95% of the time when I'm on the train, my brother is standing right next to me. I'm the "short" one. When I'm in enclosed spaces like train cars, my attention to other passengers's dispositions and actions would seem paranoid to most people. If I saw someone looking around nervously with his hand in a backpack for a while like this guy was, I'd probably already have reported it to a conductor and asked them to have police waiting at the next station. Within a few seconds of him attacking someone, my brother and I would have glanced at each other, one of us would either ask the other to grab the hammer arm or offered to grab it, and we would have charged him and had him on the ground within fifteen seconds. Our size would be enough of an advantage that we could take someone down pretty easily even if one of us took a hammer to the face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgeedo
It's an interesting commentary on the political/philosophical makeup of this particular forum that concealed carry hasn't been mentioned yet.
|
Everyone here pretty much knows where we all stand on it, and enough threads have gone down that path that we usually don't bother anymore.
I would not consider shooting someone who only had a blunt object, especially in such close quarters, unless I were sure it was the victim's only chance. With a knife or gun, I would clearly have the legal right to use lethal force to defend someone without trying anything else first (and would be a lot less inclined to try to tackle someone,) but I'd be a lot more willing to try nonlethal force on a guy with a hammer even if I would be within my legal rights to shoot.