First they read the name of Terrorist Kabalamov, or whatever the bomber’s name is, and that caused a media sensation that seems to have caused the media cycle to shift decidedly against MAIG’s favor. Now MAIG is saying that someone coming at you with an axe handle isn’t armed with a deadly weapon. His argument seems that if someone doesn’t have a gun, you’re not justified in using a gun. This seems to have been a bit much even for Chris MatthewsÂ (h/t SayUncle).
So MAIG is endorsing the “proportional force” standard, generally employed in countries where self-defense is effectively unlawful. Be a man! He pulls a knife, you fight him with a knife. He pulls a baseball bat, well, do some grappling and hope you don’t get your skull bashed in. Fortunately, proportional force is a relatively extremist viewpoint few Americans agree with, and this is a big reason why.
15 thoughts on “MAIG Still Stepping in It”
I’m going to take the advice of the liberals and pee myself, or tell my attacker I have an STD or am on my period. That should work, right? Or I could always propose a Beer Summit where we could dialogue openly and try to solve our problems whilst pounding some brew. *gigglesnort*
MAIG is making a fatal error by jumping on the anti-self-defense bandwagon. Every accusation against Stand Your Ground laws is not so coincidentally a direct attack against common self-defense. Of course they can’t help it. Bloomberg clearly believes that armed self-defense is immoral “vigilantism” and should be illegal. It is the core reason why Bloomberg is anti-gun.
Make up your damn mind Glaze: do you fight him or do you deescalate the situation? These two things are not alike.
I would argue that if you base your response to a given â€œdefensive encounterâ€ upon what you see the attacker holding as a â€œweaponâ€ you may find yourself on the losing end of that battle. So you see him holding an ax handle,,,, what is in his back pocket? Are we then to â€œassumeâ€ that the entire escapade will take place with ONLY an ax handle? I wonder when is the last time Mr. Glaze was cranked across the cranium with a stout piece of Hickory?
An individual with the correct mindset can turn an ordinary ball point pen into a weapon. MANY items can â€œbecome a weaponâ€ in the context that they are used. There are those walking freely among us who could use bare hands as a means of deadly force. The key words here are â€œdeadly forceâ€ NOT â€œdeadly itemâ€.
I suggest the real challenge is to see inside the attackerâ€™s mind,,,, and we canâ€™t. The mind/mindset is the real â€œweaponâ€.
” I wonder when is the last time Mr. Glaze was cranked across the cranium with a stout piece of Hickory?”
By the sounds of things it appears to have been happening often for a very long time.
Having grown up in a largely “teen” neighborhood in Philly, I can tell you from experience that you have only a fraction of a second to make the decision to draw a firearm and shoot in a situation like the ine provided by Miguel’s video. Hesitate even for the blink of an eye and your firearm is useless. That’s the rub – you typically have to draw and fire before you can even turn your head and look for a means of egress, and most jurors don’t seem to understand this. So you either have to get beaten to a pulp and hope for the best, or face murder charges – all for a situation that isn’t your fault in the first place!
This is exactly where SYG laws can help keep innicent people from going to prison. As long as a reasonable person has a belief that their life is in danger, which is clearly the case when faced with a feral herd of urban youths, they shouldn’t have to prove that they tried to retreat, as it’s almost never possible to retreat in urbuan “youth” attacks like this.
So under this Idiots Logic, HIS BOSS, MIckey Bloomburg, needs to tell his Tax-Payer Funded Bodyguards the NYPD that they need to start carrying Swords when a Nut Job comes after them with a Machete.
AND they can stop teaching Tueller Drills at the Police Academy. That’ll save some Cash in Training Funds, right?
AND that they should Arrest and Charge and Convict all those NYPD Cops who’ve MURDERED all those Guys who came after them with a Non-Firearm Lethal Weapon. There’s no Statute of Limitations on Murder, right?
Wonder how Little Mickey would take that news?
So under the MAIG model of self-defense I would have to carry every type of weapon known to man so as to react to a deadly threat with the same force I was threatened with. Dragging around ax handles crow bars iron pipes and all manner of baseball bats. Standing on the street trying to decide if my attacker has a 27oz bat or a 32oz bat.
Not at all. Less force is fine. You’re supposed to fight the axe handle guy with your fists, as Mr. Gaze said. You are not supposed to have an advantage over your attacker, but they can still have the weapon advantage, along with the physical advantage, plus the element of surprise.
It’s difficult to express how stupid it is to attack self-defense in this manner. We know they can’t help themselves since in their heart of hearts they find the concept distasteful, but self-defense polls really, really well among basically 100% of America. It’s like coming out against adopting puppies.
I don’t think these people are naturally inclined to be against self-defense. It is just such a war cry for the pro-gun side, that they have to come out against it.
Most people, even some pacifists, deep down and when they find themselves in a corner, understand such a proportionality concept to be abhorrent and recognize the moral bankruptcy of such a concept. The idea that unless met like-on-like, you have a duty to escape attack or stop it when never desired it and this is somehow RIGHT. Only diehard, “all violence is bad” pacifists accept that ideal. And Darwin usually finishes that type off quickly.
Most people accept the view of Jeff Cooper on the subject:
“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure â€” and in some cases I have â€” that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”
Standard self-defense law in this country -is- proportional force. Deadly force justifies deadly force.
He’s making a category error, “proportional force” doesn’t require “identical method.”
Eh, I don’t think he’s so stupid as some think.
Most public schools now teach that any use of force, including in self-defense, is punishable. If a bully picks on another kid, and the victim fights back, both get suspended or expelled. We are conditioning kids from a very young age to the idea that ALL violence is bad.
If the public school system can effectively indoctrinate a whole generation or more then we have problems. Self defense as an abstract concept might poll well, but when you ask individual people more uncomfortable questions like, “Do you see yourself being able to shoot a rapist? How about spray them with pepper spray? What about shivving the rapist with a knife?” I bet the answers get a lot more waffley.
The level of indoctrination I saw in my time in public schools, and what I have seen since, has largely convinced me that the public school system is to be avoided at all costs.
Comments are closed.