Rickmeister
New member
Some of us who pack on a permit were taught various conflict resolution techniques at the CHL training course. It is always better---we were told---to de-escalate a potentially lethal encounter whenever there is good reason to believe that we can. We were also told that an investigation WILL take place if you shoot someone who assaults you, regardless of how obvious your need to have done so may appear. There will be A LOT of bushwhacking concerning the merits of using deadly force. You might even find that your most valued bonds are of the "bail" sort if there is even the slightest doubt regarding your justification in this matter.
Some champion the "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" motto. But wouldn't it be better if you can avoid both, given half a chance? We know we must preclude shooting at all costs, except when death or serious bodily injury threaten. But where does one draw the line between "serious" and "non-serious" bodily injury? If BG is merely a bully who says he wants to punch your lights out and has no "plain" intent to give you a permanent nose job, and assuming he will not back off until he does, do you hand him a one-way ticket to the other side, or take the knuckle soup?
Rarely in my life have I seen the actual need to physically confront another person, though it behooves you to know that I am as likely to fight like a badger as I am to regard the benefits of "wimping out" should the event call for it. It all depends on my state of confidence. But carrying a weapon lands you in a completely different ball game, and fighting back may have a potentially disasterous effect where otherwise there might have only been an "acceptable" loss to deal with. Alas for easy decisions.
Guesses anyone?
Some champion the "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" motto. But wouldn't it be better if you can avoid both, given half a chance? We know we must preclude shooting at all costs, except when death or serious bodily injury threaten. But where does one draw the line between "serious" and "non-serious" bodily injury? If BG is merely a bully who says he wants to punch your lights out and has no "plain" intent to give you a permanent nose job, and assuming he will not back off until he does, do you hand him a one-way ticket to the other side, or take the knuckle soup?
Rarely in my life have I seen the actual need to physically confront another person, though it behooves you to know that I am as likely to fight like a badger as I am to regard the benefits of "wimping out" should the event call for it. It all depends on my state of confidence. But carrying a weapon lands you in a completely different ball game, and fighting back may have a potentially disasterous effect where otherwise there might have only been an "acceptable" loss to deal with. Alas for easy decisions.
Guesses anyone?
Last edited: