trouble altogether.

I don't want to be in a situation where I have to make any horrible decisions regarding human life.

Sure, sometimes trouble finds you, which is why I support the right to carry guns. But I lose no sleep over the fact that I don't have that right because that right would come with a lot of responsibility that I don't necessarily want to have.

I say this because I know that adding a gun to a toxic situation isn't likely to improve the situation. Someone is probably going to die.

If I lived in the US and had the right to carry, I suppose I'd have to make a decision. But I'd probably decide not to carry one, just like I decided not to wear a bullet-resistant vest everywhere or sink my money into an AED.

Let's be clear, however. If you do have to use a firearm to defend yourself, you'll be on the hook to prove that you had the legal right to do so. That's why you only draw if it's a matter of life or death for you.

Risking 5-20 years in prison is better than being dead. That's about all it's better than.

It's a grave responsibility to carry a firearm, because you have to do so acknowledge that while it might make you feel safer, it adds a serious level of risk at the same time.