From the way I read the original post, it seemed that there were 2 males. One was the aggressor, the other one was the follower. The other 2 kept walking. A 4 on 1 situation would draw a different responce from me. In some states, 4 people would represent reasonable grounds to draw a weapon. 4 unarmed people can kill you. For that matter, 1 unarmed person could kill you. The main purpose for my statement was to encourage a different state of mind thoughout the gun toting community. One, to make them aware that they do have other options that fit a particular situation. Some feel that carrying takes away their rights to basic self defence just because they have a gun. Two, to make sure they know that just because they have a gun, doesn't mean that that should be their first line of defence in the hopes that that would encourage them and others to seek more knowledge on hand to hand techniques. My line of thinking is that my gun is my last line of defence and that it should only be used once all of my other options are exhausted. Or if someone is threatening my life with deadly force. Everyones health comes into play when determining what their definition of deadly force is. But keep in mind that if everyone automatically choses a firearm to address any issue that they face, we become gun fanatics and the anti's love that.

