Why You (Probably) Should Not Carry A Weapon

Potentially yes, although I choose to think of any physical confrontation (that becomes a fight) as a possible deadly force situation. You simply don't know the intentions of your attacker, whether they have hidden weapons, and whether they will keep beating you after you're down and out. If you have a weapon available to use to protect yourself, it makes sense to use it.
If you are attacked, but you do not have the legal authority to use deadly force in self-defense, you've got problems. Which is why I say gun owners need to learn and fully understand the laws of self-defense and use of deadly force where they live. Some rando pushes you and you pull your firearm and plug him because "you don't know the intentions of your attacker," you might find you have some legal problems.

But you're illustrating the issue for me. Authorized deadly force is not always an easy thing to understand or use correctly, especially in the heat of a confrontation. Typically, it uses words like:

"The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual."

The key is here is 'reasonably'. You might well think that Joe Blow was planning to kill you or commit great bodily harm - but that doesn't mean it will pass the 'reasonable man' test. And from your response about any confrontation being worthy of a deadly force response, I'm not sure you do understand it.

I'm assuming you're only talking about guns when you say weapons because otherwise that makes no sense. You have two hands to fight with, one of which just got a lot more dangerous thanks to the weapon being in it.
If you have a club in your dominant hand, now you have a club in your dominant hand. Punch with that hand. Yeah, you can do it, kind of. Not that well though. If you have a knife in your dominant hand, punch with that hand. If you have a gun in your dominant hand, punch with that hand. Notice that unless you are actually using that weapon as a weapon, you now have one punching hand - your weak hand. And worse, now the bad guy is after your weapon. If he can take it from you, I would suspect he's gonna use it on you.

What you're saying is that if you have a gun in your dominant hand, you can fight with that hand because you can shoot the person. That's great, if deadly force is legally permitted at that point. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. If it isn't and you blow the guy up, you might be facing a small amount of trouble.

I'm not saying never draw a weapon. I'm saying that once you do, it's a different fight. You can't put the genii back in the bottle. What *might have been* a fight fight is now a deadly confrontation, and the chances someone isn't going home gets much higher. It ain't no fist fight no more. Now it's a fight for your life. Could *any* fight be a fight for your life? Sure. Most aren't though.

This is true. Conflict never happens on your terms. It's always when you're not ready to defend. I've been in three fights in my adult life and not once have I ever had a weapon on me or available to me for my defence.
I spent a lot of time fighting when I was a Marine MP. More or less every night on duty was fight night with drunken Marines. I had all kinds of weapons. One of my developed skills was keeping drunken morons from trying to take my weapons off me (because they were right there on my belt) and using them on me. It's hard to fight AND keep Grabby McGrabbington from grabbing your hand gun or your nightstick or mace. You learn, but it's a different style of fighting. And even then; if a weapon was drawn, it immediatly became a different kind of fight. If Pvt Schmuckatelli decided to pick up a tree branch to swing at me, my night stick came out and it got very busy, very fast.

Yes, I was caught without my weapons once as an MP. At a Cheap Trick concert in Okinawa where I was doing security. I attempted to apprehend a body builder and he didn't want to be apprehended. He tossed me around like a rag doll; all my toys went flying in different directions. It took me and several of my fellow MPs to bring him down, much to the delight of the band and the crowd. However, at no point did anyone draw a pistol; it wasn't that kind of fight. Could he have killed me? I suppose so. I didn't judge that to be very likely though, and so I didn't shoot anyone or get apprehended for exceeding my authority that night.
 
There's this weird idea out there that if someone assaults you physically, threatens to assault you, or assaults you verbally, all allow for you to do whatever you want as 'self defense'. Which in practice, would mean that me stepping on your grass is the same as saying "you lovely *******" or even "Get the love outta here before I lose my temper", which is the same as me shoving someone, which is the same as me pulling out a weapon and actually threatening someone's life. And the idea suggests that brandishing a gun and/or shooting someone for the least of those is just as acceptable as the worst one. Which isn't really how the law works.

And it's those people that make me concerned when I hear someone I know isn't trained properly has a gun, because I know they don't actually understand what self defense is. And I know in their minds me accidentally insulting them might justify them shooting me (even if lawfully it doesn't, when I'm dead that doesn't really matter).
 
If you are attacked, but you do not have the legal authority to use deadly force in self-defense, you've got problems.
But my point is that force can become deadly by accident. A punch can kill someone, even if that wasn't the intent.

Some rando pushes you and you pull your firearm and plug him because "you don't know the intentions of your attacker," you might find you have some legal problems.
Clearly.

If you have a club in your dominant hand, now you have a club in your dominant hand. Punch with that hand. Yeah, you can do it, kind of. Not that well though. If you have a knife in your dominant hand, punch with that hand. If you have a gun in your dominant hand, punch with that hand. Notice that unless you are actually using that weapon as a weapon, you now have one punching hand - your weak hand. And worse, now the bad guy is after your weapon. If he can take it from you, I would suspect he's gonna use it on you.
Correct, but you're making it seem like having the weapon is a burden and that I'd be better off to just drop my weapon and fight with both of my bare hands. Given the choice between having two bare hands or one baseball bat in both hands, I'll take the baseball bat any day. But like you say, whatever you do, don't lose your weapon!

I spent a lot of time fighting when I was a Marine MP. More or less every night on duty was fight night with drunken Marines. I had all kinds of weapons. One of my developed skills was keeping drunken morons from trying to take my weapons off me (because they were right there on my belt) and using them on me. It's hard to fight AND keep Grabby McGrabbington from grabbing your hand gun or your nightstick or mace. You learn, but it's a different style of fighting. And even then; if a weapon was drawn, it immediatly became a different kind of fight. If Pvt Schmuckatelli decided to pick up a tree branch to swing at me, my night stick came out and it got very busy, very fast.

Yes, I was caught without my weapons once as an MP. At a Cheap Trick concert in Okinawa where I was doing security. I attempted to apprehend a body builder and he didn't want to be apprehended. He tossed me around like a rag doll; all my toys went flying in different directions. It took me and several of my fellow MPs to bring him down, much to the delight of the band and the crowd. However, at no point did anyone draw a pistol; it wasn't that kind of fight. Could he have killed me? I suppose so. I didn't judge that to be very likely though, and so I didn't shoot anyone or get apprehended for exceeding my authority that night.
Two very different scenarios however. You're describing your job as a security guard, dealing with rowdy drunk people who don't really have an axe to grind with you other than you're interrupting their fun. What I'm talking about is real world fights where someone is not drunk and they are targeting you specifically, trying to hurt you. That's a very different thing from someone who is merely resisting your attempts to arrest them or throw them out of a bar.

Both are still dangerous, but as a security guard you largely initiate the danger when you begin to remove someone, and the danger stops the moment you let them go. Now, if someone jumps out of their car and attacks you (road rage let's say), they're initiating the danger, and you are forced to take action.
 
There's this weird idea out there that if someone assaults you physically, threatens to assault you, or assaults you verbally, all allow for you to do whatever you want as 'self defense'. Which in practice, would mean that me stepping on your grass is the same as saying "you lovely *******" or even "Get the love outta here before I lose my temper", which is the same as me shoving someone, which is the same as me pulling out a weapon and actually threatening someone's life. And the idea suggests that brandishing a gun and/or shooting someone for the least of those is just as acceptable as the worst one. Which isn't really how the law works.

And it's those people that make me concerned when I hear someone I know isn't trained properly has a gun, because I know they don't actually understand what self defense is. And I know in their minds me accidentally insulting them might justify them shooting me (even if lawfully it doesn't, when I'm dead that doesn't really matter).
100% agreed.

Choosing to carry a weapon, particularly a firearm, means a person should, at the minimum, be both safe and proficient with guns. Although only a small percentage of legal gun carriers end up having issues with negligent discharges and the attendant tragedies, it clearly happens.

It also means having a good understanding of the laws of self defense and deadly force in their jurisdiction, which is apparently asking way too much from some folks.

I'm beyond concerned; these people frighten me. They're armed, they're among us, and they don't know when they can and cannot legally defend themselves with deadly force.

The woman in Michigan near where I lived who dutifully went through the training required to legally carry, got strapped, and then emptied her magazine at two fleeing shoplifters at a nearby Home Depot is my reality. When she was ultimately convicted, her comment wasn't that she was sorry for not comprehending the law on deadly force. Her comment was that this would be the last time she tried to help anyone. Saints protect us. Help like that, nobody needs.

I remain in favor of firearms, the right to self defense, and even the appropriate use of deadly force. I remain opposed to morons with guns.
 
But my point is that force can become deadly by accident. A punch can kill someone, even if that wasn't the intent.


Clearly.


Correct, but you're making it seem like having the weapon is a burden and that I'd be better off to just drop my weapon and fight with both of my bare hands. Given the choice between having two bare hands or one baseball bat in both hands, I'll take the baseball bat any day. But like you say, whatever you do, don't lose your weapon!


Two very different scenarios however. You're describing your job as a security guard, dealing with rowdy drunk people who don't really have an axe to grind with you other than you're interrupting their fun. What I'm talking about is real world fights where someone is not drunk and they are targeting you specifically, trying to hurt you. That's a very different thing from someone who is merely resisting your attempts to arrest them or throw them out of a bar.

Both are still dangerous, but as a security guard you largely initiate the danger when you begin to remove someone, and the danger stops the moment you let them go. Now, if someone jumps out of their car and attacks you (road rage let's say), they're initiating the danger, and you are forced to take action.

Being a security guard has the same risk of dying in a street fight with some random as anyone else.

So if the argument is violence equals life and death equals justified lethal force.

Then security guards should really shoot a lot more people.
 
Im just curious as to what checks are undertaken on someone when applying for a concealed weapons permit. Do they, for example, check your criminal records, mental health records etc?
 
Im just curious as to what checks are undertaken on someone when applying for a concealed weapons permit. Do they, for example, check your criminal records, mental health records etc?
You cannot even legally buy a firearm without a background check.
 
You cannot even legally buy a firearm without a background check.
Yes, but what does this comprise in both purchasing a firearm and applying for a concealed weapons permit? What in the potential owners records are they checking? Also, who is doing the checking and what qualification do they require to carry out such a check?
 
But my point is that force can become deadly by accident. A punch can kill someone, even if that wasn't the intent.

Correct, but you're making it seem like having the weapon is a burden and that I'd be better off to just drop my weapon and fight with both of my bare hands. Given the choice between having two bare hands or one baseball bat in both hands, I'll take the baseball bat any day. But like you say, whatever you do, don't lose your weapon!
Courts will default to looking at a punch as non-deadly force. Using a gun in a fist fight can bring murder charges.

 
Yes, but what does this comprise in both purchasing a firearm and applying for a concealed weapons permit? What in the potential owners records are they checking? Also, who is doing the checking and what qualification do they require to carry out such a check?
Federal law restricts sales of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition to those 18 or older. Handguns are restricted to 21 and older. The background check is done through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Many states also impose a waiting period on top of this. Most states have the check run by the FBI, but some choose to have state law enforcement officers do it. But it's still the same data.

The purchase will be denied if the applicant is a convicted felon, under a federal domestic restraining order, has been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes against victims they have been married to, lived with, or had a child with, been committed to a mental-health facility or a court has ruled were mentally unfit, fugitives, convicted of drug crimes, or determined by a court to be addicted to illegal controlled substances.

Concealed carry permits are regulated at the state, not federal level, so the requirements do vary. Colorado, where I live, seems to be amoung the norm. Getting a permit requires taking a class that covers basic gun safety, pertinent gun laws, and use of force laws. It also requires demonstration of competency through either specific classes, organized competitions, or active duty military service.

States also can have reciprocity; my permit is valid in 33 states.
 
Hawaii is different than anywhere else. Each Island is different than the others, too.
If youre born here you can get away with almost anything.

The gun rights and laws are nothing like what you think they are.
I dont care what anyone might look up about them.
 
Im just curious as to what checks are undertaken on someone when applying for a concealed weapons permit. Do they, for example, check your criminal records, mental health records etc?
Many states no longer require a permit for concealed carry, so the answer would be nothing in those states. In states that require a permit, I presume it's the same background check as that required to purchase a gun from a dealer. Mental health records are a bit of a crap shoot. Not every form of mental health care requires reporting to the national database, and few forms of mental illness abrogate the right to own a gun. In my understanding anyway. I'm not a lawyer.
 
Federal law restricts sales of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition to those 18 or older. Handguns are restricted to 21 and older. The background check is done through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Many states also impose a waiting period on top of this. Most states have the check run by the FBI, but some choose to have state law enforcement officers do it. But it's still the same data.

The purchase will be denied if the applicant is a convicted felon, under a federal domestic restraining order, has been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes against victims they have been married to, lived with, or had a child with, been committed to a mental-health facility or a court has ruled were mentally unfit, fugitives, convicted of drug crimes, or determined by a court to be addicted to illegal controlled substances.

Concealed carry permits are regulated at the state, not federal level, so the requirements do vary. Colorado, where I live, seems to be amoung the norm. Getting a permit requires taking a class that covers basic gun safety, pertinent gun laws, and use of force laws. It also requires demonstration of competency through either specific classes, organized competitions, or active duty military service.

States also can have reciprocity; my permit is valid in 33 states.
26 states now allow permitless concealed carry. 25 allow open carry.

Michigan has a permit system much like Colorado. They are run by private entities, often gun shops. The woman I mentioned who shot up the parking lot at a Home Depot had just completed her training and gotten her permit. She had been informed and tested on the laws regarding use of deadly force. She still felt she was helping local law enforcement by trying to shoot two fleeing shoplifters.
 
Being a security guard has the same risk of dying in a street fight with some random as anyone else.
I used to work as a security guard. One of the sites I was stationed at had a bullet hole in the glass of the guard house where security was stationed. (It was actually bulletproof glass, so you could see where the bullet made it about 2/3 of the way through before being stopped.)

So if the argument is violence equals life and death equals justified lethal force.
That wasn't my argument. Well sort of. I guess I'm not explaining myself well.

My point is that in a physical confrontation (a real fight), not pushing and shoving and arguing, you're not thinking about lethal or non-lethal force. Your only thought is SURVIVAL. All that matters is "make the bad person go away". Your brain is very simplified when threatened. If someone runs out of their car at you with a baseball bat, you're not thinking about "is it time to go lethal or should I go 50%"..... if you had a gun in your hands your brain would AUTOMATICALLY pull the trigger and fire over and over again until the person dropped. You don't have to THINK about it. It just happens. You react and defend yourself accordingly. The human body is amazing at survival.

If you had NO WEAPON at all, your brain would automatically tell you to run. Don't even have to think about it. It would happen automatically.

Then security guards should really shoot a lot more people.
Well in Canada (where I live) security guards aren't allowed to carry weapons at all. The only thing they can do is call police when something happens. A bouncer at a nightclub actually has more power since they can be physical with people and throw people out of bars.
 
Last edited:
Federal law restricts sales of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition to those 18 or older. Handguns are restricted to 21 and older. The background check is done through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Many states also impose a waiting period on top of this. Most states have the check run by the FBI, but some choose to have state law enforcement officers do it. But it's still the same data.

The purchase will be denied if the applicant is a convicted felon, under a federal domestic restraining order, has been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes against victims they have been married to, lived with, or had a child with, been committed to a mental-health facility or a court has ruled were mentally unfit, fugitives, convicted of drug crimes, or determined by a court to be addicted to illegal controlled substances.

Concealed carry permits are regulated at the state, not federal level, so the requirements do vary. Colorado, where I live, seems to be amoung the norm. Getting a permit requires taking a class that covers basic gun safety, pertinent gun laws, and use of force laws. It also requires demonstration of competency through either specific classes, organized competitions, or active duty military service.

States also can have reciprocity; my permit is valid in 33 states.
That all sounds very reasonable.
 
But to be fair, there are only five counties in the islands, so that would be akin to state to state here.
Would it? Considering the size of those counties, I don't think so at all. The entire state amounts to a bit under 11,000 square miles. Colorado, which is a fairly mid-sized state, is over 104,000 square miles. There are at least a half-dozen counties in America that are, by themselves, larger than the entire state of Hawaii.
And Buka, who actually lives there, tells us that the enforcement of gun laws there is....erratic...
Hawaii is known for having some truly draconian gun laws. The latest stats I can find indicate that as of September 2021, Hawaii had issued a whopping 281 gun permits. For the entire state. With a population around 1.4 million.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top