• Member Since 9th Dec, 2019
  • offline last seen 2 hours ago

Glory Bright

Laeol, nakta! -Lunar Guard Battlecry


You are Anon, and you own a musket for home defense. When four rapscallions break into your house. "What the devil!?" You do what must be done. Now you have to explain to Twilight why this makes sense.

Edit: Featured? Thank you everyone!

Reading by Wuten: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Hab2Ff1cI

Chapters (1)
Comments ( 121 )

Well written and straight to the point. 10/10

"If I break into a dude's house and he calls me a 'ruffian,' bro, I am walking back out the door."

-A Monoeye who is friends with a Russian Badger

Seriously. Who the fuck actually uses a musket in this day and age? My dad is an avid gun collector for several time periods. But even he won't use one of them for defense of any kind.

Do you even know how to properly use one? Answer is probably a resounding no.

Ahhh just as the founding fathers intended

"Tally Ho' Lads!"

It's a reference to an old 4chan post, you know, a joke. Don't take it so seriously.


I'd do the same if I was in Heavenly's position

Just as the founding fathers intended. Bloody beautiful.

You're absolutely right in that these weapons are obsolete, but there can be a lot of reasons someone would use a muzzleloader as a defensive arm. Two come to mind. The first reason is because it's the only weapon you have. Certainly someone with a .58 caliber muzzleloading rifle, and the knowledge and skills to use it can be a mite more effective than a bat or bludgeon, especially since once fired, it becomes a bat or bludgeon. Or a spear, if you attach a bayonet.

The second reason is because it's the only weapon you can get. There are people in this world who, despite being supposedly free men, aren't legally able to own firearms. In the case of the United States, these would be convicted felons. If you have a felony on your record, you can't own a firearm, even if that felony was something as non-threatening as tax evasion. If you're free in society, your safety is not guaranteed by the government, and you have the responsibility to protect yourself and your family. If you can't be trusted with all the rights of a free man, you should not be a free man, yet the government will punish you for using a tool only available to free men, despite being a free man yourself. That being said, if you are a prohibited person and do defend yourself using a firearm that you were in possession of prior to the intrusion will net you another felony, even if you did everything else legally. I worded that in such a way, because you may or may not be found guilty of possession charges if the gun was acquired during the intrusion.

Now, the US government does not consider muzzleloaders, or other black powder arms, to be firearms, and as a result, can often be legally possessed by felons or other prohibited persons. Actually, you can order a cap and ball revolver right to your door without breaking any federal laws, but be sure to check your state and local laws. Modern firearms are legally required to be transferred through a federally licensed dealer with a federal form, called a form 4473, that must be correctly filled out prior to the transfer, and then a background check must be run, with a few exceptions, like, for example, Concealed Handgun Permit holders in the state of North Carolina, like myself, may present their permit in addition to their valid ID to negate the need for a background check, as one was required to obtain the permit in the first place.

Glory to the 2nd Amendment

This was very entertaining.

Georg #13 · Nov 29th, 2022 · · 1 ·

When a third of the population carries around a magical ranged weapon and another third can strike you dead with lightning from the sky, having something that can blow a .58cal hole in an attacker is a good idea. Strikes me a little like the Harry Potter series, where every graduating high school student is in possession of a lethal ranged weapon.

Your comment reminds me of a fic idea I've been thinking about for a while, wondering how ponies might react to guns being a thing, with Twilight reasoning that it's really not that much different from unicorns able to learn and use potentially destructive spells.

Home defense is relatively unkind to ranged weaponry. There's too much concealment and not enough straight lines, you'd do just about as well hiding behind a corner and then clubbing them with the musket when they got close.

That said, being badly outnumbered is the only case where anyone would ever need an assault rifle, and it's far more common for the criminals and spree killers to be in that situation because they're a tiny minority.

America, F*** Yeah! Plays softly in the distance

I think it wouldn't be. Spree killers are so few in number.

Criminal kind of makes sense but I don't see a way to fix that sadly. We can only defend ourselves.

No anon the last one was murder:pinkiesad2:


That said, being badly outnumbered is the only case where anyone would ever need an assault rifle

The usage of the original Sturmgewehr 44 was very heavy on "covering fire" for squads to avoid engagements altogether or somewhat effectively dictate the terms of them, intended as an extremely light machine gun practical to use as the standard-issue rifle. A great many design choices come from the fact that rifles we still use for hunting were a lot more than needed, so raw per-shot power and accuracy was traded for volume.

Importantly, "assault rifles" are EXPLICITLY these intermediate cartridges used in automatic weapons. They are ALREADY heavily restricted in the United States, due to closing the registry as a backdoor ban on automatic firearms... When there'd been all of three cases with less than a dozen fatalities between them where registered automatic firearms were used in crimes over the sixty years it was open.

"Assault weapon", meanwhile, is overwhelmingly defined by minimally important ergonomic considerations, like the shape of the grip, the material of the case, or the ability to modularly add things like scopes and flashlights. There unironically exist assault rifles that are not "assault weapons" because of guard and police forces paying to get examples of the former with exteriors like old hunting rifles so they can have modern infantry weapons without the firearm-illiterate masses complaining.

and it's far more common for the criminals and spree killers to be in that situation because they're a tiny minority.

Case in point about firearm-illiterate masses, spree shooters are downright statistically irrelevant. Single incidents can swing the volume by over a third year over year, and the vast majority of "mass shootings" the statistics on them are reported as are done by pistols in gang shootouts that NEVER see national attention. Too volatile and too small a part of the problem to be worth focusing on, it's pretty much entirely because spree shooters are newsworthy intensely derailing the public perception.

The nature of the problem of firearm homicide is overwhelmingly urban shitholes with such a strong history of criminality they actively avoid law enforcement smuggling pistols in enormous quantities. But solving that is very complicated and a pain in the ass to get past the courts because those shitholes are populated overwhelmingly by the urban blacks so "disparate impact" bullshit would be triggered constantly.

Man, I learn interesting facts in some of the oddest places.


Hey now, us normal humans managed to get by with none of that pansy stuff! Just grab your shanking stick and get to it and matters attend themselves:pinkiecrazy:

I can think of quite a few reasons where someone might need a rifle similar to an AR-15. These weapons are lightweight, easily configurable, have low recoil, are quite accurate, and powerful. Long guns are almost always easier to use than handguns, due to the larger controls and extra points of contact to the body. With a handgun, you have one point of contact. Even when holding the handgun with two hands, as you should be doing whenever you can, you only have the weapon braced against your hands. With a long gun, you separate your hande, place your cheek against the comb and put the stock in your shoulder, giving four points of contact, all in-line.

As mentioned earlier, these weapons use lower powered cartridges than your typical hunting rifle, which reduces the risk for people beyond the intended target. The 5.56x45 cartridge specifically has a tendency to fragment and break apart in the target, which greatly reduces penetrative power beyond the initial target. Compare that to something like a .308, a very common hunting cartridge, which can carry energy through several hard barriers.

AR pattern rifles are just easy to use. They can be very short and handy, making them ideal for use indoors, where maneuverability is critical, and are also ideal for the elderly because they're lightweight with low recoil, and have large controls that are much easier for arthritic hands than some other contemporaries.

The only downside is the noise, and the shorter the barrel, the more noise. Really, for home defense, a 10.5 inch barrel with a suppressor is ideal. The indoor nature will offset the 45 yard effective range of that barrel length, and the suppressor will reduce the instant permanent hearing damage that the shooter and the people around them will incur.


But solving that is very complicated and a pain in the ass to get past the courts because those shitholes are populated overwhelmingly by the urban blacks so "disparate impact" bullshit would be triggered constantly.

By which you mean that the people in power see no issue with black people getting murdered. I'm not even disappointed by any of this, because I don't expect better anymore.


45 yard effective range

Yeah, I mentioned in the other half of the comment how that's ridiculously longer than any straight line in a real house to such an extent that you can probably do decently with a melee weapon even if the other guy has a gun.

I don't know what your house looks like, but mine certainly has sightlines longer than six feet. Besides, even in bludgeoning range, firearms are more effective. I have the responsibility to protect my family, so why should I willingly forsake any advantage available, especially when any home intruder may be perfectly willing to use the same advantages you are so willing to ignore. I will not be outgunned in my own home. God forbid I need to use my rifle, but if I do, I will give the intruder every opportunity to leave intact. If the intruder does not heed, I will act appropriately.

Besides, enclosed areas and short sightlines are better for firearms than any melee weapon. I don't know what your house looks like, but in mine, I have an eight foot ceiling and fairly close walls throughout a large part of my house, making it impractical to swing anything, but it's very easy to shoulder and fire a weapon in the same conditions.

if you're using a rifle in close quarters then you better hope an intruder closes the distance, there's a point with every firearm it's too close to shoot someone due to the fact it'd be hard to line the barrel up, plus, ever heard of warning shots, must robbers are just kids tryin' to get some money, either to survive or for drugs, the latter is more likely if you live if the US. a shot to the air will chase them off, or if you need to you can get an air gun, and no, not an airsoft gun, an air gun, those are classified as firearms has they can and have killed, I attend a youth group called cadets, it's like military and boy/girl scouts, put together, we get firearm training, anyway, an airgun is far less lethal, and if you're taken to court your more likely to win as long as you play your cards right and have a decent lawer, you should be okay, though still, I'd recommend aiming for the leg


I have the responsibility to protect my family, so why should I willingly forsake any advantage available

While this is fair, the relative difficulty of obtaining firearms even in the US means that you have to weigh the odds that you get attacked against spending time making their lives better when there isn't an invader. And I'm reasonably sure that most people never suffer a home invasion. Most other countries make obtaining a gun harder.

Besides, enclosed areas and short sightlines are better for firearms than any melee weapon.

If you don't have advance warning, then you have already been shot and killed before you can bring any kind of weapon gun or otherwise to bear; even if they only want your stuff, you try to grab something that even looks like a gun and they'll shoot you because that's why they have the gun in the first place. If you do, then you're hiding behind a corner as cover regardless. Since I live in a bachelor's apartment with such a corner between the entrance and everything worth stealing, the actual difference is either them digging through a box of stuffed penguins to find nothing of value or a few extra seconds of them thinking they're safe before their brains get splattered because guns are worse at going around corners than clubs.

I repeat, the time it takes to draw and aim a gun is time a mugger has already taken before you knew about his intentions or potentially even his presence, and is more than enough time for you to be pumped full of bullets. That's why the Tuller stuff assumes an enemy knife, because if they'd had a gun then no amount of training would save you.

If by relative difficulty you mean filling out a 4473 and passing a background check in most states, which is at most augmented by passing a short written test and/or waiting period in the stricter states (CA, MA, etc), I think you should reconsider how much time you're willing to invest in your family's safety. The time it takes is nowhere near long enough to justify shrugging and saying "nah I don't have the attention span for this, better just stick with the baseball bat next to the bed that I won't even be able to swing in my hallway." Suggesting that even if you did have a gun for home defense it wouldn't matter is also rather silly, given multiple studies including one sponsored by the CDC have shown firearms save thousands of lives every year in home invasions and muggings, a number that even by conservative estimates is likely substantially higher than the number of people killed by guns in the United States.

I understand the sentiment you're getting at, but that's the exact opposite of good legal advice in every way. Warning shots are an incredibly iffy subject legally speaking, not to mention insanely dangerous in an enclosed space where your round could overpenetrate and hit something or someone else, or spall/ricochet off of whatever surface you just fired onto or into. Secondly, in order to kill someone with an airgun you either have to get extremely lucky, fire an absurd number of shots, or be fighting that spongebob character with paper skin and glass bones. It's not going to happen, and if that's what you're counting on to save you, you might as well be counting on a piano or anvil falling on the intruder's head. Finally, in a home or self defense situation the absolute LAST thing you want is to be less than lethal. Many if not most hot home invasions (that is to say home invasions committed while the home owner is present) are committed by individuals under the influence of drugs or who otherwise don't care about you or your life. It's absurdly unrealistic to expect people to just "aim for the legs", given hitting the tiniest part of a rapidly moving target is nigh impossible unless you're incredibly well trained and in a good position, and further it opens you up to lawsuits from the home invader. If you EVER fire your weapon at someone, it has to be because you were in fear for you life or the lives of others. If that isn't the case, your shoot isn't justified in the eyes of the law, and the criminal can sue you in civil court fairly easily among other potential outcomes. It happens more often than you'd think.

Always aim center mass, always put rounds on target until they are no longer a threat. Your family is always more important than a random robber and assuming their motives are anything but dangerous to you is a great way to end up raped/murdered/maimed.

There's a lot wrong with your comment from a practical standpoint, and I don't intend to insult you or anything, a lot of what you said comes from a place of ignorance, and not knowing something is nothing to be ashamed of.

Firstly, lining the barrel up isn't some difficult task. I understand the difficulties and skill required to use a rifle properly, and have integrated that into my home defense plan.

Secondly, I am well aware of the process to obtain a firearm in my local area, I own twenty-one guns already, and keep no fewer than two in my bedroom. The first one is my rifle, which is an AR pattern rifle, and is perfectly legal in my area, which is North Carolina. We are a stand your ground and castle doctrine state, meaning that, if I am in any location I have the legal right to be in, I have no obligation to retreat before employing deadly force, though every situation is dynamic and there is no one right answer to the proper course of action. Castle doctrine means that my home is my castle, and I have the legal right to use deadly force to defend myself, especially in my own home. It's generally assumed that someone who breaks in is a legitimate threat to the homeowner's life, and deadly force is generally accepted in these circumstances.

My second gun that I keep nearby is a handgun that I use for concealed carry.

I understand that most break ins are from kids lead astray, which is why I intend to verbally challenge the intruder and give them an opportunity to exit before firing, but I will not fire any warning shots. Warning shots are ill-advised at best and outright criminal at worst, at least in the context of self defense against a two-legged assailant. Firstly, tactically, a warning shot has the same effect as a display of a weapon, which can be done either visually, or audibly, by racking the slide on a pump shotgun, or charging the rifle, or otherwise just making noise with the weapon apart from actually firing it. This, however, isn't always effective. If it works, that's great, but it doesn't always.

Secondly, you are responsible for every projectile that leaves your barrel until it comes to a complete stop. I cannot account for where that warning shot will land, so I will not fire it. Warning shots are dangerous because they, by their very nature, do not hit the intended target, and instead pose a risk to other people or objects that may be nearby.

A weapon being less lethal is only a detriment to the intended user, as American courts will treat anything with lethal energy as a lethal weapon. Given that some of the airguns I've seen have similar energy to a .45 ACP cartridge, it would absolutely constitute lethal force, but it has the disadvantages of requiring manual reloading after each shot, and keeping the air tank pressurized for long periods of time, which may not be super reliable, given that the pressure will leak out over time.

And finally, you ended your comment with my largest pet peeve: aiming for the legs. There are a lot of reasons that aiming for the legs is inadvisable. First and foremost, the legs are among the smallest and most erratically moving parts on the body, greatly reducing the chance to hit. I would hope I don't have to shoot, but if I do I don't want to miss - that would only endanger others around the target. Leg shots are also less likely to actually immediately end the fight. Someone with a gun in hand and a hole in the leg is still perfectly capable of using that weapon to good effect and ill intent. It isn't a reliable way to end a fight. Speaking of ending the fight, that's the goal of every fight, a swift and favorable end to any confrontation involving deadly force. The longer it drags on, the less likely one is to survive.

And then there's the biggest flaw with the logic of leg shots, and that is, they aren't less lethal than center mass shots, only less immediately so. The femur is the largest bone in your body, and along that bone is the largest artery in the body, that being the femoral artery. These are present in the upper leg, and if the femoral artery is severed by a bullet, or by a fragment of bone, without immediate medical attention, that person is likely to succumb to blood loss within about thirty seconds. Do yourself and your target a favor and aim center mass.


a number that even by conservative estimates is likely substantially higher than the number of people killed by guns in the United States

But how do those numbers combined stack up to the number of people who never have to deal with either? I could use other quibbles, but this is the one that I've already brought up without it being addressed. Further reduce that based on the number of people who only actually saved their money and/or possessions, which is admittedly only relevant if you're wealthy enough that you aren't living from paycheck to paycheck. Plenty of people who would starve to death if you robbed them, I'm sure. (Not even being sarcastic here; poverty sucks)

Shrug. People like old memes.

"Just As The Founding Fathers Intended."

There are areas in this country where firearms can be a bear to get, but they're relatively simple in mine. I should know, seeing as I own quite a few. I basically just fill out a form and have the guy at the counter check my ID, then I pay for it, which is really the difficult part.

Most people will have advance warning of a break in. It will be punctuated by broken glass or a kicked in door. Sure, the intruder could pick the lock, but in my case, there are locks that aren't accessible from the outside which will need to be kicked through. They're basically just child proofing locks, but it will make a noise for them to be overcome.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that you can't pop around a corner quickly with a firearm, but it's simply not true. There are plenty of positions that one could quickly pop around a corner with a long gun at the ready, for instance, the low ready, where you have the rifle shouldered but pointed down at the ground, the high ready, where you have the rifle pointed up with the stock at your side, or by short stocking, where you rest the stock on your shoulder to shorten the overall length of the weapon in your hands.

The time it takes to approach an intruder with a melee weapon is certainly more than the time it would take to put a weapon that you already have in your hands into a usable position. Also, the amount of time it takes to draw your weapon is irrelevant, as it is already in your hands. Unless you mean to tell me that you'd put a weapon in a holster and approach a home intruder, I repeat, someone who has invaded the sanctity of your home, empty handed? That just seems ill-advised.

Besides, if it were truly the case that a the criminal would be able to always overcome any attempt of an armed defender, then would we ever hear about any successful use of force?

However, I'm unaware of this Tuller stuff you mentioned, can you elaborate on that?

I mean the majority of people who have health insurance have never gotten sick enough to need it and likely never will, and i'd wager the majority of people who have life insurance currently probably haven't died. Just because you might not need something doesn't mean there isn't a value to having it. It's certainly your prerogative if you decide you don't need it, you may even probably be right, but if you do end up needing it and don't have it then you're up a creek and definitely could have prevented that. As to your point on poverty, I really don't understand what you're even trying to say but it's probably not as profound a point as you think it is. There are certainly plenty of people who could be in a very bad place if they were ever robbed, which is exactly why being able to defend their own health and possessions from theft is extremely valuable. There's a reason gun ownership is far more common in the middle and lower classes than the upper classes (if you really have to make this an issue of class and wealth vs poverty anyway). Rich people have expensive security systems and live in neighborhoods with rapid police response times. Poor intercity families in shitty barrios the police don't like going into unless they absolutely have to don't have the luxury of simply shrugging and hoping something bad doesn't happen. All it takes is one injury to a family's primary earner to put them on the street, to say nothing of the direct and indirect costs of death.

Ultimately you can decide what you need or don't need, but your needs don't dictate those of others, and as much as I'm loathe to use such a cliché phrase, it's called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs for a reason.


the relative difficulty of obtaining firearms even in the US

Tell me you've never been to a gun show without telling me you've never been to a gun show.


That said, being badly outnumbered is the only case where anyone would ever need an assault rifle, and it's far more common for the criminals and spree killers to be in that situation because they're a tiny minority.

First, guns like the AR-15 are NOT, never have been, never will be, assault rifles. The term applies to firearms that're designed and capable of fully-automatic operation, not semi-automatic-only operation.

Second, it's actually been proven that the vast majority of all crimes are committed with handguns, not rifles like the AR-15 or any other derivative of the design. The AR-15 simply receives greater media coverage in an effort to sway public opinion.

Third, legal firearms ownership and use have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of "need" regardless of corrupt politicians and idiotic journalists would have others believe.

Fourth, firearms like the AR-15 would arguably be much better suited for home defense than a shotgun or any other platform. Better balance, lighter weight, greater magazine capacity, less reliant on upper body strength, adjustable to the frame of the person using it, less recoil, and you only have to deal with ONE projectile being discharged in a given direction, rather than 9 or however many other lead balls are crammed into a round of buckshot.


Unless you mean to tell me that you'd put a weapon in a holster and approach a home intruder, I repeat, someone who has invaded the sanctity of your home, empty handed? That just seems ill-advised.

No, I mean to tell you that I live in a bachelor's apartment where anyone who manages to open my door by any means can already see the opposite side of it and the foot of my bed. That's about as much warning as the assailant has, so it's my reflexes against those of someone who does this for a living.

Okay, I'm going to do that thing where I contradict my own argument again in the name of actually getting all of this on the table: an actual smart crook would do this while I'm not home. You're already dealing with a less competent class of person just by having the chance to interact with them at all. It's Canada within a month of the winter solstice, so it gets dark by the time a normal person is driving home from work (citation: "9 to 5" is slang for a typical workday, and sunset is before 5pm today according to my weather report). Saying anything more would probably put us on a watchlist, though.

However, I'm unaware of this Tuller stuff you mentioned, can you elaborate on that?

The Tueller drill (apologies for the misspelling) is a training exercise that simulates minding your own business walking at night when someone visibly approaches with intent to stab. The idea is that you have to draw, aim and fire before they can close the distance, The specific drill expects it to be possible to cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds, while an assailant with a gun would have the advantage of starting first and thus be nearly impossible.


All it takes is one injury to a family's primary earner to put them on the street, to say nothing of the direct and indirect costs of death.

That is what I was saying. The fact that it goes directly against the rest of my argument may have confused you, but I didn't feel like waiting for you to bring it up.

Pretty sure they don't have those in Canada, and the implications of that comment are why. :twilightoops:

Fair enough, though the at the end, I am so dumb for forgeting that, theres a reason samuri aim for the legs, or rather the thighs, tbf, I am from new zeqland so most the time we fight with our fists due to our gun laws, but in my opinion air guns are still good for home defence, as long as your a good shot.

For those playing at home, Samurai aimed for the legs because Japan didn't have enough iron available to make full plate practical and the legs were left relatively unarmored for the sake of mobility. Heck, what iron they did have was such poor quality that their legendary bull!@#$ weeaboo forging techniques were only enough to bring it up to what European smiths could do with much better iron and much less effort.

A good, light hearted, good for a laugh story. And I needed a laugh today.


I mean the majority of people who have health insurance have never gotten sick enough to need it and likely never will

Just a nitpick here, but this is a poor comparison to weapons. Healthcare is one of relatively few expenditures that unless you die young by way of sudden violence, you're almost guaranteed to have a sudden need for a lot of it because that's just a side effect of getting old. A health emergency will happen sooner or later, if for no other reason than because several of them piling up over a decade or two is how our lives typically close out. And while you may be able to total enough savings over a whole lifetime (itself increasingly unlikely right now anyway), you'd have to be extremely well off for savings to front it adequately at any actual given moment.

A weapon is something you get hoping you'll never need it, and statistically most people won't. Sudden steep healthcare expenses are a near certainty where the only thing you don't know is when, and must be expected.

Thank you for bringing up some points that I hadn't previously, and from your comment, it seems you live in Canada. For what it's worth, you have my sympathy for the self defense laws in your country, but it doesn't change the meaning of the things I've said. While what I've said has been in the context of self defense in the United States, I was making an effort to speak generally where I could.

As for that study, I wasn't familiar with the name of it, but I am familiar with the subject. 21 feet is a good rule of thumb, but that assumes that the weapon is holstered and ready, and the defender is at a standstill. In the event that the defender is backpedaling some extra time is bought, even if it does introduce a tripping hazard. Secondly, there are some issues with that study I would like to address. The first would be that someone would attempt to talk down a knife-wielding attacker empty-handed. In the event of police, it would be likely for the person actually doing the talking to appear as non-threatening as possible, but he would do so with cover from other officers. If a person is acting erratically with a weapon in hand, it's likely that weapons are going to appear in some other hands as well, even though those weapons shouldn't be employed until the person actually charges.

Another issue I have with that study has less to do with the study itself and more to do with how people incorrectly interpret the study. The purpose of the study was to inform tactics to make policework safer for the officers by providing a better assessment of the risks involved in certain encounters. What people get from it is the incorrect assumption that self defense is only legal within seven yards. In the United States, self defense is legal if the defender reasonably1 believes2 that themselves or an innocent3 bystander is in imminent4 danger of death or severe bodily injury5.

Let's break that down.

  1. There must be objective circumstances that would warrant someone to believe that self defense is necessary.
  2. The defender doesn't actually have to be in danger to legally defend themselves. If someone were to play a prank by shooting blanks at someone, the victim of the prank would be legally within their rights to return fire with live ammo.
  3. The person being attacked must be innocent for the claim of self defense to stick. If I were to break into someone's home and shoot them after they accosted me with a weapon, that would not be self defense, because I would not be innocent in that circumstance.
  4. The threat must be immediate. If someone calls me to threaten my family, I'm not legally able to go over and cause harm to them. Likewise if someone is screaming about hurting me a hundred yards away while swinging a baseball bat, that threat probably won't be considered imminent. That being said, if he were instead five yards, then that's a different story.
  5. Death is obvious, but severe bodily injury is something different. Obviously broken bones or dismemberment is severe bodily injury, but the mental anguish related to being a victim of certain crimes, notably rape, can also be considered severe injury, and it's likely that a court would agree that deadly force was a legal course of action.

But to go back to speaking generally, guns beat out melee weapons in almost every circumstance, with the exception of legal reasons in certain jurisdictions. What's right for you and me may be completely different, but I would ask that you consider the totality of the circumstances before you say what another person should or should not do.


We all forget things from time to time, it's nothing to beat yourself up over. As long as you learn and realize your mistake, there's no harm.

Just as the Founding Fathers intended.

I always loved this greentext.

Login or register to comment