This goes back to the idea that the Left sees violence on a dimmer and for the Right it’s a binary.

I agree with the Left that violence should be on a dimmer switch.

Especially the violence of self defense.

Take these two incidents from NYC (because NYC is an absolute shit-hole):

I just took my North Carolina carry permit course on Saturday.

They made it crystal clear that this type of simple sexual assault did not meet the level that justified lethal force.

I’d agree.  This was not life threatening.


I don’t see why Mr. Grabass shouldn’t walk away from that confrontation without a compound fracture of the radius and ulna of his ass-grabbing hand.

Mr. Dickrester, on the other hand, really doesn’t need all of his teeth.

I believe that force should be met with force and people should have the ability to carry a variety of weapons for each level of force.

A baton for when you have to break a grabasser’s wrist and a gun for when you have to put a rapist in a hole.

I just with the law reflected that.

Maybe there would be fewer assgrabbers of every time one of these perverts grabbed some ass they’d spend the next few months on physical therapy learning to wipe their own ass again with that hand.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

16 thoughts on “Self defense and the associated weapons should be on a dimmer switch”
  1. Once the first incident escalated to the female getting punched in the face, yes, it was justifiable to use lethal force. One punch deaths are not uncommon, so, my response to anyone claiming that shooting an unarmed man is not warranted, is: “How many times should I let someone punch me in the face before I use a firearm to defend myself?” Answer: None.

  2. I disagree, respectfully. Self-defense violence in most cases cannot be on a “dimmer switch” to ramp up or down. A 110 lb woman simply cannot ramp up physical violence against a 250 lb man in any conceivable way. Oh, I know a few who’d try, but it’s about as amusing as watching a toy poodle nip at a rottweiler. Angelina Jolie throws men around with judo in movies, but that just ain’t gonna happen in real life.

    And me, a mid-50’s out-of-shape geezer can’t really ramp up violence against a mid-20’s feral youth anymore. If the situation does not allow an exit and violence is called for, I’m not pulling out a stick to hit someone. I’m responding with a 147 gr JHP.

    And finally, way back in the 90’s when I took my CCL class, the instructor was adamant about never getting into a physical confrontation when carrying. The minute you throw a punch, your right to self-defense can be challenged in court. Plus if you grapple, you’re giving your opponent a chance to grab the gun from your holster.

    DA: Mr. Curton, why did you fire your weapon?

    Me: I was in fear of my life, self-defense.

    DA: If that’s really the case, why did you get in a fist-fight first, before pulling your weapon?

    Me: Uhh, I wasn’t in fear until he started winning the fight?

    Yeah, that ain’t gonna sound good at all.

    1. I am 70 y.o. and in reasonably go health, if out of shape – the term disparity of force comes into play. almost anyone is younger, faster, stronger than I am

  3. Nope, totally disagree, both cases deserve death. Even if you could magically break their arms when they did shit like that all it would do is build up resentment as they recovered and they would do worse next time.

    1. Its kinda the way America USED to be… people didnt pull this crap and not expect to at least get slapped…
      Best defense is just dont go anywhere near areas that promote this behavior

  4. It’s probably true that in many states, the actions described here are not viewed as justifying deadly force.
    That doesn’t mean those laws are proper. I see nothing wrong with armed defense in that first case. And in fact as was pointed out, a punch is, or should be, considered deadly force anyway, in other words she did use deadly force in self defense (but not effective force).
    In NH the law of justification can, I would argue, be stretched to cover that first case — RSA 627.4(II)(c) says:
    II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person: …
    (c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or

    In this case “committing” is perhaps debatable, but a reasonable belief that the offender is “about to commit” (i.e., this is the opening act in a rape), I would support that.

    1. a 6-8″ hat min through is penis, and if properly aimed into his balls, would have ended this encounter – These feral people think that they can do anything with no push back or repercussions; because nothing ever happens to them. The next woman might have it shoved into her face, because he got away with this.

  5. Nope. Sorry, disproportionate size and shape in all of these incidents. You never see some 6’4 thug go up against Stone Cold Steve Austin (or someone like him.)

    So, well, touch someone inappropriately, with the intent to assault, and that warrants only one response – getting laid out.

    And someone, like that woman in the first video, can only lay out an assaulter with one item. A gun. Anything less, including knives, swords, polearms, mace, etc is still a disparity of force.

    Gun vs Thug. It’s an equalizer.

Login or register to comment.