If we follow the reasoning of some here we would lock our guns up and hide in our house, calling 911at the slightest bump at the door. 
āAn unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.ā
ā Jeff Cooper
4 Likes
Actually, it IS as complicated as it is.
How an individualās personal philosophy says things could be, should be, use to be, or whatever, will not help one bit to deflect the consequences of a justified or unjustified shooting which could have been avoided.
If a person chooses to risk their life, finance, freedom, and family in order to āteach a lessonā to some abstract criminal culture imagined to be calculating on the basis of crimestopper anecdotes ā well, thatās how those ānatural rightsā work. A person has a right to attempt any old thing ā legal or illegal, smart or not-so-smart. Awkwardly, ārightsā do not prevent consequences.
I think a person may address FEAR in other ways:
ā¢ forget about consequences, and act based on philosophy, or
ā¢ consider consequences, and act based on plausible outcomes.
1 Like
A person with a brain is never unarmed.
A person who uses their brain is never disarmed.
ā unknown
He who fights and runs away
May live to fight another day;
But he who is battle slain
Can never rise to fight again.
ā Oliver Goldsmith, 1761
The man who runs away may fight again.
ā Demosthenes, 338 B.C.
1 Like
Itās really not as complicated as the legal system likes it to be. In that guys case he was acquitted! So essentially he had to be financially punished for doing the right thing. Your definitions of fear arenāt acronyms! Whatās up with that!? If you seriously canāt understand where Iām coming from by now weāll have to agree to disagree. I appreciate your position and understand that you think being safest is the best course of action. This is where we disagree. I still think it emboldens criminals to be criminals and legal systems to make more restrictions essentially making the whole world(this country) a less safe place to be. Always remember that fear has at least(
) two meanings:
Forget Everything And Run or
Face Everything And Rise!
1 Like
Wow! Itās like this thread has been shocked back to life! I love it!! The scenario with the boy is tragic and so sad! And rare!! Bad stuff does happen and nothing can stop that. Say the kid enters and the man doesnāt have a gun so he uses an aluminum bat instead. Is it the bats fault, the guyās fault, the kidās fault, or the alcoholās fault? Iām more inclined to blame the alcohol or the person who got the kid alcohol. That guy was going to defend himself either way and he canāt be blamed for that.
Fear has two meanings:
Forget Everything And Run or
Face Everything And Rise
1 Like
From the autobiography of one of the founders: āWe [Benjamin Franklin and Great Awakening evangelist George Whitfield] had no religious connection. He usād, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard. Ours was a mere civil friendship, sincere on both sides, and lasted to his deathā (page 29 in my copy.)
Franklins says much about God in his autobiography. He never mentions the name of Christ or of Jesus.
Thomas Jefferson cut out the portions of the Bible that he didnāt like.
Iāve not studied the others. Maybe these were the one or two exceptions to which you were referring.
What is confusing is that the founders were deists. They talked a lot about God. But talking about God does not make them Christians (Matthew 7:21-23). Iām not saying some of them werenāt Christians.
I also donāt mean to take the thread off topic.
3 Likes
Franklin was obviously not a Christian. He claims in his autobiography to be unconverted. He had a self-made plan for moral perfection. He apparently didnāt need Christianity because he could perfect himself. Your point is very well made.
3 Likes
What the hell does that have to do with any of this!?!
Always Remember fear has two meanings:
Forget Everything And Run or
Face Everything And Rise
No. Iām not getting sucked into an inane conversation, I was giving @Elitesless some moral support. 
As he said more fearmongering. 
Bye.
3 Likes
Thatās because to do otherwise will void your policy and we wonāt get our money back. 
3 Likes
This + 100.
My concern with the āstand your groundā language is whether or not standing your ground is the best tactical choice for the safety of the defender and/or anyone he is defending. The best tactic for the occasion may be standing your ground, āretreating,ā or advancing depending on the situation.
There is another legal defense company that has a podcast featuring a very accomplished trainer. I believe the term he uses is ātactical withdrawal.ā I like your term better. (Iām not linking to it out of deference to the USCCA and because I couldnāt immediately find it).
I also recall this article from the USCCA magazine. It likens shooting someone to a hypothetical scenario where you have one and only one magic pill that can get you out of a jam. When do you take it? For me the answer is only if I have no other option whereby to save my life, a family memberās life, or a very narrow group of other people.
2 Likes
Also, because to follow that advice will provide the individual member and loved ones the greatest opportunity to avoid the very real hazards of death, injury, imprisonment, financial ruin, forfeit of rights, psychological distress, messing the carpet, etc, etc. But, hey, if spanking some (maybe) bad boy for the (hypothetical) benefit of society is your thing ā best of luck.
1 Like
There was a discussion by one of the posters saying the founding fathers with one or two exceptions were Christians. Seemed relevant to that incorrect assertion.
2 Likes
I donāt think that the legal system ālikes to beā anything. The legal system IS what āweā have caused or allowed it to be. In the case of financial ruin brought on by a successful defense, that IS a predictable hazard associated with self/stuff defense. The legal system will be perfectly satisfied to ālikeā something else if and when āweā change the players and the rules. Acting otherwise seems folly to me.
I understand your philosophical desire for things to be other than they are, I just donāt think drawing lines in the sand as you propose will move the ball a meaningful amount in a positive direction. Sorry about the acronyms ā I need to conserve my mental energy for all this heavy typing. 
1 Like
I forgave you almost immediately! Of course I disagree with you. I do think if we start training people to not be afraid to flex their rights the system as a whole will naturally begin to change their expectations of people. From the judicial system to the criminals. I think we can agree to disagree and thatās ok. I think Iāve made some great points that are hard to argue because the truth is like a lion, you donāt have to really defend it you just need to let it free and it will defend itself. Again, always remember that fear has at least two meanings:
Forget Everything And Run or
Face Everything And Rise
2 Likes
The āStand your Groundā (SYG) law is a tenet that removes Duty to Retreat before defending reasonable and justified. Prior to that, one was required to flee even oneās own home before legally be āallowedā to defend oneself. SYG does not state one is not allowed to flee, it only makes a reasonable defense justified.
Duty to Retreat did provide for when one was not able to flee. Unfortunately, it put the burden of proof on the victim that one was not able to flee. Hence the reason the law was changed in states that have SYG so that you were no longer required to prove that you were not able to retreat. As you noted, each scenario is different and should/does require different actions. SYG provides for those options that Duty to Retreat did not.
1 Like
If I understand correctly, you believe that if we shift from stating that you should not have been there, to the criminal should not have been there, or the criminal should not have committed his illegal act, then the narrative will change to where we believe defending oneself is morally just, not an act that should be prosecuted, with the victim monetarily punished and threatened with prison time merely for justified self-defense.
2 Likes
Ah, yes. And I have perfectly laid out the factual bases supporting my position.
Guess itās up to demoi now.
1 Like
I donāt see where they would have a say in my inalienable RKBA, nor in a justified self-defense. A jury might, though, depending on the prosecutor - one that seeks to punish moral behavior.
1 Like
Well, sure ā RKBA is a thing, assuming we can keep it. But ātheyā will decide whether āyourā use of force was in fact justified self-defense ā not you.
Demoi is where the jury will come from. And the attorneys. And the judges. And the legislators who produce the laws all the players are to apply to āyourā situation. And from whom all those players receive their delegations of authority and oversight. Demos is a supposed to be a pretty big deal in a democracy.
1 Like