Personal Defense…It’s an Act of Love

4b9a1b988b0805eb7c1ce1739986bda6

Reader Gerald Brennan writes:

My friend, I’ll call her Jane, is a gen-you-wine Ann Arbor progressive with a capital “P.” Like most of her ilk, she believes what she’s told without letting pesky factors like logic, history, evidence, or rational thinking affect her mental processes.

In a perverse mood one day, I entered a conversation we were all having about the evils of concealed carry. Normally there’s no reason to do that because that’s an act of masochism around here, but wits need sharpening and sometimes these conversations bring me to new realizations. As this one did.

I told Jane that if someone punched me in the nose while walking down the street, my first impulse would be not to engage the fellow, but find out what was wrong with him (crazy, drunk, mistaken identity, etc.), then follow up as I deemed appropriate. But if someone were to try to hurt Jane, I would engage them and do whatever was necessary to protect her, even to the point of drawing my pistol and shooting him if I felt she were in real danger and that this was my only recourse.

Jane raised hell. She let me know that she didn’t want me to protect her, and especially never to use my gun against someone on her behalf. (Now, most progressives say they believe this sort of thing. But ask them at the critical moment if they want to die for their belief and the answer almost certainly surprises them.)

It was then that I had the realization that’s stayed with me since. I told her, “Jane, it would not be the danger to you that would cause me to draw my weapon.” She looked puzzled and asked what I meant.

“It would be the insult to me that someone would presume to assault a man or woman in the aura of my protection,” I replied. That was as epiphanic to me as it was unbalancing to her. She stammered, “I don’t care. Just never do that!”

“But this isn’t about you, Jane,” I told her. “That is between me and the aggressor. It’s not your call to make.”

Of course, I scored no points with these folks for that observation, and they likely are now more rabid in their views on the subject than ever.

When you’re armed, the people around you are, or ought to be, in the aura of your protection. Shooting another person must always and only be an act of love – toward self, family, friends, even strangers caught in the throes of lethal malice – if it isn’t an act of love, then it’s always a mistake to draw your weapon.

There is a corollary to this. Don’t hate when you kill (if you must). Violent perps are sick, sick for a reason, and there are always reasons. Reasons you don’t need to know. If you are forced to shoot someone as a last resort, dispassionately and efficiently, and keep a reserved and humble attitude about the event. You’re as an avenging angel doing God’s work.

If you kill, even the worst of men, out of hate and then crow about your achievement, there’s baggage attached to that. Some would say it’s a sin. Most of the rest of the world would say that there’s karma attached to hateful killing. Plainly speaking, it’s ignoble, and that trait in a person is always addressed eventually.

Our responsibilities could not be greater as the deciding agent of the fate of another. We have to be worthy of it. It has to be clear and clearly comprehended before we are ever obliged to face that test, that love must be the force to shape the deed to a noble outcome.

comments

  1. avatar NineShooter says:

    Is this another version of “being dissed” by someone being a valid reason to shoot them? Because if it is, and a jury ever gets ahold of it, you are going to the big house.

    So, no. Don’t shoot people because they have insulted you.

    1. avatar Aerindel says:

      If you don’t feel dissed by someone assaulting someone in your presence you have no business carrying a gun.

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        And just how far out does this “aura of required action” extend? 10 feet? 30? Across the parking lot? Into a riot?

        Does it cover shooting the drunk on top of the other drunk slamming his head against the sidewalk, outside the bar at closing time?

        Does it cover shooting the tweaker trying to knock down an old lady to grab a purse and run off to get another fix?

        Does it cover shooting the armed man chasing another guy through the alley downtown, even if he might be an undercover cop?

        Applying lethal force in a situation that you are not intimately familiar with, is one of the easiest ways to shoot the wrong person, and spend the rest of your life in jail. How does that square with protecting your family?

        1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Umm…at no point did the author claim he would default to using the gun. He clearly said if it were necessary.

          As for the drunks on the sidewalk, note that we’ve dispensed with your false presupposition that tree gun would be the go-to first method of intervention and established its use to be only as necessary, I certainly hope anyone would intervene. Head on concrete is life threatening. It is the single detail that made Zimmerman a non murderer.

          Would your stand by as one person murders another?

        2. avatar NineShooter says:

          Marcus, manually inserting yourself into a fight between drunks (which may have started as mutual combat) is one of the quickest ways to get into deep, deep trouble that can be found. You have no idea if they are brothers blowing off steam, dudes cheering for rival soccer clubs, or two religious extremists bent on killing one another. You also have no idea how many in the crowd of onlookers would take interference as sign that YOU needed an ass-whuppin, while your full attention was on the combatants.

          The idea that a “good person” passerby will somehow ALWAYS be able to clearly identify, in advance, which situations are truly life-threatening and which are not (or even who the BG is), even though they have only observed a part of the total conflict/situation, is a sure sign that a person simply has not experienced enough of these situations (or has not read about the many that have gone terribly wrong for the Samaritan) to know how dangerous AND deceiving they can be, on the surface.

          Sure, I might intervene; if I was involved from the first moment, if I thought I had a complete understanding of what was going down, AND if I thought that it met all the requirements for armed intervention. Much of which is unlikely if I’m just walking by and see something happening to a stranger on the street.

          Anything less puts you at a huge risk, both for injury/death (which is okay in certain circumstances), and at risk of making a major life-altering error (which I am NOT okay with, and is totally preventable in many cases).

        3. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

          Look, Mister Straw Man – why don’t you write your own article and then fill the comments with explanations of why it’s a bad idea.
          You are making a WHOLE lot of shit up here, shit that Gerald never wrote. It’s pretty easy to win an argument when you make up things you wish your opponent had said instead of directing your attention to reality.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Perhaps you have reading comprehension issues? As I understood it his point was that someone in his vicinity, while he was armed and able to defend them, was being attacked in a dangerous and/or life-threatening manner. Not just insulted or “dissed”. His comment was that the insult was to him, whether or not the danger was directed at him personally.

      From a rational perspective, if you are confronted with a crime being committed and you have the means and opportunity to prevent that crime, but do not act, then by your inaction you are as guilty of the crime as the original perpetrator. This is especially true if it is a crime of violence that you could have prevented.

      If the Bad Guy dies, that’s just a bonus.

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        Same questions for you.

        And just how far out does this “aura of required action” extend? 10 feet? 30? Across the parking lot? Into a riot?

        Does it cover shooting the drunk on top of the other drunk slamming his head against the sidewalk, outside the bar at closing time?

        Does it cover shooting the tweaker trying to knock down an old lady to grab a purse and run off to get another fix?

        Does it cover shooting the armed man chasing another guy through the alley downtown, even if he might be an undercover cop?

        Applying lethal force in a situation that you are not intimately familiar with, is one of the easiest ways to shoot the wrong person, and spend the rest of your life in jail. How does that square with protecting your family?

        1. avatar Katy says:

          It extends as far as I can reasonably reach to protect those I love.

          There is a chance that the armed man chasing my daughter is an undercover cop and he has a good reason, but I have no reason to suspect her of crime, let alone such as would consider such a response appropriate. If I believed her life in danger, I would take the appropriate action and deal with the consequences later.

          The unknown I see being chased in a similar fashion? While I ought and should have a Christ-like love for him as well, part of being human is possibly making the decision not to intervene and let the police sort it out.

          I think where you get stuck is that you are assuming that all will be defended equally instead of those with whom the bonds of relationship have already been formed.

        2. avatar Smitty says:

          Folks, nineshooter is a cop and has the belief that only government trained force is well trained enough to discern real threat. This is a common mindset in the police and federal agent community. They think like the politicians we are the unwashed masses and therefore are ignorant and need to be treated as cattle.

        3. avatar NineShooter says:

          Smitty, that’s so far off base as to be wildly comical.
          Thanks for the good laugh this morning; I needed it!

        4. avatar ThomasR says:

          It happens Nineshooter. From what I remember, cops end up shooting the wrong person about 11% of the time, law abiding citizens about 3 to 4% of the time. But that is the point. Most crime happens when cops aren’t around. They show up after the criminal has acted and they really don’t know who the bad guy is. Citizens, if they act in defense of another, probably do so only after they feel confident of who is the bad guy, and usually do so for the reasons you spoke of. They don’t want to shoot the wrong person, and end up in jail. And even then, some, though not as often as cops, still are charged with a crime.

          But ultimately, you do come across like a classic elite. One of the “Only Ones” with a an arrogance and contempt for the “average” gun carrying Americans ability to differentiate between a good guy or a bad guy and figuring out if they should intervene with lethal force, or not.

          But the stats do show, while not perfectly, we do a better job of figuring that out than the cops.

      2. avatar NineShooter says:

        Cliff H, how many sets of tights with a big red “S” on the chest (and cape) do you own?

        Using lethal force to defend a family member or close friend who is with me, no problem.

        Using lethal force to defend a total stranger in partially/mostly unknown circumstances that I chanced upon while out walking? That would have to involve circumstances so very clear as to be highly unlikely, in my opinion.

        “From a rational perspective, if you are confronted with a crime being committed and you have the means and opportunity to prevent that crime, but do not act, then by your inaction you are as guilty of the crime as the original perpetrator. This is especially true if it is a crime of violence that you could have prevented.”

        I’ll need some legal cites/sources for that, please.
        A list of past convictions for such crimes would be helpful, as well.
        Thanks for helping me further my legal education.

        1. avatar ThomasR says:

          Yep, Nineshooter. Typical. Making fun of a person for simply fulfilling their duty to protect a fellow american from a predator, by implying they have a hero complex.

          So if someone has a hero complex for wanting to save a fellow human being, though a stranger, from rape, robbery and murder; does someone have a coward complex for running away, when they have the capability and the firearm, to stop it?

        2. avatar NineShooter says:

          Cliff called my attitude criminal; I asked for a cite.
          Nothing.
          I note you ignored the same part of the post.
          Nothing.
          I guess name-calling (implying?) is the best y’all can do.

          Whine about it all you want, it doesn’t change a thing.
          You want to play sheepdog, go ahead, roll those dice.
          Good luck; you’re gonna need it.

          And why should only “fellow Americans” be protected?

    3. avatar Hank says:

      You obviously didn’t read the article there, “nine shooter.”

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        Read it, re-read it, all parts of it.

        How can so many people (like you) make snap judgments that are so clearly wrong about me and my actions, just because we came to different conclusions? Hope this isn’t a sign of how well your judgment/decision-making works in a crisis, or we’ll be reading about your poor judgment in the news someday (and it won’t be good news).

      2. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

        “Read” and “comprehend” are two different verbs.

    4. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Some things are better left unsaid.

    5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      No, this is a version of a justification to own firearms aimed at Progressives … and it failed miserably.

      Progressives will not embrace firearm ownership because they do not decide what to do based on facts. They decide what to do based on altruism, fantasy, and emotion.

      Anyone who thinks that they can present firearm ownership in a such a way as to dispel a Progressive’s altruism, fantasy, and emotion is themselves acting on altruism (that responsible firearm ownership is a universal good) and fantasy (that they can undo a Progressive’s altruism, fantasy, and emotion).

      I would never bother to try and work through a Progressive’s altruism, fantasy, and emotion. All I would ever say is something like, “I have an unalienable right to life and I will use the best tools and methods available to preserve my life from any attacker. When someone creates better tools and methods to preserve my life, I will be the first in line to melt-down my self-defense firearms.”

  2. avatar strych9 says:

    Overall I am unsure what the point of this article is.

    Who cares what Jane thinks? What does that have to do with being an “avenging angel”? Who thinks of themselves that way?

    “Stop the threat? No Officer I shot to drop the righteous hand of God!”

    1. avatar Hoplopfheil says:

      “I got the call (from God) and I put him down like a sick animal.”

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        Well, at least a couple of people got some of the same vibes I did.

  3. avatar PeedMyPants says:

    What? Physco babble?!?

    Just shoot the fockers.

    1. avatar Crowbar says:

      Word. Someone attacks me or someone with me, it’s lead time. No philosophical debate.

  4. avatar Justsomeguy says:

    Not your best work

    1. avatar Petr says:

      This isn’t Dan’s article, it’s reader-submitted. So it may very well be the author’s best work.

      1. avatar Justsomeguy says:

        Thanks for the clarification. I’ll change my statement to not really worth publishing.

      2. avatar Hank says:

        That is Dan in the picture though.

        1. avatar Steve in MA (now RI) says:

          Hubba hubba *kicks leg up and down repeatedly*

  5. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

    What’s love got to do with it?

    1. avatar BLoving says:

      It’s but a second-hand emotion.
      Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken?

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Big wheels keep on turnin’

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          From Tina to CCR in 3.4 seconds.

          Egads…

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          🙂

          I figured that would wake someone up. Didn’t pin you for it, though.

  6. avatar paul says:

    I’m having a very hard time following this post but it seems like this guy needs a new girlfriend…or something. Also having a hard time figuring out why this drivel is worthy of posting but hey, what do I know.

  7. avatar Captain O says:

    Love for family, community, nation, society and self.

    Such is life.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Correct, but you got the sequence wrong…
      Love of self first, or else you are no good to others
      Love of family next because they are dependent on you
      Love of community third because this is where you and your family must live
      Love of nation/society last because threats to society are a much larger issue than a single person can generally affect.

  8. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “When you’re armed, the people around you are, or ought to be, in the aura of your protection.”

    Sorry, not on board with that.

    It would depend on the situation, I don’t carry to automatically play hero complex…

    1. avatar Other Tom in Oregon says:

      Remember that the guys with the hero complex are one of the greatest pr problems our community has. I always make it clear that my gun is for my families and my own protection first and foremost. People have a hard time attacking practicality, but it’s very easy to make a guy with a hero complex look like an ass hole (see Zimmerman.)

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        If you are armed and able to respond to criminal violence, and do not act, then you are as guilty of the death and injuries that result as if you were the attacker. Furthermore, if you could have stopped the attacker and did not act then you are guilty of every crime that person commits in the future, including homicide.

        If you see a lion on the street and hide in a doorway rather than shoot the bugger, who is responsible for the kid he eats in the next block?

        As I have written here before; as onerous as the legal process may be following even a justified shooting, it would be much more difficult for me to return to my family and friends and explain that I could have prevented that innocent person from dying but I was too selfish or cowardly to act.

        1. avatar 2004done says:

          If Pacifist Jane relates the story to Police as “I was in no danger, Interloper Cliff shot him for NO GOOD REASON!” would that change your attitude? Having been informed of her decision beforehand, I would NOT “protect” her, and would walk away. You can’t protect stupid, any more than you can fix it. I disagree that having the means to protect someone means I am required to protect them, or I am “as guilty” as the perp. If Police aren’t responsible to protect, how could a private citizen (even if armed) be forced to. I can’t imagine “protecting” a spouse, just as the Police must be very careful in a domestic situation. RE: Stories about concealed armed carriers being charged for murder (he dindu nuffin) or unconcealed by acquaintances: “you’ve got a gun, shoot him” to avert perp’s attention.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “If you are armed and able to respond to criminal violence, and do not act, then you are as guilty of the death and injuries that result as if you were the attacker.”

          Feel free to knock yourself out, Cliff…

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “If you are armed and able to respond to criminal violence, and do not act, then you are as guilty of the death and injuries that result as if you were the attacker. Furthermore, if you could have stopped the attacker and did not act then you are guilty of every crime that person commits in the future, including homicide.”

          OK, Cliff – I just got back from my night ride, and contemplated what you said further.

          Your solution WON’T WORK.

          Here’s why – How would I know who the bad guy was in that theoretical attack? Things aren’t always what they seem.The person getting the beat-down could well deserve it.

          Besides, if a concealed carrier sees an attack, you’ve now made it mandatory SOMEONE is gonna get shot. That person could well decide, just to be on the safe side, to shoot both of them.

          Your heart is in the right place, but it won’t work, dude. I’ll get out of the way and call 911. If he makes a move on me, I’ll deal with that…

        4. avatar ThomasR says:

          Sorry Geoff PR. You sound like you are just rationalizing your unwillingness to risk your life for others..

          You sound like an anti-gun hysteric with your imagined nightmare scenarios of horrible consequences of good guys shooting good guys out of mistaken identify just does not happen in real life, (as long as the cops haven’t shown up) but since they take minutes if not hours to get on scene, you should be good since the shooting should be over, with your gun holstered and your hands on your head, before the cops show up.

          But give one example where a law abiding armed citizen has shot another law abiding armed citizen because they mistook them for a bad guy?

          I mean how hard is it to tell the difference? One guy is wandering around shooting screaming unarmed men, women and children as they are running or hiding or on their knees as they are begging for their lives, as the mass murder shoots them in the back or shoots the kneeling ones execution style.

          Meanwhile, you see another guy with gun drawn, either looking around assessing the situation, or moving towards the mass murderer, using cover and concealment, until he can get close enough to shoot the bad guy, meanwhile, being careful not point his gun at all the running people.

          So which one do you figure is the one you should shoot?

          Actually, the only ones that have a record of mistakenly shooting law abiding armed citizens have been the cops. So like I said, just make sure your gun is holstered and your hands on your head before the cops show up.

      2. avatar ThomasR says:

        You are another example, Other Tom in Oregon, of the degeneracy and continuing Balkanization of our times.

        At one time, by custom, and by law, every adult free male was required to be ready to be a citizen soldier, prepared to go to battle, whether individually, against common criminals, or with fellow citizens on the battle field, against enemies, foreign and domestic.

        We, as Americans, were all simply fulfilling our duties to give our lives, if needed, to defend our communities, from predators.

        So according to you, did those early Americans all have “hero complexes”? Or were they just being good citizens?

        As for me, I have not forgotten my duties and responsibilities to my fellow americans, nor to my spiritual brothers and sisters, as a baptized christian.

    2. avatar Aerindel says:

      Then you shouldn’t carry. The only thing that validates the toll guns take on society is the ‘good guy’, if your not a good guy then just call the cops like everybody else.

      1. avatar waffensammler98 says:

        So according to you we can only carry guns so long as we are willing to sacrifice ourselves for the “common good” of those around us in any dangerous situation?Sorry, but my friends and family come first on the list of people to die defending, miles beyond complete strangers.

        1. avatar Aerindel says:

          “So according to you we can only carry guns so long as we are willing to sacrifice ourselves for the “common good” of those around us in any dangerous situation?”

          Yes, absolutely. That is what it means to be a ‘good guy’ rather than just a guy with a gun.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Sorry, but my friends and family come first on the list of people to die defending, miles beyond complete strangers.”

          *Fist-Bump*…

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Then you shouldn’t carry.”

        Phew.

        Good thing I don’t require your permission to live my life as I see fit, then…

      3. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        What toll? Firearms are clearly a net benefit.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      “It would depend on the situation…”

      ^^^This.^^^

      Personally, I don’t trust people who don’t make finer distinctions on this topic than yes/no.

      To me, if your automatic response is to clear leather and try to take the guy down without considering the actual situation you might not have the right temperament to be carrying a gun because you’re probably a hot head. On the other hand if your attitude is “No, my gun is only for me and mine” then, again, you probably don’t have the right temperament to be carrying a gun because you’re probably a pansy.

      In neither case would I say you can’t carry a gun or “there should be a law” but if you see this as black and white I’d say you should reevaluate your choices when it comes to carry.

      Sure, you can hide behind “They weren’t carrying, that’s their problem not mine” but that’s a cop out. How do you know that they don’t usually carry? How do you know that they not carrying at this moment for a valid reason? Does the guy or gal who usually carries but is on their way to jury duty and is concerned about a gun being stolen from their car due to the parking situation (a responsible gun owner) deserve to get beaten to death in a gas station parking lot while you watch and eat Fritos because they obeyed the law and worried about a gun getting out on the street in the wrong hands? Obviously not.

      The flip side of that is that if you’re at the mall with your kids and wife when some guy goes all Allah Akbar you do have a higher duty to your family than you do to the other people in the mall. That’s not to say that you might not do anything, but priority one is getting the fam out of harms way, blood being thicker than water and all that.

      A huge part of carrying a gun is judgement, good judgement in the moment, and if you’ve boxed this into black and white yes and no then you’re being lazy and not displaying judgement. In fact you’re going out of your way to avoid making judgement calls. Sorry, but if you can’t display judgement while sitting at your computer you sure as hell won’t when the bullets are flying or some poor sod is getting knifed in front of you.

      I don’t want either type of person watching my six. In fact I want neither around me at all.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “In neither case would I say you can’t carry a gun or “there should be a law” but if you see this as black and white I’d say you should reevaluate your choices when it comes to carry.”

        Exactly.

        If someone else wants to play Super-Hero, have at it…

  9. avatar Sammy says:

    I know gun owners that don’t carry. When I am with them, I consider them cover. If they aren’t willing to protect themselves, why should I risk injury, jail, financial ruin and death to protect them?

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      Because TTAG users Marcus (Aurelius) Payne, Cliff H, ThomasR, and Aerindel think you should (see above, near the top of the page). Cliff H even thinks it’s a crime if you don’t.

      1. avatar That's right (you're not from Texas)... says:

        Fugg em all!

  10. avatar Aerindel says:

    Fantastic article. I agree completely. Too many gun owners are cowards who only carry for themselves.

    1. avatar waffensammler98 says:

      Piss off with your holier than thou collectivist attitude. There is absolutely no shame in prioritizing the well-being of family, friends, and loves ones over total strangers while carrying.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Aerindel – See my *second* reply to Cliff above…

  11. avatar Mr Bad Example says:

    As a Christian, I definitely consider carrying a gun and being ready to defend those around me as an act of love.

    Jesus told us to love our neighbors as ourselves and if someone attacked me, I would defend myself. Likewise, If someone attacked my neighbor (meaning those who are in direct proximity to me, not just the guy who lives next door) I would defend them like I’d defend myself.

    I often tell people that carrying a gun is one of the most practical ways to exercise love for those around you. It always scratches a few heads, but they usually get the point. Everyone around me is safer by the mere fact that they are around me. Doesn’t matter their race, religion, sexuality etc.

    1. avatar Aerindel says:

      I’m an atheist but I agree with this principle on its own merits.

  12. avatar Mk10108 says:

    “But this isn’t about you, Jane,” I told her. “That is between me and the aggressor. It’s not your call to make.”

    The salient point. And what men do. If you decline lawful protection, seek the company of others.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      “All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury or folly which can–and must–be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “women and children first!” is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly–and no doubt will keep on trying.” Robert A. Heinlein – “The Notebooks of Lazarus Long”

      (And he is referring to the Human Race, not a particular sub-set of ethnicity.)

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        R.A.H. is the man!!

        “Starship Troopers”. “A citizen is a person willing to give their lives for their conmmunity, a civilian does not”. (Paraphrasing)

        The book is great, the movie was an abomination!

      2. avatar Stinkeye says:

        If you’re concerned about the long-term survival of the human race, wouldn’t protecting someone who has fully embraced the Progressive death cult be counterproductive?

        1. avatar ThomasR says:

          Well, you did get the part about liberal/progressivism as a death cult correct. They are committing societal suicide with their beliefs and actions. But as for allowing individuals being attacked by predators to be murdered while I have the capability to defend them, because they could be liberal/progressive? No. In my belief system, that would make me a murderer, just by proxy.

          Like the Christ said, Luke 5:31-“And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick”.
          And it is the Liberal/progressives that are a very sick bunch of people, that need salvation, desperately.

          I grew up in the Liberal/Progressive “paradise” of the Bay Area and Santa Cruz, in CA. I was an agnostic Libertarian/progressive. I thought those that believed in any higher power, of any religion, as complete and utter fools. I was lost, and did not see, I was blind, until I was shown the power, the love and to my satisfaction, the absolute certainty of the existence of a higher power, known as I am that I am, of Yahweh, of G-d.

          I had the next Jesus come to G-d moment, when I was attacked for the first time by a human predator. I won, barely, but I was shown the need for a PDW. I’ve been carrying a firearm since, when able, for the last sixteen years.

          So to make a long story short, by fulfilling my duty to my fellow Americans, I can also give that person the best chance to come to their senses. Otherwise known as the saying, “A conservative is a liberal that was mugged”. And they might also find G-d and Jesus along the way.

    2. avatar NineShooter says:

      Mk10108 said:

      “The salient point. And what men do. If you decline lawful protection, seek the company of others.”

      Why? So you can use him as you would any other tool?

      Wow.

  13. avatar That's right (you're not from Texas)... says:

    Who the hell in their right mind would want to be in Jane’s company in the first place?
    Let her and her Progressive friends deal with it. Maybe it would be a life changing epiphany for her.

  14. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “She let me know that she didn’t want me to protect her, and especially never to use my gun against someone on her behalf.”

    If someone were to tell me that, I’d do my best to honor their wishes. If someone is stupid enough to think they really believe that kind of shit, letting them die is doing an immense favor to the gene pool. Sure, I wouldn’t get to act out my “avenging angel” hero fantasies, but we all have to deal with disappointment now and again.

    Sorry if this comment doesn’t make as much sense as my usual stuff, I just lost fifteen IQ point by reading this dumb article.

    1. avatar That's right (you're not from Texas)... says:

      “I just lost fifteen IQ point by reading this dumb article.”
      I resemble that remark!

    2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      If Jane already had kids, not protecting her exacerbates that very problem. Her kids will be more likely to grow up dependent on the state and have less cause to consider counterpoints to the progressive narrative they will grow up in, especially so if they end up in foster care, not to mention the abuse they may suffer within it, on top of the trauma of losing a parent.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        With a mother like Jane indoctrinating them, those kids would be very, very likely to grow up dependent and useless no matter what.

        1. avatar That's right (you're not from Texas)... says:

          If a frog had wings he wouldn’t bump his ass when he hopped either!

  15. avatar Coffee Addict says:

    I am going to disagree with the statement “There are always reasons.”

    I’m always perplexed by the struggle to understand ‘Why’ bad people do fucked up things. After a school shooting, a terrorist attack, brutal mass murder. I think it’s an effort to find a reason so they can point to it, point and say “See, THAT’S why they did it. They were on drugs, they were dropped on their head as a baby, they were abused or their religious beliefs told them to.” Without a reason, people can’t draw a symbolic line between themselves and the bad person and say “I would never do that because I wasn’t dropped on my head” in relief. Without a reason, without some trigger to blame, random acts of brutality and violence just ‘happen’ and this makes people freak out. They can’t safely delineate themselves from a madman.
    I got news for you.. Sometimes bad people do fucked up things for no reason at all and all the soul searching and wailing “Why?!?” won’t make it any easier to understand. Bad things happen. I don’t care why. Be prepared.

  16. avatar Hank says:

    Maybe it’s just me but, generally I don’t think feeling hate for your enemy or feeling good about putting them down is a bad thing. I agree with your premise, and that you shouldn’t show emotion or ever reveal it to anyone though. But many violent thugs are terrible people, and need putting down. And those types aren’t really people, either. They don’t think like you or me. They’re like a rabid feral animal with no regard for others. I feel no mercy or pitty for those types.

  17. “Jane” MUST be bundled into car wearing her best jewelry, high heels, and sexiest skirt then deposited in the nearest big city’s most violent neighborhood sans her cellphone at midnight on a Saturday night.

  18. avatar former water walker says:

    What a load of psychobabel. She must be hot to hangout with such a goofy be-otch. I’ve heard this same from so-called pacifists. Only intervene if your a cop. Life’s too short…

  19. avatar Naz says:

    Weird and illogical. Abide by her wishes unless she is your wife whom you took an oath to protect (unless she made you strike that from your vows).

    Chivalry is no longer appreciated.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “Chivalry is no longer appreciated.”

      Appreciated? That’s a joke right? Chivalry is now misogynistic and unacceptable. I’ve had a woman freak out that I held the door open for her. She yelled about “How she could do it herself” as I walked away from her insane blathering.

      Those are strong women/trans women you’re talking about! Respect their strength and autho-it-ai you sexist, cisgendered, mansplaing pig!

    2. avatar Aerindel says:

      You should study chivalry. Its not a male female thing and you don’t do it to be appreciated. Its a warrior code of conduct and from the comments on this post it seems a few people really need to study it.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        This type of degeneracy, perversion, selfishness, and in many cases, just plain cowardice, is common , Aerindel, of a culture coming to the end of its existence. Dark ages happen for a reason, we are seeing those reasons now.

        Just another sign of the times, as the bible says, when what was once right is now wrong, and what was once wrong, is now right.

      2. avatar samuraichatter says:

        Why chivalry?

        We need chivalry about as much as we need bushido. Kings and lords were not bound to practice it yet the men they sent to fight and kill other men are supposed to follow it?!

        This may sound backwards but the more we embrace violence, or at least the idea of it, we will have less of it. If you run from violence it has a way of following you. Yes, those who live by the sword often die by it. As a balancing corollary weakness invites attacks and superior firepower can be a deterrent. Man is inherently violent and peace was truly never an option. Besides, is death really that bad?

        Let me sacrifice liberty for life.

        Does not have the same ring as:

        Give me liberty or give me death!

        1. avatar ThomasR says:

          Why Chivalry? From your description of the use of violence, you could be describing the Mexican Cartel or the Hell’s Angels, and their use of superior fire power and the threat of retaliation to keep people from interfering with their operations.

          Chivalry is about having a code that says your willingness to use controlled violence has limits. Non-combatants are not to be targeted. Protecting the innocent and the children.

          In a major economic collapse, I have heard supposedly “law abiding” people say they would kill innocent families, if they had food or weapons they wanted for themselves.

          Chivalry says that you would rather die of starvation, before you would take the food from the mouth of a mother or her child.

          Chivalry means you are more than just a predatory animal that sees other human beings, even if total strangers, as more than just prey, in time of chaos and uncertainty.

      3. avatar NineShooter says:

        Chivalry was a system, which imposed duties and expected behavioral norms on all parties. One of those parties has abandoned their duties and expected behaviors; if you wish to continue providing yours without any expectation that they will be returned, that is up to you.

  20. avatar James69 says:

    The greater good…

  21. avatar Michael says:

    Sounds like the writer is trying to justify in his own mind good reasons to shoot someone. You can’t meet fists with bullets unless you can articulate it in a manner that 12 people will find reasonable.

  22. avatar Kendahl says:

    As you discovered, making this between you and the assailant isn’t going to persuade anyone. I think a more effective approach would be to raise the question of whose life, health or peace of mind should be sacrificed when a violent person attacks a peaceful one. I think everyone would agree that turning a bad guy into a mangled corpse is a bad alternative. I hope everyone would also agree that letting him turn the victim into a mangled corpse is an even worse alternative. The only good alternative would be for the bad guy not to attack in the first place. However, that’s his decision and out of our control.

  23. avatar Rob says:

    First rule of concealed carry is avoidance of trouble. Avoid Jane.

    1. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

      “A four letter word meaning stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things?”

      “Jane.”

  24. avatar robg says:

    I’m not sure how to react to this. Why would he even waste any breath talking to a progtard? While I will protect myself or my family, I’m not about to have my actions land me in prison or broke, protecting total strangers,or liberals especially when the situation can be avoided in the first place. We can what if the sh!t out of this subject, but I don’t go looking for trouble in the first place.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      If you don’t talk to them in Ann Arbor, you’ve reduced your dating pool by approximately 94.6 percent.

  25. avatar samuraichatter says:

    “You’re as an avenging angel doing God’s work.”

    &

    “If you kill, even the worst of men, out of hate and then crow about your achievement, there’s baggage attached to that. Some would say it’s a sin.”

    Are you really so presumptuous to tell us that The Almighty’s angels do not smile every so often when they go about the work of harming demons and men? In most/many religious traditions God or the gods boast about slaying evil doers. Why smile when serving soup to the homeless but not killing a slave trading member of ISIS?

    Psalms 139

    21. Do I not hate those who hate You, O LORD ?
    And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?

    22. I hate them with the utmost hatred;
    They have become my enemies.

    1. avatar gerald brennan says:

      “I give you a new law, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”
      — Jesus Christ

      1. avatar samuraichatter says:

        “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

        – Same Guy 🙂

    2. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

      God’s angels have no concept of right or wrong. They are therefore incapable of sin. So what if they do feel righteous joy? They’re not human. So what if a male lion kills the offspring of other males? They’re not human.
      Human activity can only be judged in light of humanity.

  26. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

    I have a “journalist” friend (seriously – writes for AP, and her hubby is a bigwig) who still believes that Michael Brown was crying for mercy with his hands up. She’s a tough one to talk to.
    Anyway, she said the same thing about “Don’t use violence to save me!” I mentioned that her 2 daughters were headed to college. And that according to “statistics,” odds are 50/50 that one of them would be raped. I said “How about I just defend your daughters, then?”

    No way a woman is going to say “It’s OK with me if my daughter gets raped.” She didn’t. She stumbled a bit, and changed the subject.

  27. avatar Boba Fett says:

    “But ask them at the critical moment if they want to die for their belief and the answer almost certainly surprises them.”

    I have a Progressive-with-a-capital-P friend. She’s a statist to the bone, is absolutely terrified of guns (to the point where she can’t even watch movies with guns in them), and truly believes government can and will solve all of our problems. Like you did, I decided to humor her a few years ago and get into the gun debate. We were in her apartment in Brooklyn, and I asked her, “What if some thug busts down your door right now and tries to kill you? What are you going to do?”

    Her response (I kid you not):
    “I don’t know… die?”

    That’s it. Thing is, she doesn’t want to die, but she has to just shrug her shoulders and act like she doesn’t care because she knows she has absolutely no valid response to that question. Anti-gunners like her have to first swallow two crazy pills to justify their stance: 1) It will never happen to me (unfortunately, that’s what everyone says the day before it happens to them). 2) Not only will I have the opportunity to call the police, explain the situation, and give them my address, but they will also show up so quickly that the assailant will not have a chance to do me any harm.

    And they bet their lives on these premises.

    I’ve known her since middle school- long before either of us formed any political beliefs at all. She’s never had any kind of traumatic, real-life event involving a gun. She just hates them for reasons unknown. Now that she’s an adult, she readily gobbles up any “statistics” and arguments that are even remotely anti-gun, without question, simply because they validate the true core of her anti-gun stance: her feelings.

    In that same conversation, I verbally cornered her and got her to admit what I knew all along about anti-gunners: she actually doesn’t care about how many people in this country get shot, she wants all guns banned because SHE is terrified that SHE might get shot, because SHE has been staring, saucer-eyed, at the main stream media for the majority of her life, and “feels” that anyone who leaves their house at anytime, anywhere, stands an excellent chance of getting shot to death. That’s all.

    Anti-gunners love to throw out tallies of the dead and pretend they give a fuck about people who live thousands of miles away whom they’ve never met. But the human brain isn’t wired that way. At the end of the day, we’re all self-serving, but the way “news” is reported has guilted a huge swathe of the country into believing they’re supposed to care, and if they don’t, they’re just the worst kind of callous asshole. It’s just control, masquerading as safety. And people buy it.

    1. avatar That's right (you're not from Texas)... says:

      I’ll lay 10-1 odds that she’s buttfugly to boot.

      1. avatar gerald brennan says:

        You’d lose that one, pal.

  28. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Despite all of the facts, there will always be people like Jane who prefer to indulge in comforting fantasies.

    There is no reason to doubt me; After all, I heard it from my unicorn.

  29. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    “In a perverse mood one day”? “It would be the insult to me that someone would presume to assault a man or woman in the aura of my protection”? “act of love”? Seriously Gerald? That drivel has to rank in the top 5 all time asinine and disturbing observations ever communicated or shared in a gun blog on the topic of justifiable use of deadly force.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email