Originally Posted by jubaji

So just for the sake of argument, some guy (maybe a drunk kid, or a homeless guy with mental issues for example) roughly grabs your shirt. You're going to pull your knife right away?


Now, I don't like the whole *whiny voice* "what if you get in trouble?" thing that people say all the time, but the fact is that there may very well be a bunch of witnesses who now just saw you stop and pull a knife on some guy. Better yet, he falls on you, or moves the wrong way or you lose your footing and now you've cut the guy in front of God and man and 20 people are gonna swear that they saw him just trying to stop and ask you a question or some such thing and you "tried to kill him". That might complicate your evening a hell of a lot more than a less dramatic response would have. I know it won't do you a lot of good if you are interested in gradual escalation and he's not, but...

Originally Posted by jubaji

Just sayin,' just putting it out there for consideration.

Originally Posted by jubaji

Just sayin,' just putting it out there for consideration.

Originally Posted by treelizard

I'm going to sound like a suburban white girl, but I just bought a cell phone a few months ago. .....
.... So I'm all about the cell phone, baby. One with a camera would be even better, I think.

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

From personal experience, I find that I carry weapons depending largely on the circumstances of my life at a given time. For example, right now, I work in a job where I'm in at least a fight a week. Most of these people go home with a ticket. That means they know what I look like and where I work, and they have a reason to hurt me if they can. That being the case, I am most likely going to be armed if I'm outside my home. (inside, I'm better armed but that's beside the point).

I also have some strict rules governing my personal conduct under these circumstances. Being armed means I do not drink or partake in anything that could seriously impair my judgement. This includes prescriptions or cold medicines. For me, carrying a weapon places the possibility of using that weapon above all other personal priorities. In other words, by strapping a gun on my hip or tucking a knife in my pocket, I am making myself totally aware that I'm prepared to take a life in defense of my own, and I'm committing to a "code" of behavior that allows me to appreciate the full weight of that decision. I drive differently, I walk differently, and I conduct myself differently than when threats are less likely, and I take the responsibility of my choices seriously enough to put them ahead of fun and personal gratification.

In some other jobs I've had, those threats were far less likely. In those cases, I was more liberal in my personal behavior. I'd go to a bar and have a few drinks from time to time, and when I went, I'd go unarmed. In that respect, I tried to stay aware (I'd still play awareness games with friends and see what exits were available, etc), but I took the threat and my response to it less critically than in other situations.

I've said before that in my experience, only 1 out of ten fights is what one might honestly call "serious." Further, it's reasonable to say that unless one is employed in one of several "specialized fields," not many people will have to fight for their safety ten times over the course of an entire lifetime. That means that most people will not have to physically fight, and the ones that do are most likely going to find themselves in less-than-lethal struggles. In other words, if it makes sense to prepare for what's probable rather than what's simply possible, then it makes sense to figure on fighiting Uncle Earl or some drunk at the bar more often than fighting Ghengis Khan the Mass Murdering stick-up man in the back alleyway. I'll say it again: most fights are far less spectacular or serious than many people would like for you to believe.

Now, given my own circumstances, I have had to deal with people who got belligerent, but did not require that I put two pills in their ten ring as a response. I had an incident just today in fact where I was armed and had to deal with a resisting suspect, but the level of his resistance dictated that minimal force (restraints) was all I needed to apply. He was smaller than me, and unarmed, so while I had the equipment to really hurt him, I felt that a simple armlock was all the situation called for. As it turns out, I was right, and no one got hurt. So there will be times when you carry and face a situation that does not require the full brunt of whatever force you're capable of delivering. In those instances, it's best to rely on that most basic human quality that has allowed us to evolve as a species -

Reason.

If your training is grounded in thought, morals, and some sense of character, then you don't feel a need to go overboard or premeditate the slashing or shooting of anyone who crosses your path. You allow for the possibility, sure. But more importantly, you're prepared to act on a lesser level when it's appropriate to do so - even when more force may be justified! You allow for changing circumstances, and you do what is needed at any given time. You don't stab Joe Hobo for grabbing your shirt just because you expected the worst; you analyze, quickly and in the moment, and act accordingly. In short, you behave as though anyone were capable of anything, and you stay ready to do your worst while committing to doing only what your own character and conscience can justify; juries be damned.

Hopefully, that's not too rambling a response...

Originally Posted by Albert

An interesting article on shooting people.

Originally Posted by Tant01

A man in a nearby town was arrested recently and charged with reckless discharge of a firearm (in city limits) for chasing a burglar out of his yard and shooting at him.