An example of why Citizens needs to be armed

[FMD]

http://www.infowars.com/video-black-...michael-brown/

Had that white cracker, pulled a gun and shot the black punk dead,

[nogods]

In that particular instance, however, using a firearm on a crowded subway would not have been the preferred response - the preferred response would have been for the other citizens to intervene so that a single victim wouldn't have to use a firearm on a crowded subway to defend himself if had one.

[Save Us]

In that particular instance, however, using a firearm on a crowded subway would not have been the preferred response - the preferred response would have been for the other citizens to intervene so that a single victim wouldn't have to use a firearm on a crowded subway to defend himself if had one.

I would have promptly brandished my 9mm. The only hard decision is whether or not I would have beat the crap out of that punk first. The only thing more embarrassing of that dude not fighting back was the way that black kid threw punches like a girl. Hilarious

[nogods]

I would have promptly brandished my 9mm. The only hard decision is whether or not I would have beat the crap out of that punk first. The only thing more embarrassing of that dude not fighting back was the way that black kid threw punches like a girl. Hilarious

You would have "brandished" you firearm? There is only one reason for aiming a firearm at another person and that is to kill them. And that is justified only if the conditions are in accordance with the law. Using a firearm as a substitute for your small penis, which is what "brandishing" is, is not allowed under the law.

And most people who brag about their physical prowess on the internet usually don't have any.

[Save Us]

You would have "brandished" you firearm? There is only one reason for aiming a firearm at another person and that is to kill them. And that is justified only if the conditions are in accordance with the law. Using a firearm as a substitute for your small penis, which is what "brandishing" is, is not allowed under the law.

And most people who brag about their physical prowess on the internet usually don't have any.

And what would you have done in that situation? Taken the chance of having your jaw fractured, broken nose, etc? Seriously? Firearm's are used in the prevention of crime, Is battery a crime?. Does a cop shoot every time their gun is drawn?

You do remember that Zimmerman was NOT convicted right?

[300miles]

I would have promptly brandished my 9mm. The only hard decision is whether or not I would have beat the crap out of that punk first. The only thing more embarrassing of that dude not fighting back was the way that black kid threw punches like a girl. Hilarious

That embarrassing dude walked away with a couple scratches. If he attacked back and had at least three of them pounding on him he might have been much worse off. He's not you. Maybe he knows his limits. Maybe being embarrassed is better than being dead.

And brandishing a gun doesn't help if the three other guys also had guns. Is it really better turning the train into the OK Corral and having 10 dead bodies? ... and most of them innocent bystanders?

[nogods]

And what would you have done in that situation? Taken the chance of having your jaw fractured, broken nose, etc? Seriously? Firearm's are used in the prevention of crime, Is battery a crime?. Does a cop shoot every time their gun is drawn?

You do remember that Zimmerman was NOT convicted right?

You should remember that Zimmerman did not brandish his gun - he pulled and used it at a time when he had justification for firing it at another human. If you don't need to fire your weapon then there is no need to be exhibiting it.

Moreover, when you exhibit a weapon another person might fear for his life, pull his weapon and shoot you justifiably. "I turned around to see what the commotion was all about and saw a guy waving a gun around with no apparent threat to him. When he looked at me I was afraid he was going to shoot me so I pulled my gun and shot him first."

That risk is not worth taking unless you need to fire your weapon to protect yourself.

[FMD]

If that punk kid has attacked an off duty police officer, that punk kid would be in a casket.

case closed. The cop would have faced no charges, and would be called a hero.

However in todays Amerika, only the govt, and its cronies are allowed to defend oneself against a viscious attack such as this.

[Dan Roman]

In that particular instance, however, using a firearm on a crowded subway would not have been the preferred response - the preferred response would have been for the other citizens to intervene so that a single victim wouldn't have to use a firearm on a crowded subway to defend himself if had one.

"The Preferred response", that's a good one.

[nogods]

If that punk kid has attacked an off duty police officer, that punk kid would be in a casket.

case closed. The cop would have faced no charges, and would be called a hero.

However in todays Amerika, only the govt, and its cronies are allowed to defend oneself against a viscious attack such as this.

A well trained and mentally centered officer would have used his firearm to control the situation then make an arrest. Shooting the perp would have been a last resort.

[Save Us]

You should remember that Zimmerman did not brandish his gun - he pulled and used it at a time when he had justification for firing it at another human. If you don't need to fire your weapon then there is no need to be exhibiting it.

Moreover, when you exhibit a weapon another person might fear for his life, pull his weapon and shoot you justifiably. "I turned around to see what the commotion was all about and saw a guy waving a gun around with no apparent threat to him. When he looked at me I was afraid he was going to shoot me so I pulled my gun and shot him first."

That risk is not worth taking unless you need to fire your weapon to protect yourself.

Firearms de escalate situations far more than causing other to draw. Regardless you are trusting your life to someone else. I prefer not to take that chance. Pick up the American Rifleman magazine and look at the armed citizen column. You said that the only reason to draw a gun is to kill somebody,, this is not correct otherwise everytime a cop draws his gun , somebody dies, this is no different than a barking police dog used to gain compliance.

Zimmerman shot somebody because of getting the crap kicked out of him, at what point do you wait until you are facing unconsciousness then God knows what.

[Save Us]

That embarrassing dude walked away with a couple scratches. If he attacked back and had at least three of them pounding on him he might have been much worse off. He's not you. Maybe he knows his limits. Maybe being embarrassed is better than being dead.

And brandishing a gun doesn't help if the three other guys also had guns. Is it really better turning the train into the OK Corral and having 10 dead bodies? ... and most of them innocent bystanders?

It's better that the perpetrators are the victim than the victim. Personally I would choose not to put the decision of whether or not this escalates into serious bodily injury in the hands of somebody else.
But then again that's me. You might as well not brandish mace or a stun gun so as not to risk escalating a situation. It's a different world today not the 1950's, people will rob and shoot, bludgeon you anyway.

[nogods]

Firearms de escalate situations far more than causing other to draw. Regardless you are trusting your life to someone else. I prefer not to take that chance. Pick up the American Rifleman magazine and look at the armed citizen column. You said that the only reason to draw a gun is to kill somebody,, this is not correct otherwise everytime a cop draws his gun , somebody dies, this is no different than a barking police dog used to gain compliance.

Zimmerman shot somebody because of getting the crap kicked out of him, at what point do you wait until you are facing unconsciousness then God knows what.

Police are authorized to use their firearms for the purpose of law enforcement, private citizens are not. Private citizens are allowed to use deadly force in very limited circumstances, not of which include trying to scare off a would be criminal. That badge you bought at the prop shop doesn't make you a real LEO.

[Save Us]

Police are authorized to use their firearms for the purpose of law enforcement, private citizens are not. Private citizens are allowed to use deadly force in very limited circumstances, not of which include trying to scare off a would be criminal. That badge you bought at the prop shop doesn't make you a real LEO.

Police carry firearms to protect themselves in the process of the enforcing the law.

What if the person on the bus was elderly or a woman? The point is that firearms may be used to gain compliance or force action on the part of another, in this case the cessation of being battered. Luckily, the decision to not fight back ended with the perps getting off the train, but this victim left that decision up to the criminals, I would not.

News flash: Brandishing firearms will stop rioters from looting your place of business as well.

It's not a difficult concept. There really isn't anything else to say , I am not sure where the argument is here??

[WNYresident]

I don't believe police are allowed to use deadly force in very limited circumstances either.