Hummer driver shoots, kills patron over parking space

POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Saturday, February 14, 2009 23:04
VIEWED: 5542
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:48 PM

www.wbir.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=77516&catid=16

Guy's business is probably near bankruptcy, hence his hair-trigger temper?

The insanity of self-destruction has begun. USA is deteriorating into Iraq-style chaos of civil war.

Funny how the dictators never worry about assassination, unless they vote against the banksters.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:59 PM

Shoot the guy's car, not the guy. Sheesh.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

EVILDINOSAUR

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:13 PM

And that right there is why guns for everyone is a bad policy

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by EvilDinosaur:
And that right there is why guns for everyone is a bad policy

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

Think that guy wouldn't have used a knife, if he had one ?

Quote:
Sneed says Coleman said nothing, grunted loudly and then drove the gun into his chest and backed him away.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:19 PM

and the guy who got shot, could have, had HE been armed, shot BACK.

Its called balance of power.

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:21 PM

Too many drivers are doped up or on meds causing road rage. Even high blood pressure causes road rage. Twinkies cause road rage.

Dead guy didn't have a gun. Restaurant worker didn't have a gun. Only the nutty crook had a gun.

Do the math. Then ban Twinkies. Shooter was fat.

Funny how this was an upscale restaurant, with 2 rich guys fighting over a parking spot near the front door. It's a status thing.

That's what they both get for being too lazy to walk.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:36 PM

I'll bet a box of donuts that the guy in the Hummer was on 'roids.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:13 PM

The perp pushed the gun into the guy's chest, & HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING??
It's a land of wusses, content to think & not act.

The not-laughing Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:30 PM

Jeez, if I was *that* close ya couldn't shoot me if ya wanted to!

Ya stick your left index finger behind the trigger and pull hard up and toward you - they can NOT shoot you since they cannot pull the trigger far enough back even if they break your finger, and because of the way the human hand grips, you WILL wind up with the gun.

Especially if you give them something else to think about, cause as soon as their OTHER hand reaches for the gun in reflex, I'd punt their damn testicles into low earth orbit - try holding onto the weapon THEN, ehe ?

Man, people are stupid - and yes, beat down enough that they don't even properly comprehend the concept of self defense, much less it's applications, gotta work on the former before the latter.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
and the guy who got shot, could have, had HE been armed, shot BACK.

Its called balance of power.

Thx EvilDinosaur - you beat me to it. This is in fact only one of many good reasons not to arm the populace.
So, Wulf, perfect world, they both have guns and they're both able to shoot it out in the parking lot of a Panera. Great, how many bullets hit them and how many hit the people eating their lunch? or driving by?
Have all the guns you want to protect your home, but you use a gun outside of that and they should chop off your gunhand so you can't do it again. I mean that figuratively of course.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:36 PM

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:08 PM

Thats assuming hes using one hand to hold the gun

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Thats assuming hes using one hand to hold the gun

Well yeah, if they had two hands on the gun it would be pretty difficult to take the wallet eh.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:38 PM

Krav Manga takes serious practice, I would not advise an unskilled person to go using those techniques.

Stick, grab, pull.

STICK left index finger behind trigger.

GRAB as much of the weapon as you can.

PULL towards you.

Even if the perp is 6'7" 280lbs, he cannot *shoot* you so long as you have that finger behind the trigger, and even if it's a puny 4'9" 82lb girl hanging on his arm shrieking like a berserk harpy and kicking him anywhere she can reach, it's still not going the way HE expected or wanted it to go, which gives her the advantage mentally and often physically.

And even a MUCH smaller opponent can plant one or both feet to em and roll backwards - even if the perp DOES manage somehow to hold onto the gun at all, they're gonna hit the ground quite hard, and you can then put your heels on their shoulders and wrench it from then if you have to and finesse be damned.

All it takes is the will and courage to DO it.

That's the hardest part, right there.

-F

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:38 PM

AND that there was only one attacker.

"Im smelling a lot of IF coming off this plan".

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:41 PM

Or, as I always do...

When they ask for your wallet, reach behind you like you are going to get it, and pull your gun instead.

But I like Frems way better.

Besides, what the hell were you doing that you didnt notice this guy coming up on you in the first place?

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:43 PM

Too true, there's that - but think just how many of these punks rely, even DEPEND on that very meek compliance ?

Sure, against a pack things are different, but the lone dickhead in a parking lot is so common these days *because* of that meek compliance, it only encourages them.

On the other hand, against a person who is alert and has some level of situational awareness, a pack will be visible and tagged as threat before they even approach.

-F

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:44 PM

A-fuckin-men

I mean, Krav-maga is good, and so is Brazilian Ju-jitsu...but (and I gotta give credit to Frem for pointing me a this site)...

This is pretty damn good.

www.nononsenseselfdefense.com

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
AND that there was only one attacker.

"Im smelling a lot of IF coming off this plan".

Yeah, because if you had your gun, you'd totally go Rambo and wipe out all five hundred of with the M16 you had down your trousers, right? Then sidle off without a scratch, muttering "asta la vista, baby".

If you've got multiple opponents, having a gun isn't going to level shit. Except you, when you drop with multiple gunshot wounds as you pull your 'piece'.

Not to mention people getting shot, especially with low calibre small arms like pistols, haven't received an instant death. People don't just drop down dead like in the movies you know. You're pretty likely to get shot by your opponent, even if you fatally shot them.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Not bad, but I'd go for the gun the instant I could, and tighten the space between us in the process.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If you've got multiple opponents, having a gun isn't going to level shit. Except you, when you drop with multiple gunshot wounds as you pull your 'piece'.

Better not to have a gun, then to have one and not be REAL GOOD with it IMO.

The laughing Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Not bad, but I'd go for the gun the instant I could, and tighten the space between us in the process.

I don't know, it would depend on the situation. Regardless you want to move outside the weapons engagement field, either by redirecting it like in the link, or stepping inside the arms reach. Stepping to the side while gaining touch contact on the arm, and locking it to the chest, then using the free arm to attack the soft targets of the throat, or maybe trying to break the collar bone with a side palm. That one's a favorite of debt collectors in Thailand, stops them using their arms, while also giving a potentially life threatening injury (collar bone shards can shift and puncture the lungs), so they're major concern is doing as they're told and getting to casualty.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Better not to have a gun, then to have one and not be REAL GOOD with it IMO.

Which was what I'm saying. People get a surge of power when they have a gun in their hand, but unless you're very proficient at it's use, you're more dangerous to yourself than anyone else. Also, if you're confronted on the street by an armed assailant, they'll already have their gun out, and they'll be nervous. A quick movement as you draw like the ghost of Marilyn, is most likely to end with them firing before you can bring your weapon up.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:18 PM

Granted, I*ve only had to pull that move on a guy with a knife before...

but the principle is still sound.

Fight back. Period, however you do it.

RUE

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:27 PM

"People don't just drop down dead like in the movies you know."

A guy once came into the ER - swollen and purple around the eyes, ears, and base of the skull - awake but not particularly alert. It took an X-ray to find the small caliber bullet in his brain. (He did die later of brain swelling. He just didn't drop dead right away, even with a bullet up there.)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KIRKULES

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:29 PM

If someone sticks a semi-auto pistol in your chest and you're pretty sure they're going to shoot, one thing you could try is to pull the gun into your chest as hard as possible. Most semi-autos won't fire if the slide is pushed back by even a fraction. Pulling the gun against your body might dislodge the slide enough to prevent firing, but I would recommend this only if you are very familiar with the characteristics of the gun being used and have no other choice.

A better method is demonstrated in this video, but you need to practice a lot for this one.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

Oh, that's hi-larious, Kirk! Thanks.

The laughing Chrisisall

KIRKULES

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Granted, I*ve only had to pull that move on a guy with a knife before...

but the principle is still sound.

Fight back. Period, however you do it.

I think I would try flight first even if I did have a gun and someone pulled a knife on me. FBI stats show in a gun knife encounter within 8 feet, knife wins more often. Even in a gun on gun encounter putting distance between you and foe is best move. Of course you should use suppression fire to cover your temporary retreat.

GEEZER

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Stick, grab, pull.

STICK left index finger behind trigger.

GRAB as much of the weapon as you can.

PULL towards you.

Is this right?

Assuming the shooter is right-handed, his trigger finger is gonna be in the way if you try to stick your left index finger behind the trigger. Hold an unloaded pistol in your right hand and try grabbing it as you describe with your left hand. I can't make it work very well. Right hand to right hand seems to work better. Maybe I'm missing something.

Also, if the shooter has a single-action autopistol with a sliding, rather than pivoted, trigger - such as a Model 1911 type - the trigger's pretty much solid and you can't stick your finger behind it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Also, if the shooter has a single-action autopistol with a sliding, rather than pivoted, trigger - such as a Model 1911 type - the trigger's pretty much solid and you can't stick your finger behind it.

Exactly why I prefer the re-direct method.

The laughing Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:08 AM

Good catch Geeze - As a left handed shooter, I got that one backwards, my bad.

I wasn't addressing solid triggers cause I was trying to keep it simple for the sake of this discussion so it doesn't get run off the rails like it always does.

As for multiple opponents = dead ?

I call bullshit.

Here's how THAT goes.

A gun isn't a magic wand, and as the link Wulfie reposted will tell you, proper self-defense often prevents it from ever coming to that, but if you have trained appropriately with your weapon, taking the initiative and putting the fight on YOUR terms means you stand a damned good chance of coming out ok.

Much better than trusting in the "mercy" of someone who's ALREADY pointed a gun at you, threatened you, committed one or more crimes against you and needs only apply less than 5lbs of pressure to end your life.

That's bad fucking odds any way you slice it, and the perception that people SHOULD just meekly obey gets them killed, aids and abets those who prey upon them, and is indirectly responsible for this type of crime being so rampant.

Trusting them not to shoot you is like trusting a rapist to use a condom, it's suicidally idiotic.

When dealing with a multiple opponent mugging or robbery, you're usually dealing with a gang, and the punks in front of you might not even be armed, but the backup guy standing nice and safely out of your reach probably is.
You take him FIRST, and then clean up the other two while they're standing there dumbfounded that you didn't cower and beg for mercy.

But if you don't let em get the drop on you in the first damned place, it never comes to that.

The ONLY time you should ever play along at all is if they absolutely have the drop on you and you're waiting for a chance to haul ass or till they blink.

Not really gonna go all into detail on how to turn the tide, but lemme put it this way, three guys with three guns are gonna go after something worth a little more than a single wallet - so you're taking a VERY rare scenario and putting it up front and center to dodge the simple fact that being armed *IS* a valid and positive factor in preventing violent crimes against your person.

Although not nearly as effective as not winding up in that situation to begin with, Animal knows his shit, and I highly reccommend you read through his site if yer gonna argue the point.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/self-defense.htm

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
As for multiple opponents = dead ?

I call bullshit.

Here's how THAT goes.

Hmm, yes I believe I also mentioned something about real life being nothing like the movies as well, but I'm sure Tom Cruise would disagree, but then Tom Cruise wouldn't know the real world if it popped up and gave him an interview.

I'm not sure how a clip from a Hollywood movie even begins to disprove how overwhelmingly fucked you are if you're confronted with multiple armed opponents. It's a story, fiction, not real.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
A gun isn't a magic wand, and as the link Wulfie reposted will tell you, proper self-defense often prevents it from ever coming to that, but if you have trained appropriately with your weapon, taking the initiative and putting the fight on YOUR terms means you stand a damned good chance of coming out ok.

I think that was my point. It's also why I say weapons should be licensed, because someone who just buys a gun to feel safe, and never bothers to learn how to use it, is probably more dangerous than the muggers and nutters in the first place.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Much better than trusting in the "mercy" of someone who's ALREADY pointed a gun at you, threatened you, committed one or more crimes against you and needs only apply less than 5lbs of pressure to end your life.

That's bad fucking odds any way you slice it, and the perception that people SHOULD just meekly obey gets them killed, aids and abets those who prey upon them, and is indirectly responsible for this type of crime being so rampant.

It's not as stupid as you make out. Murder is a whole different deal to armed robbery, and you're far more likely to survive by letting them steal from you and get away.

Vigilantism kills too, yanno, and it's most likely the vigilante that gets it. An automatic assumption that you're the ghost of Rambo and it'll work like in the movies, is more likely to get you killed than anything else. Saying that they're most likely to shoot you simply isn't born out by the facts. If it was shootings would be close too, or higher than muggings, and that simply isn't the case. The latter grossly out numbers the former, showing that even if every shooting was a mugging ending in death, then most muggings don't end in violence.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
When dealing with a multiple opponent mugging or robbery, you're usually dealing with a gang, and the punks in front of you might not even be armed, but the backup guy standing nice and safely out of your reach probably is.
You take him FIRST, and then clean up the other two while they're standing there dumbfounded that you didn't cower and beg for mercy.

Just like in the movies?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:10 PM

I agree with Frem on this one.

The best way to make yourself a victim is to ACT like one.

However, if you fight, or even show them that you are WILLING to fight, they will move on. But, if you do HAVE to fight, use everything you have at your disposal and make sure THEY are the ones left on the ground.

This should be self-explanatory. When the dog packs come, you have to be a wolf, and fight them off. Not a sheep. Not prey.

Oh, and Frem, you'd be doing me a favor by either calling me Wulf, or Wulfenstar. Not Wulfie.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

However, if you fight, or even show them that you are WILLING to fight, they will move on. But, if you do HAVE to fight, use everything you have at your disposal and make sure THEY are the ones left on the ground.

Isn't that contradictory?

1) Fight - or even look like you would.

2) If you fight - WIN!

-- how is that compatible? Because I think most people are simply NOT going to have what it takes to fight and win because they simply lack the practice of going up against violent armed thugs.

If you give advice, you should make sure it's consistent.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:21 PM

How is it contradictory?

Give the thugs every reason to believe that you will not be an easy target. Keep your situational awareness up, don't let them come in at a bad angle ect...

And THEN, if they still come at you, FIGHT with everything you've got.

An example: My aunt-in-law beat off a mugger who was trying to taker her purse. She didn't have a gun, but she had about 50 yards of guts, and a Dominican attitude backing THAT up. She kicked and punched the guy, all the while screaming profanities in Spanglish.

Btw, shes in her 60s.

Don't be prey. Its that simple.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:33 PM

I guess thew consecutive nature of this advice didn't come acrpss well with your assurance that they WOULD back off if you appear willing to fight.

And the guy who attacked your aunt had a gun pointed at her when he approached her? Did this take place in a dark, secluded spot?

I mean, wow, my sincere admiration to her, but I don't know much about being mugged, having luckily never experienced such a thing, and I can't judge how representative this example would be of the kind of gun-assisted crime we were talking about here. It certain doesn't sound like the example Frem used with his little Tom Crise video.

GEEZER

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:35 PM

"When the victim fell, the man calmly put his gun in his back pocket and told his wife 'That man won't be hitting you again".

Sneed says Coleman's wife was very irate and was involved in the initial verbal argument with Schwerin."

I can reconstruct the whole thing from this quote and the photo of Coleman.

Two big SUVs next to each other in parking spaces made for normal cars. Coleman's wife, who's as big as he is, can't get out of the passenger side because, even if both SUVs parked dead center in their spaces, she's too fat to get through a partially opened door. When she complains to Mr. Schwerin, who just parked his SUV and is waiting for his kids, he points this out. Mrs. Coleman goes ballistic and attacks him. He defends himself. Mrs. Coleman calls her husband's manhood into question for not defending her honor. Husband knows how this goes, and decides shooting the guy and going to prison is the lesser of two evils.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"When the victim fell, the man calmly put his gun in his back pocket and told his wife 'That man won't be hitting you again".

Sneed says Coleman's wife was very irate and was involved in the initial verbal argument with Schwerin."

I can reconstruct the whole thing from this quote and the photo of Coleman.

Two big SUVs next to each other in parking spaces made for normal cars. Coleman's wife, who's as big as he is, can't get out of the passenger side because, even if both SUVs parked dead center in their spaces, she's too fat to get through a partially opened door. When she complains to Mr. Schwerin, who just parked his SUV and is waiting for his kids, he points this out. Mrs. Coleman goes ballistic and attacks him. He defends himself. Mrs. Coleman calls her husband's manhood into question for not defending her honor. Husband knows how this goes, and decides shooting the guy and going to prison is the lesser of two evils.

We need to license Biggie Fries.

That scenario sounds completely plausible too.
Item # 2 in "Obvious F*cking Reasons not to Arm the Populace."

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
However, if you fight, or even show them that you are WILLING to fight, they will move on. But, if you do HAVE to fight, use everything you have at your disposal and make sure THEY are the ones left on the ground.

Someone points a gun at you and demands your wallet. They don't WANT to kill you, they WANT your wallet. IF you hand over your wallet, they've got what they want, and they'll leave. IF you act like billy badass and fight back, you're forcing them to take violent action. YOU are turning an unpalatable, yet non-violent situation, into a violent one. It would be your pride taking control, not some objective assessment of the real danger, and frankly forcing a situation to become deadly unnecessarily isn't smart.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:24 PM

Right.

Thats exactly what the passengers did on the planes on 9/11. They became passive, because that it what they had been taught to do.

Look where it got them.

Some fought back, and even tho they died doing it, they saved hundreds (if not thousands more).

The ideology of submission is just not as ingrained in the American mindset as it is in other parts of the world.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Right.

Thats exactly what the passengers did on the planes on 9/11. They became passive, because that it what they had been taught to do.

Look where it got them.

Some fought back, and even tho they died doing it, they saved hundreds (if not thousands more).

The ideology of submission is just not as ingrained in the American mindset as it is in other parts of the world.

Right, so the one extremist outlandish 0.0001% occurrence, is what you take to dictate actions in the other 99.999% of times. And you think that's smart, right?

Well the 'ideology of submission' might not be as ingrained in the American mindset, but apparently prideful stupidity more than makes up for it.

Seriously, 99.999% of the time, what the passengers did on 9/11 would be exactly the right thing to do. Hijackers don't hijack planes to fly them into buildings. They've done it once, in one coordinated attack, and likely will never do it again, because it's the fact that it had never been done before that let it work. But taking that single, most likely never to be repeated occurrence and using it's example to dictate what happens in all situations, really isn't intelligent.

If your pride is that important to you, go ahead force the situation and get yourself killed, rather than 'meekly complying' and surviving. I really don't care if your self proclaimed hard man image is more important to you than your life. I'll tell you what, I'll submit your name to the Darwin Awards myself. Just don't act like your decision is the sane and intelligent one, when it's exactly the opposite. If anyone was stupid enough to take your internet tough guy act as real intelligent advice, they'll most likely end up dead.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

GEEZER

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:54 PM

Cit, let me correct your statement.

"Someone points a gun at you and demands your wallet. They may or may not WANT to kill you, they WANT your wallet. IF you hand over your wallet, they may have what they want, and they may or may not leave."

Unless you're a mindreader, you got no idea whether a robber will be satisfied with your money, or wants to kill you to either remove witnesses or build a rep with his cronies.

In metro D.C. many robberies end with compliant victims either shot or badly beaten because the robbers consider it a status-building thing to do so.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:03 PM

This is what I get for replying to anything Cit says.

Forget it.

Oh, and Geezer, it cracks me up that more shooting happen in D.C....especially when the "handgun ban" was in place. Cus, you know, banning guns actually works!

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Oh, and Geezer, it cracks me up that more shooting happen in D.C....especially when the "handgun ban" was in place. Cus, you know, banning guns actually works!

Since someone can go out of D.C. and buy a weapon from somewhere it is legal in the same country, this isn't even a halfway worthwhile example.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
This is what I get for replying to anything Cit says.

Forget it.

Yes, you get me speaking to you, the way you speak to me. If you don't like being spoken to the way you speak to others, maybe you should grow up and speak to other people the way you want to be spoken to.

Or yeah, just forget it. I mean, for someone talking about how hard he is, and how he'll bust a cap in the ass of fifteen robbers cause he's the worlds last action hero, you sure get all pussified and whinny pretty damn quick over words.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Unless you're a mindreader, you got no idea whether a robber will be satisfied with your money, or wants to kill you to either remove witnesses or build a rep with his cronies.

Well the fact they didn't just shoot you and then take you wallet, which would be much easier, is a clue. Still in the vast majority of situations, instantly jumping in with the Rambo act because they're DARING to rob YOU, vastly drops your survival probability, not increases it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
In metro D.C. many robberies end with compliant victims either shot or badly beaten because the robbers consider it a status-building thing to do so.

Then metro DC is a complete aberration. But really this sounds more like tabloid scaremongering to me, have you got something to back this up?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:22 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

Homicide: 30.8

Robbery: 724.3
Larceny-theft: 2954.7
Motor vehicle theft: 1291.9

Or in other words most robberies, car jackings and thefts DON'T end in homicide. Which basically supports what I was saying. Especially since most of those homicides would have nothing to do with robberies (most people are killed by family members or people known to them, true story).

Unless you posted that to support your gun ban thing (you see since you didn't say, I have to guess)? Well in that case, it still doesn't support you. I don't actually support an outright ban on firearms, but taking a small localised area where guns aren't available, surrounded by areas where they are, as proving anything about a ban on gun ownership is just plain silly.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:39 PM

http://dc.everyblock.com/crime/locations/neighborhoods/southwest-water
front/

Edit: These are what have been REPORTED. And are from the South West area. The South East area is a 3rd world war zone.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:51 PM

How does this support your case?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KWICKO

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Oh, and Geezer, it cracks me up that more shooting happen in D.C....especially when the "handgun ban" was in place. Cus, you know, banning guns actually works!

Since someone can go out of D.C. and buy a weapon from somewhere it is legal in the same country, this isn't even a halfway worthwhile example.

Actually, it's a marvellous example - of how gun bans dis-arm law-abiding citizens and make armed citizens criminals. You end up with people who are armed automatically being criminals, and people who are law-abiding automatically becoming unarmed potential victims. Criminals COUNT ON their victims being unarmed and unable to resist, and gun bans reward them for thinking that. Concealed-carry laws, on the other hand, HAVEN'T resulted in widespread shoot-outs, gutters running red with the blood of victims of vigilantism, or any of the other horror stories that we were told would come about in the aftermath of their passing into law.

A concealed-carry licensee losing it and blowing someone away in traffic, or because of a parking space, is a LESS THAN 0.00001% occurrence - it's more rare than an American dying as the result of an Al Qaeda hijacking.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Actually, it's a marvellous example - of how gun bans dis-arm law-abiding citizens and make armed citizens criminals. You end up with people who are armed automatically being criminals, and people who are law-abiding automatically becoming unarmed potential victims. Criminals COUNT ON their victims being unarmed and unable to resist, and gun bans reward them for thinking that. Concealed-carry laws, on the other hand, HAVEN'T resulted in widespread shoot-outs, gutters running red with the blood of victims of vigilantism, or any of the other horror stories that we were told would come about in the aftermath of their passing into law.

It proves nothing. It doesn't prove that a gun ban causes higher crime rates, and it certainly doesn't prove, or even suggest that a country wide ban would. I'm not saying I'm for a gun ban, quite the oppoiste, what I am saying is that pointing to DC and saying "see, gun bans cause crime/don't work" is just sophistry.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
A concealed-carry licensee losing it and blowing someone away in traffic, or because of a parking space, is a LESS THAN 0.00001% occurrence - it's more rare than an American dying in an Al Qaeda hijacking.

I really rather doubt it. I'm pretty certain that American deaths from Al Qaeda pale in comparison to those from gun shot wounds inflicted by legal weapons, either through illegal or legal shootings. Not that it matters, because it's completely besides the point.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

GEEZER

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Since someone can go out of D.C. and buy a weapon from somewhere it is legal in the same country, this isn't even a halfway worthwhile example.

Well, not legally. A person living in the District, or any U.S. state, for that matter, can only legally possess a firearm if they brought it with them when they moved there, bought it in that state, or had it shipped to them through a Federally licensed firearms dealer within their state. Since, AFAIK, there are no Federally licensed firearms dealers in D.C., it's kinda hard for current residents to legally get guns. This doesn't prevent the folks who will hold you up and shoot you from having guns, just makes it hard for the law-abiding to do anything about it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Well, not legally. A person living in the District, or any U.S. state, for that matter, can only legally possess a firearm if they brought it with them when they moved there, bought it in that state, or had it shipped to them through a Federally licensed firearms dealer within their state. Since, AFAIK, there are no Federally licensed firearms dealers in D.C., it's kinda hard for current residents to legally get guns. This doesn't prevent the folks who will hold you up and shoot you from having guns, just makes it hard for the law-abiding to do anything about it.

Fair enough, but that was basically my point. People aren't prevented from entering D.C. the same way borders are controlled, so the D.C. ban only affects people living in D.C., not necessarily in D.C. I don't see how that circumstance can be used as a cogent example of a national gun ban. Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with a national ban here there or anywhere, it's just the "D.C. has a ban and high crime figures !PROOF!" argument is just plain bad.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:24 PM

There seems to be this thing embedded in the US male psyche that goes, roughly, "I'm special b/c I'm a man with a gun".

You'd think there's be other ways to feel special, like wearing pretty underthings and using scented skin creams.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:36 PM

It really cracks me up when women argue AGAINST being armed.

I mean, really?

In all seriousness, women are the easiest to overpower and do all sorts of nastiness to.

So, really, they SHOULD be armed. A 100lb woman with a gun, vs a 300lb man w/out a gun.

TRUE EQUALITY OF THE SEXES.

RUE

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:58 PM

The nastiness-delivering person is usually a husband, boyfriend, boss, or otherwise known to her. Simply 'having a gun' isn't going to change the situation the woman is in. Get real.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:10 PM

Cit, the clip is just a visual example to keep it simple.

But if you want more evidence, as opposed to just snarking cause your plastic bubble reality doesn't fit the concept, then consider that EXACT scenario is what is described by...

Massad Ayoob
Rex Applegate
Jelly Bryce
Bill Jordan

And others who damn well oughta know what the hell they're talking about.

I was trying to keep it simple, and you are as usual trying to derail the thread because harsh reality is interfering with your bubble.

And frankly, as stated - you do NOT know what they will do, what their intentions are, and counting on them being unwilling to violate the law against murder when they just broke a couple others in confronting you with a weapon makes no damn SENSE.

If you don't resist, you may or may not be killed, but you will certainly encourage the perp to continue.

If you do resist, you may or may not be killed, but you're not REWARDING THAT BEHAVIOR.

And let's get THIS straight, about what I said and how you distort it whenever you get the chance.

The IDEA of proper self defense is not letting some punk or punks get the drop on you like that by learning and using situational awareness to your advantage, HOWEVER...

If they utterly and completely have the drop on you, YES, you play along, rather than make a suicidal and stupid glorycharge, which you ASSUME, falsely and deliberately despite everything I've said, is the advice I am offering, and you're doing that maliciously and deliberately, pasting a strawman overtop my argument cause you cannot accept that the world works differently than your preconceptions would have it.

The punk on the other end of that weapon, he's a fuckin moron - or he'd be doing something smarter than a short term dead end proposition to get money - IS THAT CLEAR ?

That means he's very, VERY likely to do something stupid, from shooting you by accident, to not chambering a round or disengaging the safety, looking away or being distracted, not continuing to point the weapon at you, or hell, even dropping the damned thing when trying to pull it on you.
(This is more common than you think, ask a liquor store owner in a rough neigborhood)

If you wanna call hollywood bullshit and point out the fact that people ain't superhuman, then you CAN NOT assume those characteristics on behalf of the attacker either, who's probably not in good mental or physical shape, who happens to be a moron, and is all too likely to be jonesing for a fix, all of which counts hard against him when coming up against a person who has the ultimate CCW - a working intellect.

You drop the wallet handing it over, he looks down, that's all it takes, especially if you happen to be armed, you slap his weapon out of line, step into him and empty the fucking clip into his chest cavity.

And if you wanna know why I am such a dick about this...
You know how I wound UP with my first pistol ?

Back in 88 I had some punk in south baltimore hold me up for $22.00 - and screw it, he had a gun, stood well out of reach and had the drop on me cause I was tired from working a double and not paying attention to corners as I shoulda.

He gets the money, and after a longish pause, blinks hard twice, visibly twitches and I SEE his knuckles whiten as he nerves himself up to shoot me anyway - so I charge his ass, fully expecting to die, or at least get shot, but that's what he was GOING TO DO ANYWAY.

And the gun doesn't go off, which results in a pretty damn severe rough and tumble, common enough in that neighborhood that it ain't worth calling the cops who'd as like arrest you as the other guy.

And leaves me walking away fairly roughed up myself, with a small 9mm automatic, with a full mag and no round in the chamber.
(that being why it didn't fire)

That little scene so profoundly affected my way of lookin at things that to speak of it now and simply close my eyes brings it back in every tiniest detail down the graffitti on the back wall of the nearby Rite-Aid.

I didn't think to roll him and take back my cash, as

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

The punk on the other end of that weapon, he's a fuckin moron - or he'd be doing something smarter than a short term dead end proposition to get money - IS THAT CLEAR ?

Yeah, LOL, chances are he's not an agent of SPECTRE or anything.

The laughing Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:23 PM

Quote:
The nastiness-delivering person is usually a husband, boyfriend, boss, or otherwise known to her. Simply 'having a gun' isn't going to change the situation the woman is in. Get real.

That's actually worthy of it's own whole topic.

One of the nastiest things I run into in dealing with broken people is how others refuse to see the danger to them, or are dismissive/disbelieving of it.

That's gotten better in the past ten years or so as regards domestic violence, but the problem is still there, especially with police who have such a damn jock/bully criminal mindset themselves that they will empathise with the abuser and assume you're overreacting.

Those who find themselves trapped in these situations are facing problems a weapon in and of itself isn't gonna solve, and that's a fact - even if they do nerve themself up to use it, it's a rather final solution to a temporary problem.

What they REALLY need is to extricate themselves from the situation, and although our little collective doesn't do that, we know folks who do, both official and otherwise.

BACA is actually downright heroic in helping prevent a former abuser from using partial custody or visitation rights as a wedge to lever themselves back into a position of dominance.
http://www.bacausa.com/

Again, the point of proper self-defense is to never *need* to deploy or use a weapon, but there may well come a time at least once in your life, statistically, where you may very well have to.

The weapon is but the smallest part of a much larger whole, and although I do believe by now you're well aware that's what I am saying, Rue...

I wish others would get it through their thick heads.

-F

KIRKULES

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There seems to be this thing embedded in the US male psyche that goes, roughly, "I'm special b/c I'm a man with a gun".

You'd think there's be other ways to feel special, like wearing pretty underthings and using scented skin creams.

I think what you say is true for some men. Handguns are often nothing more than a penis extension to compensate for feelings of inadiquecy. That's why I feel sorry for Citizen and Dreamtrove. Due to legal restrictions they are unable to compensate for their obvious feelings of inadequacy, so they lash out against gun owning males with their displaced anger. Their attempts at demonizing gun ownership by perpetuating negative stereotypes of gun owners is nothing more than penis envy. They would be as pro-gun as any if they could just get a big enough pistol in their hands. I think all it would take for Citizen is a nice little Walther PPK, unfortunately for Dreamtrove he would need to go with the S&W .44 Magnum.

RUE

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:29 PM

Spoken like a true 'little' man.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KIRKULES

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Spoken like a true 'little' man.

My wife would appreciate your sympathy.

Over compensated Kirkules

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:57 PM

Christ Frem, you're one hell of a hypocrite when you choose to be, you know that? All those things you've just accused me of, well seems to me they fit you at least twice as well as they do me.

Sniping because my plastic bubble doesn't fit the concept? Lol, have you even read your own statements, I guess not if you typed that one with a straight face.

Uhuh, it's my bubble. Seems to me it's you and wulf trying to derail the thread, some people don't like the suggestion that the real world doesn't work the same way as the Hollywood movies they live vicariously through, I guess. But yeah, it's me living in a fantasy world, you really ARE Rambo.

I note for the record that your cute little anecdote is you saying you did exactly what I said you should do. So thanks for agreeing with me, even if you had to do it after throwing out the insults, snark and trolling that you accuse me of, maybe because YOU can't handle YOUR precious assumptions being questioned?

If you bothered to read, or at least approach honestly, my comments, you should have picked up a few things. First I'm not all for a gun ban, and I'm not blaming guns for peoples actions (seems to me that that is the sort of argument wulf was making, it's not people committing crimes in D.C., it's the gun ban). Second I didn't say don't defend yourself, I said don't push a situation in to a fatal one if it doesn't need to be. If that means 'meekly' handing over your wallet, and taking the pride hit, then so be it. You'll survive. And frankly most confrontations like the ones you get out of your tree about don't end with the victim getting shot regardless. As eloquently shown by all the data submitted thus far. Would you care to explain away how the homicide rate can be that much lower than the armed robbery rates, if damn near every single armed robbery ends in a murder? Or would you prefer to ignore evidence that doesn't fit in your bubble in preference of telling people their snarking because they don't accept a movie clip and your say so as the final word?

So lets just assume, just assume for a second mind you, that the evidence is right, and your assumption is wrong. I know it's an awful big and crazy step, but lets give it a shot eh? Maybe we'll both learn something if you listen to someone else for once? So, lets assume that most armed robberies don't end with the perp going psycho and shooting, which if you stopped for a second and actually thought about it, you might realise would be one of the worst possible outcomes for them as well. In that case, given that by attacking you're forcing a violent conflict that had a low probability of happening in the first place, how does that improve your chances of survival? Because if they were most likely to take your wallet and leave otherwise, it seems that your course of action, attacking first regardless, would actually LOWER your chances of survival.

Third, and last for now, I don't consider either side of the gun to be super human. I consider one side to be twitchy, nervous and to have a finger on the trigger of a gun pointed at your chest. While adversely I consider the person on the other end of that gun to have no weapons in their hands. In short all the cards are in the assailants favour, all they have to do to drop you is squeeze, while you have to pull off some improbable misdirection and high speed draw, seldom seen out side of films starring Clint Eastwood. But yeah, thinking they've got the upper hand is TOTALLY thinking they're superhuman.

Just thought I'd state that before YOU try and twist my statements into something they're not AGAIN.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think what you say is true for some men. Handguns are often nothing more than a penis extension to compensate for feelings of inadiquecy. That's why I feel sorry for Citizen and Dreamtrove. Due to legal restrictions they are unable to compensate for their obvious feelings of inadequacy, so they lash out against gun owning males with their displaced anger. Their attempts at demonizing gun ownership by perpetuating negative stereotypes of gun owners is nothing more than penis envy. They would be as pro-gun as any if they could just get a big enough pistol in their hands. I think all it would take for Citizen is a nice little Walther PPK, unfortunately for Dreamtrove he would need to go with the S&W .44 Magnum.

I don't know where to begin. Perhaps actually reading what I wrote would be a fair start?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
a finger on the trigger of a gun pointed at your chest

I am Iron Man.

The laughing Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:32 PM

Its so funny when Rue, Citizen, and Sig accuse others of being trolls...

Hell, they are like the Sisters from Shawshank.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Its so funny when Rue, Citizen, and Sig accuse others of being trolls...

Hell, they are like the Sisters from Shawshank.

Or in other words, look at Wulf prove me right.

You just want me to be one of the sisters, but seriously Wulfie, wishful thinking isn't gonna get you what you want. Time to drop this crush you have on me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

PIRATENEWS

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:44 PM

Can't grab behind a trigger on a Colt 1911, but you can grab the hammer to stop firing, and grab the slide to prevent cycling.

The hardest part of hitting a target is adrenaline rush causing Parkinson symptoms.

Unless it's point blank range. One witness said he put the gun in his mouth...

That's why Glocks are so dangerous, since there's no real Safety switch. Any twitch on the trigger and it goes off. Cops use the "Glock Defense" when they shoot handcuffed prisoners on their knees point-blank to the head.

UPDATE: STOCK BROKER STUFFS BEAR IN HOUSE, SHOOTS PATRON IN PARKING LOT

Attorney: Accused shooter in parking-lot killing regretful, posts $500,000 bail, says Not Guilty by self-defense, Handgun Carry Permit suspended
www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/feb/09/cordova-man-accused-killing-
man-car-dispute-makes-/

Quote:
Schwerin was a mechanic at FedEx for 21 years and a co-owner of Dacosa Speedway in Byhalia, a go-kart track modeled after Talladega Superspeedway. "He was all they had, after their mother passed away," said the victim's brother, John "Butch" Schwerin.

The incident apparently began outside the Villa Castrioti restaurant, where Schwerin and his children were celebrating the birthdays of his father and father-in-law.

But on the way out, according to Dallas, Schwerin and a woman began arguing over how close his GMC Yukon Denali was to her Hummer.

At that point, Harry Coleman joined the argument, which then seemed to dim. But then it boiled over again, Dallas said, leading Coleman to reach into the Hummer for his gun. He then walked back to where Schwerin stood and shot him in the torso, according to the police affidavit.

Police took him into custody there and found the gun in his back pocket.

www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/feb/08/8shootingweb/?feedback=1#com
ments

SELF DEFENSE STORY 1

In USAF my boss was a big black guy, who liked to tell the story of a mugger who wanted his boombox.

He was standing on a crowded sidewalk in Portland Oregon, with a gun to his head. Folks just walked around them on both sides, ignoring them. Nobody stopped to help nor call the cops.

So with his free hand, he punched the little mugger as hard as he could in the face. Mugger dropped to the ground, unconscious.

"Victim" kept walking with his boombox, with a little skip to his step.

SELF DEFENSE STORY 2

While walkign down a sidewalk, an off-duty NYPD detective was recognized by a disgruntled felon he had arrested.

Felon grabbed him by the neck, face to face, and was choking him to death.

Detective had a concealed handgun behind his back.

Detective grabbed his gun and put it to the forehead of the felon, whose eyes got very big.

Then he pulled the trigger.

Game over.

RUE

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:54 PM

"Its so funny when Rue, Citizen, and Sig accuse others of being trolls..."

Wulf, it's so funny, or maybe really really sad, when you read words that aren't there.

Medication will help that.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:

Can't grab behind a trigger on a Colt 1911, but you can grab the hammer to stop firing

Who wants it to keep from firin'? Once I got that thing turned the opposite direction....

The laughing Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:09 AM

Go back and read what you wrote, and ponder how that is *going* to come across to anyone but you, especially when you layer it with insult.

Factually, in most of the weapon-involved confrontations I've been in, they never get the damned thing out - because of this.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/pyramid.html
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html

But most especially this.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/positioning.htm
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/shadow_dancing.htm
Only the really, truly STUPID crooks will continue to press it against someone who is aware of them and actively positioning to counter them.

And if they do, and you have properly detected and countered their "interview" and their positioning, when they do decide to act it will be at a significant disadvantage, which is damned rare, but does on occasion happen, cause crooks of this type are generally stupid.

And for the record, most "armed robberies" are convenience store grabs, and utterly dependant on the well-known no-resistance policies of such, they know damned well they will face no resistance and it thus encourages them.

And if you're gonna sit there and throw a damned temper tantrum at me along with accusations of not knowing stuff that often enough, my very life has depended upon, and that I happen to be in a financially sound business related to, you go right on ahead then.

Improbable misdirection my ass, you drop the item he desperately WANTS, while he's jonesing for a fix, that IS where his attention is going to go, or is basic elementary psychology non-existent in your concept of self defense ?

You act like it's some kind of superhuman feat to physically shove another average sized human while drawing a weapon from a holster designed for exactly the purpose of carrying it while offering swift and easy access - have you never fired a gun before ?
*(See Disclaimer)

It's not rocket science, nor does it require blinding reflexes when you're engaging someone who EXPECTED you to meekly submit and start begging for mercy.

That whole cooperate thing can indeed encourage an assailant to do worse, Kathy makes some mention of it on her own site, which I also reccommend.
http://www.corneredcat.com/Mindset/boundaries.aspx

When you're down on your knees waiting for the bullet is a bit too late to be thinking about resisting, isn't it ?

That's an assesment only YOU can make, when to resist at all costs, not one that you should ever allow someone else to make for you - and mine happens to come at a different point than yours, because I am of the opinion if you are not *allowed* to defend what you have, then in truth you have nothing at all.

-Frem
*Disclaimer - I did mention before that I shoot at USPSA events yes ?

Helping out the newcomers will give you a pretty good idea what someone with a minimum of training is and isn't capable of, and I am basing on that primarily, rather than on folk who shoot competitavely as a matter of course.

You seriously, SERIOUSLY underestimate the abilities of someone with even three days worth of decent training, in all honesty.

GEEZER

Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Fair enough, but that was basically my point. People aren't prevented from entering D.C. the same way borders are controlled, so the D.C. ban only affects people living in D.C., not necessarily in D.C. I don't see how that circumstance can be used as a cogent example of a national gun ban.

Then consider Jamaica. They imposed a virtual gun ban in 1974, and have both high firearms murder rates and high murder rates in general. Murder rate per capita is third in the world after South Africa and Brazil. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-cap
ita
News reports indicate most murders are firearms related. e.g.:
"Figures released by the Jamaican police indicate that between January 1, 2005 and May 31 last year, 5,068 people were murdered. Of that number, 78 per cent were killed with a gun. More than 2,000 others were shot and injured during the same period."

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20090207/news/news5.html

I'd suggest that legal availability of firearms has a lot less to do with crime than the socio-economic conditions that obtain in a particular area, and that if those conditions aren't addressed, gun control isn't going to reduce gun violence much at all. It's just going to create a class of law-abiding victims.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:16 AM

How are they getting their guns ?

It seems to me that if the police are on the take, and they probably are, then a gun ban is going to be about as effective as a Columbian war on drugs.

Or, to be extremely explicit - not at all. So, if you have a non-ban on guns, how does that predict the potential effectiveness of a real ban on guns ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:28 AM

You read other stories here, about Martial Law being 5 hours away from happening, honest personal accounts of dealing with thugs and criminals....and yet... someone STILL wants the people to be disarmed.

Amazing.

Why yes. I am stabbing a spork into my leg. Hilarious.

RUE

Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:43 AM

WHO wants people to be disarmed ? Please find the quote.

***************************************************************

Or are you reading words that aren't there, again ?

ETA - Rather than posting again, and assuming you've read this first part of my post - Geezer came up with a statistic about one country's gun ban, despite the fact that no one here was calling for one. Citizen went out of his way to point out in each of his posts that that was NOT what he was talking about.

I thought that Geezer's statistic was unhelpful, and pointed out where and why I thought it went wrong.

I can disagree with a post, and NOT be supporting the opposite. I can disagree with Geezer's example, and not be promoting a gun ban.

CITIZEN

Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Go back and read what you wrote, and ponder how that is *going* to come across to anyone but you, especially when you layer it with insult.

An interesting comment, since I copied your tone and style of posting for my last post to you. Maybe you should go back and ponder how your posts go across to anyone but you? I just assumed you were a big boy who spoke to others in a way you wouldn't mind being spoken to. Did I make a mistake?

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And for the record, most "armed robberies" are convenience store grabs, and utterly dependant on the well-known no-resistance policies of such, they know damned well they will face no resistance and it thus encourages them.

Or in other words, no, you can't explain it away, or bring up evidence to support your case.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And if you're gonna sit there and throw a damned temper tantrum at me along with accusations of not knowing stuff that often enough, my very life has depended upon, and that I happen to be in a financially sound business related to, you go right on ahead then.

Hey, I'm just speaking to you the way you spoke to me. If you interpret that as a tempertantrum, then it wasn't MY tempertantrum that was being shdowed, eh. Read through your post and then mine a few times, you might just get it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You act like it's some kind of superhuman feat to physically shove another average sized human while drawing a weapon from a holster designed for exactly the purpose of carrying it while offering swift and easy access - have you never fired a gun before ?

Nope, I'm saying that they're way more likely to be able to shoot you before you camn do it, because their weapon is trained on you, and yours isn't trained on them. If you're capable of certain things, you have to accept that they are as well, I believe you said that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
When you're down on your knees waiting for the bullet is a bit too late to be thinking about resisting, isn't it ?

Oh Hyperbole, that'll prove me wrong. If you're being told to drop to your knees I'd say that would be time to fight back.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That's an assesment only YOU can make, when to resist at all costs, not one that you should ever allow someone else to make for you - and mine happens to come at a different point than yours, because I am of the opinion if you are not *allowed* to defend what you have, then in truth you have nothing at all.

Please reread some of my comments. Maybe you'll know what I actually said, or of course you can continue to assume I said stuff I didn't so you don't have to accept you might not be entirely right, of course. As I said to Wulf, you can pull a gun straight away, and run the much higher risk of getting shot to death if you want, just don't be telling people that that is the only sane and intelligent course, when the evidence clearly says otherwise.

I asked a lot of questions in my post, you've been fully unable to answer a single one.

CITIZEN

Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I'd suggest that legal availability of firearms has a lot less to do with crime than the socio-economic conditions that obtain in a particular area, and that if those conditions aren't addressed, gun control isn't going to reduce gun violence much at all. It's just going to create a class of law-abiding victims.

I would agree. In fact I think I voiced a similar statement in an earlier thread awhile back. But even the Jamaica example doesn't prove or even suggest that gun bans cause crime increases, which was what I was arguing against.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:27 PM

Re: Armed Robberies/Convenience/Liquor stores.

This is empirical, and while not sure if actual statistics exist, most perps with a pistol will knock over a 7-11 or other convenience store if they can, which is *why* most of them limit the cash in the register.

I dunno if they do that over the water, but not only do they do so here, they did it in direct response to their no-resistance policy making them primary targets.

And not only do they do so, they post a damn sign on the door indicating this, more or less telling the perps there's less than fifty bucks in the register to discourage them, which mostly doesn't, or at least didn't for the one in Curtiss Bay, which due to this had a serious problem keeping staff.

Oddly enough, I guess the owner made enough profit to offset the place being robbed twice a week on average - the usual method of bribing the cops with free coffee to do their paperwork in the parking lot didn't work neither cause they cannot respond in that neighborhood in anything less than overwhelming force due to the hatred of the local population for em.

Anyhows, the perps can't be *sure* that joe blow on the street even has any cash, much less enough to bother with, nor can they be wholly sure they will not face resistance - but the convenience store will have a sure take, however small, and as no-resistance policy, at least chain/franchise stores.

They tend to avoid privately owned places cause those are far more dangerous to rob, and all too often THOSE owners are armed.

As for statistics, specific to armed robbery in that area, I wasn't able to find any specific to that crime, but here's a composite, mind that it doesn't take into account that the tourist traps like the inner harbor are extensively patrolled "Safe Zones" with cops that are downright psychotic about keeping the locals out.
http://baltimore.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Baltimore&state=MD

So in the "Safe Zones" maybe 1/3 to 1/5 of those stats, and 3 to 5 times outside of them, if that gives you a clear picture.

Quote:
Nope, I'm saying that they're way more likely to be able to shoot you before you camn do it, because their weapon is trained on you, and yours isn't trained on them. If you're capable of certain things, you have to accept that they are as well, I believe you said that.

I'm gonna deconstruct this a little - factually it depends on how close they are, but if they are *within your reach* even a person of average reflexes can knock a weapon out of line with them before the trigger is pulled, especially a long weapon like a shotgun or rifle, this is why trainers for home self defense stress so very fervently to stay the hell OUT of a perps reach if they choose to surrender instead of running away.

The reason for this seems based in large muscle movement reflex being slightly faster and mental initiative - there's been many demonstrations of this concept with squibs or paintballs to make this point.
This video is a bit over the top, but shows the basic principle.
http://www.videosift.com/video/I-would-not-point-a-gun-at-this-guy
(I don't favor Krav Manga, as it requires intensive training and better physical condition than joe on the street, and my rule is that any technique you cannot use effectively with a case of the flu or bad hangover isn't very useful)

The problem I have with this kinda thing, is what happens AFTER that.
Just about anyone can knock the weapon out of line with them before the perp can fire it, but for the average joe there's only two ways you are not gonna get SHOT if that happens.

And this is why being armed makes a difference.

1. Unarmed; Get behind the weapon - basically clinging to the perps arm and kicking the everliving crap out of him and you do all in your power to keep him from pointing it back at you, it's an absolute desperation move and should only be used if you really believe they're about to shoot you.

2. Armed; Deflect as you draw your weapon, step into them and empty the magazine into their ches

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:39 PM

Two things, semi-related to this.

PN mentions Glocks being dangerous, and he's got a point in reference to the G23 in particular, being not fond of Glocks, I dunno if other models have this problem, but lemme point this out real quick.

You have to pull the trigger to disassemble it for cleaning - now, if you've followed proper safety procedures, that should be a no brainer, but has lead to quite a few negligent discharges, and frankly strikes me as a damned bad design.
(From various gun enthusiasts there's seems to be a low opinion of it's quality on top of that, as well)

And the other, anecdotal, but imma mention it anyways...

Baltimore itself seems an aberration in many ways, but one damnably odd feature that seems unqiue to the city is what I call double-ended crime, especially in areas like Pratt St, Druid Hill or Brooklyn.

Most cities, if a mugging/robbery goes south on the perp, it winds up with the perp fleeing or being arrested, yes ?

You try to mug someone in Baltimores rough spots, and say, fumble the weapon trying to get it out of your baggy ass pants, or otherwise screw it up - as often as not, the intended victim will return the favor, mugging YOU instead!

I've never seen that elsewhere, not in Houston, not in Columbus, not even in Detroit or New York, only in Baltimore.

There just seems to be something not quite right about the folk who live there, you ask me.

Damn glad I moved AWAY from that place.

-F

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:43 PM

Ehhh, it happens all over the East Cost.

I always did wonder how that baggy pant fad came into effect.

You cant run from the cops if you are pulling up your pants.

Lol. If you ever happen to walk outside of your little zone, (and Im talking to folks like Citizen)..its the bangers NOT wearing the "sag" whom you should watch.

They have a little more intelligence than the average animal.

(Pulling my belt tight as I write)

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You try to mug someone in Baltimores rough spots, and say, fumble the weapon trying to get it out of your baggy ass pants, or otherwise screw it up - as often as not, the intended victim will return the favor, mugging YOU instead!

That's as it should be- kind of an attempted mugging fee.

The laughing Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Re: Armed Robberies/Convenience/Liquor stores.

This is empirical, and while not sure if actual statistics exist, most perps with a pistol will knock over a 7-11 or other convenience store if they can, which is *why* most of them limit the cash in the register.

I wasn't arguing about convenience store robberies.

Quote:
As for statistics, specific to armed robbery in that area, I wasn't able to find any specific to that crime, but here's a composite, mind that it doesn't take into account that the tourist traps like the inner harbor are extensively patrolled "Safe Zones" with cops that are downright psychotic about keeping the locals out.

According to the FBI, street robbery accounts for 43.8% of all robberies. That's using the 2007 figures, you can find the percentage break down here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html

Murders are a little more difficult, the break down is 13% strangers, 46.2% unknown, and the rest committed by people known to the victim.

Break down here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/homicide
.html

Now it's hard to know how to break that down, since not all murders by strangers are going to be the result of street robberies, and the unknowns are likely to broken down into all the other categories.

Now, best guess way, as I see it, would be too take, say 60% (street robbery percentage, plus 10% for error) of that stranger figure as a minimum. Then, as a maximum take the 13% strangers figure, plus 13% of the 46.2% figure. Then we can take a median of those two, which would seem to me to be the fairest best guess.

Using the FBI figures here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01.html
that gives:
Murder (total): 16,929 (minimum): 1320 (maximum): 3217 (median): 2268
Robbery (total): 445,125 (street robberies): ~194,964

To my reckoning those would be fairly good numbers for street robberies, and an over estimation for murders resulting from them.

(2268 / 194964) * 100 = 1.1%

or 98.9% of street robberies don't end in murder.

Quote:
This video is a bit over the top, but shows the basic principle.
http://www.videosift.com/video/I-would-not-point-a-gun-at-this-guy

It's also pretty similar to what I had posted earlier, and hardly proof of what someone who hasn't studied martial arts for years can do. There's all sorts of subtle misdirections, and esoteric ways of not telegraphing movements, that aren't obvious, and won't be something the 'average joe' will do. The thing about martial arts, is that you have to move in ways that are counter-intuitive. You have to unlearn how to move, before you can begin. That's why I can see a martial arts expert take a gun off of someone, and still be incredulous to the possibility of just some random person doing the same thing.

But for the record, there's a number of times that it appears that that guy should have been shot. Of course you can't see the full angle. Also, was that an SA80 they were using at the end?

Quote:
That's not hyperbole, the criminal mindset works like that, if threatening and robbing you don't get their little rocks off enough, meek compliance will often encourage them to escalate

That's not the hyperbole I was referring to. The hyperbole I was referring to is the assumption that either it's your way, and come out swinging straight away, or you'll end up on your knees with a bullet in your head.

Quote:
As for your questions, perhaps you should consider doing two things.
1. Not engaging in blatant sophistry.
2. Not thumbtacking the statements and positions of other people onto me.

Hmm, if I'm asking questions it's hard to see how I'm attributing statements to you that you didn't make. Also if your refusing to answer them, I fail to see how you can get pissy because I don't know where you stand on it.

Secondly, you know accusing me of these things without pointing out the statements you have a problem with is a) no help

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, February 13, 2009 1:08 AM

Quote:
The best way to avoid being killed or injured in a violent confrontation, is to not have one.

But that's the salient point both of us are making, but in very, VERY different ways.

See, for you that means giving them what they want in hopes they'll go away.

For me that means never letting them get into a position where they can do so.

Self defense doesn't START when you clear your holster, but in your effort to focus on the weapon as a scapegoat to blame, you miss the people - and people are the key to self defense, observing them and what their likely intentions are.

They can also be the key in another way - one perp, one gun, two potentive opponents ?
Even thugs can count to three.

And I think we're also split on the term violent confrontation - cause to me, someone pulling a gun on me qualifies as a violent confrontation regardless of anything else, and given a halfway decent chance by the incompetence or inattention of the assailant, consider it a better bet than compliance not only due to the possibility of getting shot - which might be 1.1% as an average, but no doubt tends to spike higher as you focus on particular areas.

The guy robbing you in the parking lot of a suburban shopping mail is indeed far less likely to shoot you than the gangbanger down on Cass St, sure, and statistically is unlikely to shoot you at all.

And statistically you're unlikely to have an accident on any particular day, so why build cars with safety belts ?

Why bother having a fire extinguisher ?

Even if it's not a convenient majority opinion, betting statistics on the tender mercy of a thug with a weapon pointed at me is not something I will ever accept as a good idea, on this point I will not move.

Also what nobody seems to be taking into account is the long-term proposition of what encouraging and feeding this behavior results in.

Case in point, that 7-11 in Curtiss bay, the local crooks practically used it for an ATM machine - why do you think they did that ?

In reference to the video, I take it you glossed over what I said after the link then, a normal person can bat the weapon away, but it'd take an expert to pull a disarm.

But bat it away and then step inside it's arc and shoot them ?
Easy as eatin pancakes.
Dealing with it mentally and legally in a society that's all but outlawed self-defense, not so much.

Vilifying self-defense doesn't deter crime, it incites it, aids, abets and encourages it.

And let's not play semantics, once someone has pulled a weapon on you and made demands, I consider anything you do to them, up to and including killing them, self-defense.

As for come out swinging, if you're *going* to resist, sooner's better than later, as it totally blows a thugs mental equilibrium when things don't go the way they expected - remember, these folk are both shortsighted and painfully stupid, on average.

Oh, and for the record, it was you who brought the nasty into this thread, while I was initially pointing out once again that the act of resistance and the will to do so was a more important concept than how exactly you go about it or what tools you use for it.

Then I tried to avoid technical discussion to focus on that topic, which you pushed, and pushed, getting progressively nastier, and getting it right back in kind.

I woulda preferred discussing what critical mistakes the guy who got shot over this made, which lead to his demise, and even tried to re-rail the thread back to it, to no avail.

So don't sit there and try to play the innocent once you've done your very best to wreck a thread cause it involved the horrible 'crime' of discussing self-defense, and even worse, in ways you don't approve of.

We're not gonna agree, accept this, and the next time you wanna argue with Wulfenstar, argue with HIM, not me, for what he said, thank you very muchly.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

DREAMTROVE

Friday, February 13, 2009 1:53 AM

Huh. Someone mentioned my name. I can't shoot anyone for religious reasons, Citizen, while we may disagree on politics, I'm thinking is the same faith as me, so not a legal issue. I can shoot just fine, with paintballs or against skeets, etc. But what NY lets me carry isn't the concern, since I don't let me carry. Maybe someday when a decent tranq evolves, but I prefer conflict avoidance. I've taken martial arts several times but I suck at it, I'm just not in the shape, I'm decent with a staff or sword. And yes, at this close range I think that would do it.

But I'm with rap on this one: Mr. Hummer exercised his 2nd amendment rights after the abuse of large amounts of steroids. But that doesn't excuse it. I'm also going to wager that he used far less in the way of roids than christian bale or alex rodriguez, who, while losing their temper, did not kill anyone. I humbly submit that not having a gun on hand helped, but I think that ultimately, a human is to blame for their own actions. They chose to abuse a substance, they had the free will to look up the effects before doing so, and they took that risk, and then they failed to control those impulses that they most likely didn't read about, and no metacognition was involved.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 13, 2009 2:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
But that's the salient point both of us are making, but in very, VERY different ways.

No. All the way through the whole thing was about what happens after they're standing with a gun in your face. I don't see how that was unclear. I feel I've been very clear about what I've been talking about.

Now, yeah, the best 'defence' is to make sure you don't get in that situation in the first place, but that's all rather ancillary to what is the best course of action once you are in that situation.

Quote:
The guy robbing you in the parking lot of a suburban shopping mail is indeed far less likely to shoot you than the gangbanger down on Cass St, sure, and statistically is unlikely to shoot you at all.

And statistically you're unlikely to have an accident on any particular day, so why build cars with safety belts ?

Why bother having a fire extinguisher ?

Even if it's not a convenient majority opinion, betting statistics on the tender mercy of a thug with a weapon pointed at me is not something I will ever accept as a good idea, on this point I will not move.

That there, would be a specious argument. Sophistry, would be another way of putting it. Seatbelts don't increase your risk of being injured if you don't have an accident. A fire extinguisher doesn't explode if you don't have a fire.

Now, as I said, you can do what the hell you like, but if most times when someone sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet, they'll run away, seems to me the course that is most likely to ensure your survival is handing over your wallet.

I make that statement, and you go on a big discourse about 7-11s, and how much an arsehole I am for, I don't know, disagreeing with your pronouncements on a subject you hold dear I guess.

Quote:
Also what nobody seems to be taking into account is the long-term proposition of what encouraging and feeding this behavior results in.

No, I just place it below immediate survival. If you want to get yourself killed in some vigilante crusade, more power to you. Just don't call other people stupid because they don't want to do the same.

Quote:
In reference to the video, I take it you glossed over what I said after the link then, a normal person can bat the weapon away, but it'd take an expert to pull a disarm.

Compared to the volume you've glossed over, it's not even a drop in the ocean, assuming that's what I did.

Quote:
Vilifying self-defense doesn't deter crime, it incites it, aids, abets and encourages it.

Are you implying that's what I'm doing? Because that would be a flat out and obvious lie, if that's the case.

Quote:
Oh, and for the record, it was you who brought the nasty into this thread,

No, for the record it was Wulf. Looking back over the course of this thread, I see a lot of sarcasm and implications that anyone doing anything other a quick draw and bustin' a cap in that mofo's ass is just a weak coward who enables criminals nonsense.

Yeah, I snarked back, but if you have any ability to accept responsibility for your actions, you can't say I wasn't keying off of others.

Quote:
Then I tried to avoid technical discussion to focus on that topic, which you pushed, and pushed, getting progressively nastier, and getting it right back in kind.

I pushed it away from ideology, to reality, if that's what you mean. If you have a problem with facing reality over your ideology, that's your own problem, I'd prefer if you don't try to make it mine. As for getting progressively nastier, and giving it back in kind, yeah, it worked that way, you just got it the wrong way around is all.

Quote:
I woulda preferred discussing what critical mistakes the guy who got shot over this made, which lead to his demise, and even tried to re-rail the thread back to it, to no avail.

Because I physically forced you to have this discussion at gun point, did I? No one forced you to, you chose to, I can't believe you can say this, then accuse m

KIRKULES

Friday, February 13, 2009 2:54 AM

So, because statistically if I give my wallet to a mugger, I'm less likely to get hurt, and if I open my front door for a burglar he'll more likely leave, what should I do for a rapist, hand over my wife. You folks are free to go through your lives as passive sheep, but don't try and convince me that that's what everyone should do. You feel free to hand your lives over to the muggers, burglars, or government for your personal safety, but don't expect me to. The few out there that are willing to fight back are the only reason you can walk down the street and not be victimized endlessly.

Here in Florida our concealed carry permits are signed by the Agriculture Commissioner. I find it somewhat amusing that his name happens to be Charles Bronson.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 13, 2009 10:17 AM

If your pride is so fragile that you would rather be shot to death than survive, then as I've already said countless times that's your decision. Just don't be telling people that their best hope of survival is to start a violent confrontation that in all likelihood wasn't going to happen otherwise. Because it isn't true. I'd note that despite how wrong I must be, I've managed to make my case with evidence and facts, while the only thing underlying all yours is sophistry. I'll also note that you seem to think that handing your wife over to a rapist, is equivalent to handing your wallet over to a mugger. So to you, people and money are the same thing? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that's a desperate attempt at appeal to ridicule in lieu of having a cogent argument, and not suggest that it might be some form of psychopathy.

And just for the record, I'd bet really money that the reason 'we sheep' can walk down the street without being attacked, has absolutely nothing to do with have-a-go hero's who think they're John Wayne.

You're free to go through your life believing you're immortal and bullets bounce straight off, not to mention trash talking on the internet, but characterising anyone prepared to defend themselves when it's necessary, rather than fight to make themselves feel big, as sheep is idiotic. The correct term is "not insecure".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, February 13, 2009 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
So, because statistically if I give my wallet to a mugger, I'm less likely to get hurt, and if I open my front door for a burglar he'll more likely leave, what should I do for a rapist, hand over my wife. You folks are free to go through your lives as passive sheep, but don't try and convince me that that's what everyone should do. You feel free to hand your lives over to the muggers, burglars, or government for your personal safety, but don't expect me to. The few out there that are willing to fight back are the only reason you can walk down the street and not be victimized endlessly.

Here in Florida our concealed carry permits are signed by the Agriculture Commissioner. I find it somewhat amusing that his name happens to be Charles Bronson.

You seem to have the priorities in this discussion confused.

Burglar: wants your stuff.
Mugger: wants your stuff.

Priority: do not get hurt or killed. Let them take the stuff, if necessary.

Rapist: wants to rape.

Priority: do not get hurt or killed. Fight tooth and nail.

That's the same reason the street rapist analogy fails. That rapist approaches you with the intent of raping, OBVIOUSLY compliance isn't going to make him stop. Rape was his goal in the first place.
A mugger approaches you with the intent of getting your wallet. World of difference. And compliance is statistically - going by citizen here - not going to end with violent death or rape.

I really dislike faulty comparisons.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 13, 2009 2:13 PM

" I'll also note that you seem to think that handing your wife over to a rapist, is equivalent to handing your wallet over to a mugger."

Its NOT the same thing. But at the same time it IS.

Capitulation to either is not acceptable to the mind of American men.

Citizen, you are British, with all that entails. Its not abnormal that oyu don't understand it.

Maybe in the UK, the muggers are a lot nicer, and the two of you can go have tea after-wards. "Jolly good job of catching me there, wot-wot." But not here, and not in the rest of the world.

Hell, even in the UK, where the crime rate is the highest of ALL so-called civilized societies, you still need to fight. Do I need to pull out the facts and figures of all the stabbings you folks have had? All the muggings, all the break-ins, all the shootings? (And this in a disarmed society)

If you like being a sheep, than by all means continue to be so. Someone mugs you, give them whatever they ask for and hope that they won't hurt you.

Then, if you live, go file a police report and hope that MAYBE they'll divert the resources to catching them.

OR, you could fight. Right then and there. See, the act of fighting is in itself, defiance to ALL crime. If everyone fought back, then there would be hardly any crime. The most you would have would be non-violent, break-ins.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, February 13, 2009 2:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
" I'll also note that you seem to think that handing your wife over to a rapist, is equivalent to handing your wallet over to a mugger."

Its NOT the same thing. But at the same time it IS.

Capitulation to either is not acceptable to the mind of American men.

This made me giggle. Are you the spokesman for all American!Men!(tm)? Either way, I'm glad that the handing over of an inanimate object and the "handing over" of apparently equally objectified hypothetical wives-with-no-say-in-the-matter is about equally unacceptable to American!Men!(tm).

If you talk about rape, can you at least reference your own and not that of another person? I'm sure it would unblur the differing levels of personal threat we are talking about here.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 13, 2009 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Maybe in the UK, the muggers are a lot nicer, and the two of you can go have tea after-wards. "Jolly good job of catching me there, wot-wot." But not here, and not in the rest of the world.

I'd leave the statements about how the rest of the world works, to someone who actually owns a passport and actually has some experience of the world outside their home town or state. Or perhaps, gated community...

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Hell, even in the UK, where the crime rate is the highest of ALL so-called civilized societies, you still need to fight. Do I need to pull out the facts and figures of all the stabbings you folks have had? All the muggings, all the break-ins, all the shootings? (And this in a disarmed society)

Actually, our violent crime rate is much lower than yours. By quite some margin actually. Some crimes against property are slightly higher over here, though. The US has 5 times the murder rate of England for instance. I'm more likely to get my car vandalised, but less likely to be shot to death, your right it's terrible here.

So yep, you are going to have to break out those facts and figures you claim to have. Maybe we have a higher overall crime rate, because people are willing to actually report crimes over here though? You see our police force isn't a corrupt incompetent force of corporate oppression. States on the verge of internal implosion often find their police forces end up that way though...

Quote:
OR, you could fight. Right then and there. See, the act of fighting is in itself, defiance to ALL crime. If everyone fought back, then there would be hardly any crime. The most you would have would be non-violent, break-ins.

Or, more likely, there'd be a lot more dead internet hard men...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 13, 2009 2:41 PM

Not an internet tough guy, for all your snarking.

Heres some links. Not that it'll convince you. I think we both know that neither of us is going to convince the other. I'm arguing for other folks here, who are OPEN to ideas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1414855/England-has-worst-crime
-rate-in-world.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478564/Britain-worst-world-arm
ed-robbery-says-security-boss.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/ukguns

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

This all gets a bit redundant after awhile.

"I'm an expat living in Texas, where we all as citizens have a right to carry guns. I do not personally carry a weapon, but criminals do not know that. That is a deterrent. I am armed to the teeth at home in my "castle". Criminals have a question they ask themselves when they think about approaching a house out in the country: Is that family armed or not? More than likely they are.
And Barnett, Texas, US"

"I'd rather, if my granny were to be mugged, that she had the choice to pull out her purse, or her .45 Magnum. She's a little too old to learn kung-fu, or to run away. She may well hand her purse over anyway, but at least she has the choice. Criminals carry guns anyway, so it's about time the rest of the population had the same choice.
Sid, UK"

CITIZEN

Friday, February 13, 2009 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Not an internet tough guy, for all your snarking.

Perish the thought!

Quote:
Heres some links. Not that it'll convince you. I think we both know that neither of us is going to convince the other. I'm arguing for other folks here, who are OPEN to ideas.

Or maybe its because the numbers actually go my way, and you're having troubles reading them properly? But at least we both agree on one thing, that you are close minded.

Quote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1414855/England-has-worst-crime
-rate-in-world.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/posts

Wow, figures from a decade ago, totally proves me wrong! You know, when you google for support, it's best to actually look at the pages before you post them, rather than just copy pasting the top list. Those are both date lined 2002, and using statistics from 1998 to 2000. That's about ten years ago. While your getting to grips with that, I don't want to shock you but in other breaking news, America recently invaded Iraq.

More up to date statistics, for those people you mentioned who are OPEN to ideas:

Quote:
#6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
...
#8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crime
s-per-capita

So the US is only slightly behind the UK in overall crimes. Lets see how those actually break down:
Murders per capita:

Quote:
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
...
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-cap
ita
Assaults per Capita:

Quote:
#6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
...
#8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-ca
pita

Or in other words, the UK has higher non-violent crime rates, while the "ready to defend themselves armed to the teeth American manly men" have way more murders, and the edge of assaults.

Or, in other words, exactly what I said earlier. Not that I expect you to be swayed by real evidence, but perhaps those OPEN minded third parties may be more interested in reality, hmm.

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/ukguns

You do realise, I trust, that a gun ban will increase gun crime? Before you shout "see, I'm right!" it adds crimes for possession in as well. It's sophistry to try to claim that the increase is an increase in gun availability and use.

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

Doesn't actually support your case, but lets take a look:

Quote:
According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year. That is an increase of 18% in just one year. There were 507 serious injuries from firearms - more than one incident a day.

59 gun murders in the UK in 2006. Let's see how much better it is in the US, because that's basically your case right? That the UK is swamped with gun murders, while the US, with all these guns and vigilantes is so much safer?

Ok, according to the FBI there were 10,177 gun related homicides in the US in the same period.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shr
table_07.html

Now, maybe you can help me, isn't 10,177, a little higher than 59? Oh, hang on, there's more people living in the US, so lets just work out a rough per capita number:
UK 0.097 per 100,000 people.
US 3.349 per 100,000 people.

Now, you tell me, which of those numbers is higher?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Friday, February 13, 2009 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
So, because statistically if I give my wallet to a mugger, I'm less likely to get hurt, and if I open my front door for a burglar he'll more likely leave, what should I do for a rapist, hand over my wife. You folks are free to go through your lives as passive sheep, but don't try and convince me that that's what everyone should do. You feel free to hand your lives over to the muggers, burglars, or government for your personal safety, but don't expect me to. The few out there that are willing to fight back are the only reason you can walk down the street and not be victimized endlessly.

Here in Florida our concealed carry permits are signed by the Agriculture Commissioner. I find it somewhat amusing that his name happens to be Charles Bronson.

You seem to have the priorities in this discussion confused.

Burglar: wants your stuff.
Mugger: wants your stuff.

Priority: do not get hurt or killed. Let them take the stuff, if necessary.

Rapist: wants to rape.

Priority: do not get hurt or killed. Fight tooth and nail.

That's the same reason the street rapist analogy fails. That rapist approaches you with the intent of raping, OBVIOUSLY compliance isn't going to make him stop. Rape was his goal in the first place.
A mugger approaches you with the intent of getting your wallet. World of difference. And compliance is statistically - going by citizen here - not going to end with violent death or rape.

I really dislike faulty comparisons.
If you talk about rape, can you at least reference your own and not that of another person? I'm sure it would unblur the differing levels of personal threat we are talking about here.

I think you have misunderstood the argument being made in this thread by the pro-resistance folks. I will readily concede that statistics show that your overall chance of surviving a given encounter with an armed felon are better if you comply, but that's not what anyone here is arguing about. That is just the argument that Citizen chose to attribute to others because he is unable to understand that simple idea that they are trying to get across. We're not talking about what is safest in an average encounter due to current statistics. We're talking about changing the statistics in the future by making resistance the norm instead of the exception. We want it to be more dangerous for the criminal to commit the crime than it is for the victim to resist. As Frem has eloquently pointed out, it's 100years of compliance being the norm that has got us into a situation where criminals feel safe to commit crimes with no fear of immediate consequences. Every time someone like Citizen pisses themselves and hands their wallet to a mugger, that just reinforces the idea that there are no consequences for their actions, and dooms hundreds of other to victim-hood by the scum throughout their life of crime.

I don't necessarily think that everyone should always resist, but if they did, the balance of power would soon change from criminal to honest citizens. The reason being that if there was less crime overall because of the fear of immediate consequences, statistics would still show that compliance is safer, but because of the lower number of crimes the total killed by in crimes would be reduced even if the likelihood of surviving a single incident didn't change.

As far as comparing rape to mugging. The point is that for years women were told that they should comply with rapists as a survival strategy, and at one time that might have been good advice. Today that is no longer recomended because of the high number of rapes that end in murder. Things change, and this is an example of what 100 years of compliance has gotten us. Everyone has to decide for themselves were to draw the line, some may chose to doom others to a similar fate by not fighting back, that's there choice, but don't try and use the current bullshit statistics that got us here to justify compliance today and in the fut

CITIZEN

Friday, February 13, 2009 9:18 PM

Every time some internet hardman says on the internet he'll take on every mugger, the gene pool secretly hopes they'll do it and get themselves killed.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Friday, February 13, 2009 9:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Every time some internet hardman says on the internet he'll take on every mugger, the gene pool secretly hopes they'll do it and get themselves killed.

Zip it up Citizen, your small penis is showing again.

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 13, 2009 9:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
We're talking about changing the statistics in the future by making resistance the norm instead of the exception. We want it to be more dangerous for the criminal to commit the crime than it is for the victim to resist.

While I personally agree with this sentiment, I do see a danger here.
What if we get to a point where resistance is the norm? Would that result in straight-up shootings by perps to mug someone? Like a kind of pre-emptive strike towards potential conflict?
Just raising the question.

The violent Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Friday, February 13, 2009 9:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

Zip it up Citizen, your small penis is showing again.

Nah, if it were, you'd be in heat.

I'd say it's easy to act the hard man from within your gated community, but then it would be superfluous, you and your non-existent member, already know that

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, February 13, 2009 9:41 PM

Unlikely, Chris.

Even the dumbest crook plys their trade by risk assessment, if it's not worth the risk, they don't pop the cork.

Given the environment which active self-defense would create, factor in the risks here.
Gunshot = draws attention for a mile.
Victim might not have anything of value.
Have to actively search victim, which is likely to be messy and time consuming, right after you just drew lots of attention.

You have to understand the mindset you're dealing with.

We'd probably see a substantive increase in burglaries if anything, but even so if you make it more difficult to gain money by crime, even crooks will find some other way - about half the guys I worked with on that light construction/demolition crew were there cause it paid more than petty crime with less risk, Jerk in particular cause no one gave him shit about smokin weed on the job, provided he didn't get too stoned to DO the job.

Another thing to ponder is pyschology of the Mal recruiting Jayne type.

Thug:"Give it up man!"
You:"Twenty cents and a maxed out credit card ? oh you're welcome to it, man."
Thug:"FUCK!"
You:"Hey I feel ya, but I got nothin."
Thug:"Cellphone."
You: *turns out pockets and shrugs*
Thug:"Get the fuck outta here."
You:"Okay" *flee*

There's the problem of often enough, being poor yourself, not HAVING anything to hand over, and what do you do then, when they won't take no for an answer ?
You:"Man, I got nothin, less ya want a pair of cheap boots three sizes too small for ya"

Also, statistics.
1.1% being national average - say you live in a pretty rough neighborhood known for carnage and bloodshed, let's round that off to 3%.

Say you live there five years, and get accosted maybe twice a year.
(And anyone who's lived in such a place is laughing cause I am seriously lowballing it.)

NOW how do those odds look?
Not so good, huh?

Just some thoughts.

-F

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 13, 2009 9:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Unlikely, Chris.

Even the dumbest crook plys their trade by risk assessment, if it's not worth the risk, they don't pop the cork.

Agreed. Jus' throwin' it out there.

The laughing Chrisisall

AGENTROUKA

Saturday, February 14, 2009 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

I think you have misunderstood the argument being made in this thread by the pro-resistance folks. I will readily concede that statistics show that your overall chance of surviving a given encounter with an armed felon are better if you comply, but that's not what anyone here is arguing about. That is just the argument that Citizen chose to attribute to others because he is unable to understand that simple idea that they are trying to get across. We're not talking about what is safest in an average encounter due to current statistics. We're talking about changing the statistics in the future by making resistance the norm instead of the exception.

Yes, but the general tone by the pro-resistance folks in the beginning of this thread was less "It's your choice, resist or comply, both is okay according to your priorities", and more "Fighting back is, like, totally not that hard. How stupid if people don't."

Which is, I think, why so much time was invested in explaining the priorities of non-resisting people when it comes to something like a wallet.

I'd like to see more emphasis from the pro-resistance people that this, indeed, is a choice, not a "choice" between hero and wuss.

I approve of people who choose resisting, but I really disapprove if someone tells me I have to try it, because my own survival at that point matters a whole lot more to me than changing the statistics and I should not be vilified for that.

Quote:

As far as comparing rape to mugging. The point is that for years women were told that they should comply with rapists as a survival strategy, and at one time that might have been good advice. Today that is no longer recomended because of the high number of rapes that end in murder.

That's another different point: comply with a rapist to escape rape (pointless) or to escape death (apparently, equally pointless, at this point, but maybe it didn't use to be). Distinctly different priorities. I hadn't read it as about escaping death before.

And if the advice was (hypothetically) good advice at some point, to increase chances of survival, why is it then bad advice to comply with a mugging to increase chances of survival? The statistics certainly support it.

The way I see it... if your priority is resistance, resist. If your priority is survival, do what fits best there, compliance or resistance.

I'd really like for both sides to just shut up and let the other be without insult, without pretending that the priorities of one group should necessarily be the priorities of the other.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE