あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]JBlitzen -19 ポイント-18 ポイント  (114子コメント)

Washington state affords you the right to carry a handgun, both for personal protection and for the protection of others.

Since the next victim might well be you, I suggest availing yourself of that right.

There are, of course, restrictions on the use of deadly force and even brandishing, on your right to detain assailants, and on where you can carry, but they're quick to learn and easy to grasp.

I personally like the Glock 19 in a simple paddle holster, with three-dot tritium night sights, but YMMV. Carry a flashlight as well, since monsters tend to come out at night.

[–]meanieredditWest Seattle 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (4子コメント)

You can't carry into bars though. So it's a but of a moo point.

[–]kippenFremont 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (3子コメント)

MOOOOOOOooooooo point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwYpSCrlHU

FYI, you forgot your T.

[–]meanieredditWest Seattle 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I am comfortable with the choices I have made

[–]bepdub 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

mooooooo

[–]soundslikeribeye 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, a moo point. You know, like a cows opinion. It doesn't matter.

[–]GoblinGates[S] 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (37子コメント)

I'm sorry, but killing people isn't the answer. The last thing I want is a bunch of people with concealed weapons in a rowdy drinking neighborhood. That just sounds like a terrible idea. Not to mention, you'd better not have ANY alcohol in your system if you pull the trigger, because no matter how in the right you could have been, you will be scrutinized beyond any comprehension.

[–]meanieredditWest Seattle 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Read up on your history. Cap hill used to have a gay citizen patrol called the pink pistols. Guns were involved, violence went down. They went away. Maybe they should reform.

[–]Jotebe -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I respect the fight for their safety and autonomy but I find it very hard to advocate for vigilante justice, especially with deadly weapons.

[–]JBlitzen 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (0子コメント)

People defending themselves and other people isn't vigilanteism.

Vigilanteism is when they hunt down and attack people in cold blood in the name of justice.

[–]electromageRedmond 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Carrying doesn't mean killing people, but if these thugs start coming up against citizens with guns, they're less likely to continue.

Also, arming oneself is just part of it, you also need to maintain situational awareness, and learn to avoid certain areas and behaviors. Most CCWers aren't hanging out in shady neighborhoods at night, bar hopping, or messing with their phones when they should be on alert.

[–]jaceubernuberThe CD -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

You shouldn't apologize for allowing yourself to be victimized. We are all indoctrinated to believe that the police are the only people qualified and trained to handle firearms and make life and death decisions.

[–]Jotebe 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Blaming someone for being a victim because they didn't carry a weapon, possibly illegally if OP was in the bar at all, and not personally choosing to be ready to kill a human being at any and all times, is despicable.

[–]GoblinGates[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

No one is qualified to take a life. Cop or not.

[–]JBlitzen 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Legal gun owners have no interest in taking lives, just as cops don't.

Their interest is in stopping violent acts that can't otherwise be stopped. And to that end, just about every law abiding person is qualified.

The only question is whether they recognize that fact or not.

I'm fairly certain that the difference between you and me is that I would feel completely comfortable handing you a loaded firearm, provided I've explained the basic safety rules. I'm certain you would not decide to murder me and then act on that decision. I trust you.

Whereas I sense that you don't trust yourself, as many gun control advocates don't.

And that's wrong. You deserve better than that.

[–]jacalataCapitol Hill -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh bullshit, legal gun owners are people and include many mass murderers who are perfectly willing to take lives. The term 'legal gun owner' is used to mean 'people who legally acquired guns', so don't pretend you can just discard them from the pool as soon as they do something wrong. They are part of the pool you are advocating for.

[–]JBlitzen 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, mass murder is actually illegal.

If you legally purchased a gun and then set out to commit mass murder, you're engaging in a criminal act.

There is an extremely clear distinction between that situation and someone who sets out to commit a perfectly legal act and inadvertantly harms someone in the process.

You're conflating the two issues as if you don't understand anything whatsoever about the use of force, in which case I wonder why you posted here at all.

[–]Deviant_Fart 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (66子コメント)

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. The scenario OP described is just one of the many applicable situations for which the law exists.

[–]GGVH19CPioneer Square 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (40子コメント)

Because any situation that starts with intoxication, testosterone, and machismo always goes better when there are guns involved.

[–]Deviant_Fart -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (35子コメント)

If I'm being attacked by 6 guys out of nowhere...

I'm not drinking, minding my own business and they start accosting me, and because there are 6 of them, I'm still wrong to use my legally permitted handgun to diffuse the situation and defend my life?

Get your head out of your ass.

[–]PunkAssGhettoBird 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (19子コメント)

The whole point is this started at a bar on Cap Hill at 2 AM.

[–]Deviant_Fart -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Okay, my point is the one I'm describing. If I'm not drinking, it should be okay for me to carry my gun for self defense. Everyone downvoting me and assuming that a gun does nothing or just makes everything worse seem to have a very limited knowledge about guns and gun owners.

[–]tanukisuit 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You can carry a gun for self defense but not into a bar. Where guns are restricted: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300

I'd say... if you end up using it in self defense and then tell them you met the perpetrator at the bar, they'd probably be like, "what were you doing at the bar with a gun?" and they could issue you a citation for that even if you weren't drinking. The lawyer for the perpetrator could make an argument that the shooting was unjustified if you were previously at the bar with the gun.

[–]Deviant_Fart 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly! Just like I was saying, IF YOU ARENT DRINKING, you should be fine carrying.

[–]GGVH19CPioneer Square -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Because everyone is skilled with a weapon at 2 AM while getting their head stomped on - I saw it in a movie once, it must be true! No chance of it being taken and used against you, or missing and killing a bystander, or misidentifying targets. You'll drop all 6 just like that.

Good on ya, John Wayne.

Edit to add - make sure you tell everyone you're "Deviant_Fart on Reddit" so we can all be awe inspired when you beat the odds.

[–]JBlitzen 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

You'd be well within your rights to open fire as soon as they get you on the ground. Sooner.

You'd be amazed what you can do with simple training.

Unfortunately, rather than supporting such victims and taking responsibility for your own safety as well, you instead mock and insult people.

About a subject you know quite literally nothing whatsoever about.

Hopefully nobody takes your posts seriously.

[–]GGVH19CPioneer Square 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Since you don't have a cite on using deadly force to defend against simple assault, I'll do you a solid and point out that this has been decided law in WA for years.

See 172 Wn. 221

[–]GGVH19CPioneer Square -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is why I don't argue on the internet.

You know absolutely zero about my history or expertise on either subject, but you assume from my differing viewpoint that it must be inferior to yours.

Tell me, is an accidental discharge of a firearm during an altercation involving an altercation with an initial aggressor covered by 9A.16.110? I'm sure you know the answer offhand, being such an expert on your rights.

Also, are you so sure about responding with deadly force before you've been knocked down? Do you have a cite for that?

[–]JBlitzen -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Oh, in that case, then violent felony assault is, like, totally okay.

I'm sure the victim's family will be comforted by that.

[–]alexfrancisburchardKent 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (6子コメント)

You're so careful to maintain the definition of a "legal gun owner" elsewhere, but you neglect that carrying a gun into a bar would make them an "illegal gun owner"

[–]JBlitzen 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I never suggested that anyone go into a bar with a gun.

On the other hand, I really don't care, since that crime is 100% unrelated to any act of self-defense performed with a gun outside a bar.

Which is to say that if you walk into a bar with a gun, violating the law, then walk out of the bar again, then kill someone in self-defense, your having walked into the bar with the gun is completely irrelevant to the self-defense issue.

[–]alexfrancisburchardKent 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

So then it is A-OK to you if people illegally walk into bars with guns?

[–]JBlitzen 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Personally, yes.

I have absolutely no problem with a 5'2" muslim lesbian wanting to carry her every-day-carry revolver with her when she walks into a bar to meet some friends.

Particularly given that you're describing a situation where we know there's a chance of violent gang assault when she leaves that establishment.

So, yes, I believe people should have the right to protect themselves.

Regardless of their ethnicity, religion, income, location, or any other irrelevant concern.

If you want to ask a better question, let me suggest one focused on whether people should be allowed to drink alcohol while carrying guns.

That one would give me more pause, and I think my answer would be that anything but a low or zero BAC while carrying a gun is a problem for me.

And I do think bars specifically should have the ability to use signage to prohibit customers from carrying guns inside.

[–]secretchimp 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

you've never actually done this nor will 99.999999%+ of other gun owners pretending they'll get to live out the NRA's fantasy.

[–]WhiskyTech -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So in your mind a gun somehow defuses the situation instantly? Brilliant!

[–]GGVH19CPioneer Square -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Or you could try insulting them to death, which is more likely to be effective than your firearm.

Your plan requires assuming a statistical anomaly.

You are of course free to try, but that doesn't make it likely, or even a good idea.

[–]JBlitzen -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Sorry, won't even read that link, it's a blatant conflict of interest.

HICRC is funded directly by the Joyce Foundation, a vocal gun control advocacy group.

[–]alexfrancisburchardKent 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

So do you exclude from your reading list NRA stuff for the same reason?

[–]JBlitzen 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Have I cited any NRA sources in this thread? Look carefully before you answer.

[–]alexfrancisburchardKent 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I didn't see that you did, I was just asking for consistency's sake.

[–]JBlitzen -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Fair enough. Yes, I don't cite sources like that. Partly because of the conflict of interest, and partly because my position on this issue is unrelated to statistics.

I don't care if 1,000,000 people exercise the right or not, or if they benefit from it.

I care that a 5'2" muslim lesbian wants to. It's her right, it's an important right, and she deserves to exercise it.

And that's that, and to hell with everyone who thinks she doesn't.

And my position on that is 100% identical to that of the framers of the US Constitution, who believed that a country that refused to empower its citizens was no country at all.

[–]GGVH19CPioneer Square -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah yes, avoiding unpalatable information. Good strategy.

[–]pal25 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Maybe not, but legally at least deadly force by the victim or the woman in the victims company would probably be considered a reasonable response to a group of guys kicking the victim in the head, as per: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.010 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.030

[–]GGVH19CPioneer Square 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

See State v. Brooks, 172 Wn. 221, holding that deadly force was never justified in response to simple assault (now Assault 4, see RCW 9A.36.041) under the predecessor statute to RCW 9A.16 et seq. (Where defendant employed a knife in defense of an unarmed assault)

Ergo, without at least an Assault 2 or greater (deadly weapon, imminent serious bodily harm, in furtherance of another felony) use of a deadly weapon is not justified.

So Internet Rambo's assertion that "You're well within your rights before they even knock you to the ground" is some dubious shit. I hear this dubious shit constantly, typically from my clients, who respond to the title "Defendant."

[–]pal25 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"The court held "[t]he doctrine of self-defense cannot ordinarily be successfully invoked when a deadly weapon is used to repel a simple assault. Unless there is great disparity in the physical strength or condition of the combatants"

I would argue that 4 to 5 guys attacking one person via kicking him in the head constitutes a great disparity in physical strength due to 1.) the victim was clearly overpowered, and 2.) the number of assailants; as well as argue that depending on the person's state the entire act constitutes assault 2 by anyone kicking someone in the head while on the ground as per RCW 9A.36.021 Section 1.a: "Intentionally assaults another and thereby recklessly inflicts substantial bodily harm; or"

[–]thedivegrassCapitol Hill 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is disparity of force and they continue the assault after he is on the ground; pretending this is simply getting pushed down is ridiculous.

Reasonable defense of deadly force is decided over ability, opportunity and jeopardy, all three were present if the OP's description is accurate (give or take a jury, haha!) and the victim precluded other options to defend themselves.

[–]ohthatwasmeCapitol Hill -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good idea.