Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire CCW? Would you use "it" if you had one?

But Seafire, what about that poor misguided youth's Mommy? She would be heartbroken if someone held him responsible for his actions...
Remember, "He never did anything like that before!"...

I think God needs to come back with a huge vacuum cleaner and do some cleaning.

Here in Minnesota we struggled for many years to be able to get CCW. Just because people were scared that the streets would run red if Joe Lunchbox could legally carry a handgun.
Finally we got the law changed to "shall issue" which means that unless we have a criminal background the law allows us to apply for a permit to carry.
I was a charter member of GOCRA (Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance)
I spent time lobbying to get the law changed. Now that I can
legally carry whether or not the local police chief is "comfortable" with it I am not going to tolerate the mentality of someone like Seafire to go unchallenged.
If you want vigilante justice then join the KKK!
Please don't try to align yourself with law abiding citizens who carry to protect themselves in a life or death situation.
CCW has nothing to do with asasinating someone because you don't like the way they wear their clothing.
whelennut

This one post did sort of stand out to me..

Spending 15 years in Minnesota, I sort of got to know the different types that inhabit the state..

I'll just point out a few facts as stated.

Joyfully his buddy, loves to shoot dogs ( upstanding citizen there) and shoots his neighbors dog ( for whatever reason he justified that on.. ) Said angry neighbor, ends up hitting the guy in the nose for killing their family pet. Said "victim".. then goes to court over this and delightfully wins $1200.00 for 'damages'...

so his buddy has a double 'win win' scenario here...

Yet posing an academic question, I am labeled a "whacko"... and somehow I am labeled as a potential candidate for induction into the Klan.. a statement made by someone who evidently has not been around Klan activities....

Growing up in the south, I have been exposed to Klan activities, and sometimes in places with a lot of Klan activity... can't say I ever had much use for the Klan..but I don't see much difference in the Klan or in a bunch of interurban black gangs such as the Crips and Bloods, or a bunch of Hispanic MS 13 punks.

No, the posters response sort of speaks to his personality...
not here to piss on it, or call him a 'whacko' in response..

just pointing out he and I have some major functional differences is all...

You can't be punishing people for what they might do.

This is the fallacy of the drug war, too. Throw someone in prison for what they might do- get high and cause some sort of trouble- rather than what they actually DO. If the same logic is applied to gun ownership, or alchohol use, we'd all be gunless and teetotalling.

So, one must be careful here. A guy stealing cans isn't mugging or killing people.

I know you think we are picking on you here Seafire but dude... you keep on posting about killing people who aren't really doing anything! I'm not sayin'... I'm just sayin'...

I have often wondered why this type of behavior is allowed to continue. There is really no good reason for that guy to be allowed to breath the same oxygen as the rest of us. I mean it is highly unlikely that his actions will change before he does something to get put in prison or worse hurt someone.

We are told to ignore it or don't go around it, and that really pisses me off. The more it is ignored the more it spreads to the point where you can't ignore it anymore, to the point where it is brought into your own home ect... so everybody sits and waits and does nothing until it is at their door, then nobody can believe that it came to them.

I also have wondered what would happen if a couple dozen of the little pukes got a bullet in the head and there was no punishment for the shooter. Not sure on this but they might think twice before hustling some old lady for a few bucks.

Jeff, before you say anything I know that is f'ed up

My concern was when is it finally going to get to the point that society starts going "Paul Kersey" on us all.

it is not like the stimulation for it is not increasing daily...

Those movies were ever increasingly popular regardless of how much more stupid that they got as they progressed.. same with movies like Dirty Harry, or even Quigley Down Under.

Movies are like that, where the bad guys get wasted, have always been increasingly popular, indicative of society's frustration and anger over crime or every day people being pissed on.... and the mental vision of death to these people, brings out a prime-mortal response in people... even if society has to vent out their frustrations by watching it in a movie.. or reading it in a book...

How many people can instantly say, I'd kill someone if they attempted to harm myself or my family in any way.. then criticize someone else, as a danger to society for having the same thoughts.... because it didn't affect their family, too many people can then take an opposite view of the same actions, if done by someone else.

My points are that society's balance and patience with restraint vs action, in regards to criminals.. petty or otherwise.... is not really a balance anymore...more and more people are seeing the breaking point...

as a comparison.. look at how much tolerance American society has given the situation on the border with Mexico, and for how long, in the face of massive public frustration over it...

yet because of lack of action, look where the situation has migrated to currently.. Arizona has a private citizen gunned down on his own property, by some Mexican who just disappears back across the border... did this killer start out as a killer or something more petty? do we think this guy is going to think 'well I've done my one killing, so now I can move on to something more respectful life.."??

this situation is just a minor event in the insanity of the entire situation on the Mexican border.. it has migrated to this point, from lack of action by society....

now back to the Beavis hustling people in the Walmart Parking lot in Hooterville Oregon here.. what is he going to graduate to next? I am sure he is not going to make a lifetime career out of hustling folks in the Walmart Parking lot...but folks like him are going to graduate to bigger crimes, based strictly on society's tolerance and restraint with his current activities...

if society does nothing about it, it will get to the point, that society will start to graduate to the last resort and pick up a firearm and start wasting people...

Communities had vigilante actions in the old west, and it resulted in a pretty low crime rate in those communities..

is our tolerance going to get so deep and extensive toward crime ( regardless of how petty), as a knee jerk reaction vigilantism will return?

When do we advocate finally doing something about it? When this type hurts, robs and harms your wife, your daughter, your son, your parents, or your grandparents... is that the time each individual will finally take a stand? If that is your viewpoint, then it will be too late.. this guy will have done his harm, and your reaction to do something about it, will be in the past tense to his actions...

Seafire,
Make sure you wear a white cowboy hat when you lose your mind and start shooting people over 6 dollars worth of scrap aluminum.
Otherwise the police might mistakenly think that you are the bad guy!
Why is vigilante justice OK with you but shooting a stray dog is not OK.
You have some strange ideas.
My friends nickname is "Don the dog killer"
he owns land and then builds houses and sells them. He tells the homeowners to keep the dogs tied up, if they don't listen then the dog dies.
I doubt if he would kill somebody over a few pop cans though.
whelennut

It's also too late to regulate firearms, when an otherwise law-abiding person has killed someone with one. Should we, therefore, regulate firearms more strictly for everyone in an attempt to prevent this?

It's also too late to prevent alchohol-related problems after they've happened. Should be therefore ban the stuff and throw people in prison for having a beer on their porch? Because, you see, they MIGHT end up doing something...

In a free society free people are free to live freely. To include being a hippie or 20-something spare-changing loser. If they then graduate on to actually committing a crime, then we deal with that accordingly.

Again, Seafire, you are dancing all around it here but once again you appear to be saying that in your opinion, people with political and lifestyle differences should be literally shot! So that the shooters can then have some sort of utopia or something.

I submit, the utopia you imagine is actually a tyranny.

All in the spirit of conversation, sir.

The impression that I'm getting is people are afraid to do anything until it gets so bad someone gets shot.

Back when I worked in the grocery business (25+ years ago) a few of the warehouse or loading dock hands would have gone out and had a little "conversation" with can punk and everything would have been copacetic. These days we just can't have it so simple.

I think the consensus of opinion was when the criminal activity is gauged to be a physical threat. Otherwise, your chances of winding up in jail before the deviant are greatly increased.

Having a "conversation" with a punk and busting a cap on a punk are two different things. And indeed, a gun is not to bluff someone, it's strictly to protect your life or that of others.

Seafire and his posts would be a poster for gun control. And you would make a good footnote to that poster.

Geez, we have enough enemies of CCW without adding dumbasses to the roster.

I have a CCW permit and have only felt it was needed once. The situation made me feel threatened to the point I had my hand on the handgun but did not draw it from my fanny pack holster. The guy was not extremely close and had a change of intentions. I do honestly believe he was up to rob me and my wife of was a spotter for others that would since he was standing at a pay phone and not speaking. I handled the situation poorly in retrospect. I should have turned around and gone back inside the restaurant we had just left and called 911. I feel I put my wife in more danger and I had an option to lessen the risks. Before we got to our car three young men in a Ford PU blocked the sidewalk we were using (they came out of an ally and had to cross the side walk to get to the street) and motioned us to go on. I kept thinking "for God's sake don't open a door" because I would have drawn on them. We went ahead to our car and left without incident. A LEO friend told me later I probably broke up a robbery attempt but agreed going back was the best option.

I didn't proceed to the car out of macho pride, I made a bad judgment call. I stay away from known problem areas at all costs if possible. If I have to draw a weapon I will use it and will not fire warning shots. Warning shots are an unacceptable risk to others.

Jeff,
don't worry.. I am in no rush to start wasting people..contrary to evidently popular belief here..

remember, I don't even have a concealed carry permit, even after taking the course several times.. only thing delaying me getting one is payment of the fees....

A few have grasped my original intent of the post... most have missed it.. I'll just rack it up to poor communications skills on my part.. maybe I need to express myself better..

My original post, was no intention of an argument or ridicule toward you...

it was a litmus test of a cross section of society, represented here on the campfire, to gauge frustration with crime and what happens on every day streets...

284Lover got a lot of flak over his posting of his son's scenario in PA.. by many forum members criticizing his feelings on having a family member threatened...

and the same people stating that they would waste someone who threatened their family....

it presents a dual standard in our society as evident by the responses...however it is inbetween these two standards that criminals in our society have learned to live, prosper and grow...

we are all caught between not wanting to see gun battles on our streets.... and a desire to defend family against robbery or harm...

but I find it ironic that the every day occurrence of crime on our streets by criminals is much more tolerated by our society, than a victims response to it...yet society turns a blind eye to the progression a criminals career will take, if no consequences for his actions are being forced upon him..

so as a society, where do we draw the lines?

it wasn't that long ago, some one posted on here about a punk down in California that attacked an elderly lady ( 82 y/o) in a Walmart Parking lot, knocked her down and took her purse and car.. and saying she was too old to need them anymore anyway...

Is that tolerable to society as long as she wasn't our own grandmother?

This was far from this punk in California's first offense against people in his local Walmart Parking lot.. evidently he hung around there frequently for some fast easy pickings...

so as intelligent rational men, where do we draw the lines, where do we set standards and recourse??.. lets face it, our legal system and our law makers are not addressing it.. they are enabling it.. at the same time, the laws they do pass hobble the honest people in our society....

Seafire, I like you. You seem like a good dude. That said, I quit reading your stuff a couple of posts back when you were trying to explain yourself.



If you ever do get a CCW and God forbid, have to shoot somebody legitimately for self-defense, the PA could very well dig this stuff up and use it against you. There are several things at work here. First, you are right, the pussification of the American male is real and ongoing. You still have to keep hold of your moral center. You go on and actually advocate shooting folks for something they might do. This is exactly what the government does, preventative punishment, which in my opinion is illegal ultimately, not to mention immoral.

Harassment is both a descriptive term and a legal one. If you are speaking legally, then it is wrong to shoot somebody for harassing somebody, as distasteful as said harassment may be if it is directed at somebody who is less than able to respond in-kind. If you are describing a situation where the person's life is actually in danger as "harassment" then the whole picture changes.

I have no problem with somebody opening up a can of whoopass on some punks harassing old folks or women. Be advised that you'll probably end up in jail for it, possibly losing your firearms rights forever. Is it worth it? Maybe and I would say that in the right circumstances you would be morally right and the government wrong, and it would be wrong to punish you for it. We're all big people here though and know what our elected officials do on a regular basis. Also enough of us aren't capable of nullification of this stupidity to do you any good. Bear in mind that I am talking about kicking their asses and not shooting them.

If you pull a gun on people that aren't threatening the life and limb of you or somebody else though, however bad those people appear, you are likely going to jail and you have no moral high ground upon which to stand. There are certain states that have exceptions to this when protecting property. But what I said is a good rule of thumb. You or I can rail all we want to about the other stuff, but this is the bottom line and the other stuff is really irrelevant to your OP.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in your attempt to recharacterize your first post until I got to this part:



This looks like your deadly force threshold is not 5, but 10 dollars.

Then there's this:



So, it sounds like you are awaiting your opportunity to get your revenge.

There is enough in your posts to suggest that the questions are not just rhetorical or "Gus" questions. I hope you don't ever have to use deadly force, because this sure isn't going to look too good in front of a jury even if you are 100% justified under the particular circumstances.

I'm not sure how to read you Gene.

Well Whelen...

I have no personal plans to go out and start shooting punks and playing Paul Kersey anytime soon.....

But your buddy, Don the Dog Killer...

well he is killing a dog, strictly because it wandered onto his property???

I have to admit, I am not going to shoot some neighbor's dog, for strictly wandering onto my property.. in fact I won't be shooting a dog for any reason.. unless it is rabid and is attacking some human...but definitely not for trespassing....

of course, I have never been robbed by a dog either, and don't know anyone who has....but I do know people who rob people...

I think it is your buddy Don who has some serious social problems going on in his head...and I am sure he is not killing dogs with a stick..

No, it just appears that we both possess different philosophies.. and we can keep it respectfully at that toward each other....

Got no desire to piss on your lifestyle or opinions..

as to your buddy Don the Dog Killer.. If I would have been taken to court and fined $1200 in damages for busting his nose for shooting my dog, because it 'trespassed' on his property.. then I would have made sure I got my $1200 worth...

The only idiot bigger than Don the Dog Killer.. is the stupid MN judge that awarded him the $1200 damages..

You obey the law or go to jail. If you feel you are morally correct not doing so, you can do what you think you gotta and roll the dice that a jury will both feel the same way you do and also have the nuts to nullify the law that says you're wrong. Then you give up a significant portion of your property in the civil suit to follow because you tell me what the odds are of getting lucky with a jury twice in a row?

As to the scenario you present, it is a tough one. In retrospect, it's a "no shoot" assuming the old lady wasn't killed or maimed and IIRC, she wasn't. In a similar situation in the future where one doesn't know, a case might be made for the mugging be a known danger to the life of the old person. That any mugger with any reason whatsoever, would know that the old are feeble, just like a young child, and that his theft had the potential to kill the person. If a reasonable man as a bystander, would think this, and you killed the mugger, you would probably get off in most states. That's a stretch though.

Some cops here will tell you that you have to take an ass whuppin' rather than draw your gun. I don't know how you as the person getting stomped, would know when the person doing the stomping would stop and as such, would not reasonably fear for their life. But you didn't ask about that.

Seafire,
To answer your original post, if I was not willing to use "it" I would not carry "it".
Otherwise the bad guy could take "it" from me and use "it" against me.
In Minnesota we are required to be a reluctant participant.
If a judge knew you were spending time watching this guy in a parking lot with binoculars and questioning his transactions at the store they might get the idea you were stalking him?

In my training I learned that a justified shooting will cost up to $10,000 in legal fees to protect yourself in court.

If the shooting is not found to be justified then count on $40,000 in legal fees to keep yourself out of prison!

Would it be worth that to you to right the wrong of this scumbag stealing even as much as eight dollars of scrap aluminum. Is that what you teach the Boy Scouts?
That would be contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Let God punish him, it's not your job!
whelennut

Dogs and folks are different, my friend. Failure to recognize that fact has cost a lot of people in many ways, over the years.