I tried to find an article written in the news, but there is no one talking about this. Two teens were assaulting an older man, who then uses his firearm to save his life. Two things can be observed, one is that everybody got real polite once the gun was presented, and two is that no one had a problem with the assault until the the man was able to defend himself, then it was "OMGGG NOOO he has a GUNNN!!"
And in one video negates every post by Bush Town Lawyers and every anti-gunner as to why the law abiding in the U.S. should carry.
Ahh, yes, and the video doesn’t follow the narrative that GCA’s like project for gum owner and particularly for those that carry concealed. In line with those that suggest self defense with a gun doesn’t necessarily mean that a gun is discharged or those that would have us believe that gun owners are a blood thirsty lot, looking to John Wayne some one, the fellow ends the attack on himself by showing he has the gun and shows restraint by not shooting his attackers. It defies GCA dogma and the blood will run in the streets predictions. Of course, by their reasoning, he should have sacrificed himself to his fated beating and not resorted to pulling the evil gun. Must be a fake video, eh?
You presume the man with the gun was an entirely innocent party of course. We don’t know what led up to the violence and so it’s possible (however unlikely), that they had legitimate reason to attack him. The other issue is that the principle of unconditional freedom to carry is gun is that it would apply equally to the two attackers. I’m not convinced that this situation would have been better if they’d all been armed or if none of them had been, which just goes to show that it’s a much more complicated question than a lot of people would like to make it out to be.
You think he may have said something insensitive that resulted in the teens beating him up? Maybe they beat him up because he looked at them? It simply does not matter what you think the man may have done, there is no legitimate reason to beat up an old man like that. Not one. And you seem to be oblivious to the crowd's reaction, or lack of one until the gun was presented. The story so far is that the man was an off duty cop moonlighting as security at McD's and had just kicked the teens out for being disruptive and unruly. Once outside they attacked him. You seem to want to give the teens the benefit of the doubt yet condemn the man just because you think he probably deserved it. That's weird.
What led up to what we see in the video? Context can mean everything. Meaning it can tell us the entire picture of the situation. Whether it was two guys randomly attacking a purely innocent man or was it two guys trying to beat the hell out of a guy who did something egregious enough to warrant a beating? We don't know the whole story, do we?
Some of us know more than others. I'd like to hear what you think that man did to deserve getting beat. What could possibly warrant that?
What do you think you know about what led up to the attack? As I said...I have no idea (neither do you) what led up to what we see in the video so I don't know if the man did anything to deserve the beating and I was clear about that in my previous post. I'm merely pointing out none of us actually know what led up to what we see. I did suggest that it could have been a random attack on an innocent man OR it could have been a situation where the guy did or said something to deserve a beating. Something that would warrant a beating is if he used a racial slur. Now, I'm not saying he did. I'm just giving you an example of something that could have provoked what we see in the video.
I’m, not condemning or defending anyone. I’m not really interested in commenting on a specific case with zero information, I was making a more general point in relation to carrying (and potentially using) a gun. If you’re saying it should be automatically available to everyone, that means it’s available to potential aggressors in this kind of situation, just like if it was denied to everyone it would be denied to potential victims. Not automatically wrong either way, just a practical complication that needs acknowledging in the face of overly-simplistic conclusions based on single incidents.
At no point is it ok to lay your hands on someone else in violence, especially the elderly, because they called you a name. Not ok.
That's a unique position on Concealed Carry, All or None. Good luck with that. And if everyone were ever disallowed firearm ownership, the only people who would give up their firearms would be the law abiding, leaving them unarmed and still having to deal with armed thugs. Sounds like a recipe for increasing "gun crime".
Who said anything about hitting someone who is elderly? The guy attacked, according to reports, is currently a police officer. Not to mention he doesn't even look elderly.
They're not unique positions but I'm arguing against them both. This is a case of a video apparently showing someone defending themselves with a gun with an implied conclusion that being able to carry a firearm is a good thing. We see similar reports of a legal gun owner doing something bad with their gun with an implied conclusion that being able to carry a firearm is a bad thing. Neither conclusion is valid, certainly not based on a single out-of-context video clip and not even based on a fully detailed explanation of an entire scenario (which we rarely get anyway). There are no easy answers.
I think he was security, and had just escorted those two guys out of the building, they decided to rough him up.
It does not matter what the circumstances are the lead up to any particular incident, there is no legal justification for being the one to initiate physical force. It does not matter if the individual was shouting all manner of racial slurs at the two who initiated the violence, there is no legal standard that makes physical retaliation acceptable.
The NRA representatives who were filmed trying to buy thier way into Australian politics mentioned this as a tactic to increase support of liberalisation of gun laws Get out rare instances of self defence with a gun and plaster them all over the media. They talked about recruiting “gun friendly” journalists to do it
