Four say they were attacked by gay-bashing thugs in the South End

Massachusetts has all these tortuous legal stipulations about "blows of equal force" and the like that govern "self defense". Thus shooting someone who is attacking you would not be seen as self-defense around here.

This comes up most often in cases where some tortured partner blows away an abusive spouse, or a barfight ends badly. I think it is archaic and extremely ridiculous, as someone being beaten up has no idea if grabbing a convenient object with which to stop an attack constitutes "equal force" within the boundaries of self defense, and isn't likely to stop and think about it too much.

Not even a Steak-Um sandwich (do they still make those nasty meatpaper things?).

From the linked article:

Jarvis, along with Jovan Preche Dixon, is charged with attempted first-degree murder, felony murder, first-degree murder, reckless endangerment and unlawful carrying and possession of a firearm.

The scenario referred to earlier was one involving a defensive shooting by an individual lawfully carrying a concealed weapon.

I can give you hundreds of examples where criminals open fire in public and kill innocent people.

Try again.

I think you missed the "responsible adults" clause, Kaz.

It's pretty obvious that neither gunslinger was a responsible adult. These guys were some variety of gangbanger thugs.

Please do try again. I enjoy being a spectator at this argument much more than being a participant.

Yes, I am amazed at the people who would rather be passive victims than even think about defending themselves from thugs.

If you possess, secure and use guns responsibly, there is little chance of a problem.

I also agree that a revolver would be a reliable and adequate weapon for self-defense, and a high-capacity semiautomatic would not be necessary.

I wish they wouldn't push the stereotype of 'pink' being gay. It just supports all the other stereotypes. Yay progress!

Plus, pink pistols makes me think of women. Not gays. But then again, I'm not gay.

You don't sound convinced.

Without knowing anything about the incident, but knowing quite a bit about neurology and having done therapy with many clients who've been assault victims...

It's actually really typical to remember the initial encounter with a perpetrator but then not remember details of the attack.

The reason this happens is because the brain is really, well, smart. When the brain is functioning normally, the areas are all working about equally, and we can easily shift from the brain in one way (say, spatial) to another way (say, motoric). When we're threatened, chemicals rapidly go shooting around in the brain to try and help us survive. So, when someone first sees someone, they have normal observational skills. They probably wouldn't be able to describe the person in detail, but they have a sense of how many people they were, more or less what they looked like. Now, once the people become threatening, the amygdala registers fear, and adrenaline and its friends start getting fired up. The brain is in overdrive, and the person might think a little more on their feet than usual. This is the point where people will suddenly take charge of a situation and know exactly what to do. People who don't ordinarily have a great sense of direction might bolt to the phone booth they vaguele remembering passing on the way. People who aren't normally observant will instantaneously memorize license plates. There's a lot of research showing that when people feel threatened, their memory and executive functioning are briefly quite heightened. Incidentally, this is related to why we might have flashbacks of a traumatic event. The memory is so ingrained.

This doesn't last forever, though. Once we proceed past "threatened" into "holy shit I'm gonna die" territory (this is the technical term), our brain really starts regrouping. Activity greatly decreases in areas like memory and language, because those really aren't important right now. All of the chemicals and electrical connections in our brain are working as hard as they can to stay alive. To fight, or to run, generally. (Hence "fight or flight" response). Add that to a concussion, and it makes perfect sense why someone isn't going to remember how many times they were hit, with what, by who, etc. There's also the factor of how the brain isn't great at processing stuff that comes completely unexpectedly. When you're in "holy fuck, I can't believe this is happening" mode (also the technical term), you're not focused on counting how many times you got hit or who hit you or what names they called one another or where they went afterward. You're focused on, um, that one second you were walking home, and the next minute you're getting the crap beat out of you.

http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

Of course not, thankfully, but I believe that to be barely relevant, since we're talking hypothetical. Certainly, the probability is super low.

I've never been mugged either, but MANY of my friends have.

If some kid came up to you and pulled out a knife demanding your money, would you rather a) give up your property or b) draw your gun and stand your ground?

We have the right to decide which path to take, and should respect our individual decisions and the right to exercise them.

On the same note, if I saw someone in my community being victimized as such, I would consider intervening in the situation to stop the robbery. If I didn't have a gun, I'd probably just hide, since I was unprepared to help. Calling 911 is obvious, but that is not always the optimal solution. Cops aren't perfect (nobody is), crimes go unpunished.