Interesting. I believe those who advocate concealed carry are not going to look to this incident to bolster their case.

vernon was a decent fighter. last time, i saw him fight was his lost against mayorga.

i dont know if i agree with brother charles, but i do think that if you pull out a gun, start shooting. the robbers will shoot you and chances are they had guns pulled out on them before and they wont hesitate. hesitation is what probably killed vernon. rip vern..

http://www.somewhere.org/NAR/work_excerp…

http://www.somewhere.org/NAR/work_excerp…

@3, i'm a radical pacifist. and, as you can see, not because i fear death but because i find the concept of violent confrontation to be weak one. it looks like a bad idea. and i prefer to be on the side of good and strong ideas.

You had me until the last line, which was complete nonsense. Sorry Charles but I don't believe you. What you mean is that you'd rather risk being shot down by a robber despite your passive response than be in a situation where you're exchanging gun fire with a robber.

Maybe you do crave martyrdom, but I think it more likely that you just want to project the perceived nobility of one who would sacrifice his life for the principle of non-violence. All from the safety of an internet blog.

A man was killed in a truly tragic circumstance and you use it to contrive your proclaimed moral superiority. You really are a wanker.

@9, the class that best meets my mode of feeling is the cosmopolitan class. and i mean cosmopolitan in both kants and hall/appiah sense. now how can a cosmopolitan person (a person who strives to improve, to strength civil relations) be seen carrying a gun or exchanging bullets with little people? guns have no place in the big city. if you want your guns, go out to the country and enjoy them.

@8, I meant.

Charles,
I read that piece too regarding Forrest. Thanks for relaying it. Yet another example of the fratricide. Sigh, bloody insane. It is also not too far removed from the horrible murder of NFL quarterback Steve McNair. Granted, he was killed by his mistress but yet another young black male goes down in hail of violence. This is just shocking. The sense of urgency is critical. Keep us posted Charles.

Charles, I don't think I'd like to be shot at or exchange gunfire with a robber. I think the best thing you can do is just let the car or what-have-you go....along with running like hell to the nearest safe location to call the cops. They're the ones who are trained and paid to exchange gunfire with robbers.

p.s. Ignore the machismo bull shitters calling you a coward. In any case they'd probably wet themselves if confronted with two armed robbers.

@9, I'm a bit puzzled by your response. I think maybe you misunderstood my criticism of your post. I too uphold non-violence as an ideal. I too support gun control. Happily I live in a country which has strict gun control, and far fewer incidents of gun related crime. I too would repudiate the idea of chasing attempted robbers on foot with a firearm.

My criticism relates purely to the last sentence, which was not predicated on the context of Forrest's situation. My point is twofold: 1. I'd like to think that, when faced with a difficult decision, I'd place my principles above my safety, but I've never been in that situation and therefore don't presume to know if I'd have the moral strength to hold to the ideal (not that I'd agree that non-violence precludes fighting in self-defence); and 2. I object to the way you postulate a sense of moral superiority over a man who has just been tragically murdered.

If every gun opponent was as batshit crazy as Charles Mudede, we wouldn't need the NRA.

That came out badly @15. I meant "Happily the country in which I live" not "Happily I live in a country", because I happen to love America and would love to live there, guns or no guns. Not that you'd ever know it from the fact that I spend way too much time trespassing on a US blog or anything...

Obviously, he should have carried multiple guns. Seven or eight would have done the trick.

I don't believe he (Mr. Mudede) meant to exclaim a moral superiority. I took his tone as wistful and thoughtful, and even wishful. It's a hard position to take, and as many of you have pointed out, it's even harder to know if you really will (can) hold that line when push comes to shove--nevertheless I find it positive, and for that I appreciate it.

I'm a pacifist, perhaps, its because I come from a long line of Quakers. I can't see chasing down an assailant for a car, or because they threatened me. I can't see myself owning a gun, thus, I can't see returning fire when fired upon. I do know the time I was backhanded, I didn't hit back nor did I run and cower. Still, I would never want to face the situation Mr. Forrest found himself in. His death is tragic, and could have possibly been avoided had he made a different decision, we will never know. He isn't here to share his reasoning, and we are left to wish him peace. My condolences to his family and friends.

I agree with Kim that we will never know what might have happened if Mr Forrest hadn't been armed. We only know what did happen and that it was a tragic waste. Stuff is just stuff and, in my opinion, not worth dying for. As far as predicting how one might respond in a life threatening situation with any certainty goes- I don't think you can. You won't know until it happens. I would also like to ask all those who are willing to die rather than defend themselves (and I firmly believe that pacifism is a noble and difficult concept) what they would do if it was not their own life that would be sacrificed but the life of a loved one. It gets trickier doesn't it? It's one thing to say that you will lay down your own life, it's another (and it should be) to say you would lay down the life of your child or sibling or partner.

@21: Of course, part of Charles point is that -- at least from the way the story is written -- this wasn't a life-threatening situation until the victim escalated it to one. The story implies that the killers had already given up trying to take the car, and the victim was chasing them with a gun. There is no indication he was defending himself or the car, but attempting to play cop and catch the crook. Had they not responded with force, he likely would be in jail for attempted murder.

Unless the story is a horrible misrepresentation of what occurred, this was simply someone who was very foolish and armed.

@22 Agreed.

@22, also agreed. very well put.

Lissa,

You propose a situation that I never want to face. In my heart of heart, I'd rather step in the way of a bullet, then live and know that I could have saved someone else. I'd rather take the punch, than allow someone else to be punched. Of course, being punched doesn't compare with a bullet, but I've survived the fist and so I have less fear in regard to it. You are correct, I will never know definitively until that moment. Nor, can I discount that I wouldn't hit back to defend another. I can't truly answer your question. I can only hope that I and you never have to face it.

"...someone who was very foolish and armed." Sadly, what we have all too many of right here in Seattle.

@25 Kim, I feel the same. My impulse is to protect those around me ( which might be viewed as laughable considering my itty bittyness). I too, have faced the fist, and in that case took it, as escalation on my part was not prudent. In another much more violent and indeed life threatening situation I fought back. It was a toss up who was more surprised, my attacker or myself. Every violent encounter is different. I too hope that we are never faced with my awful hypothetical.

Boy, next thing you know, Charles will be telling us we can't shoot graffiti taggers...

Why the fuck did he give chase???

Gun or not, that was stupid.

@8 hit it right on the head, well said.