Hummer driver shoots, kills patron over parking space by piratenews

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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

Its called balance of power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:21 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:36 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:13 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:30 AM

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:31 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:36 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:08 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Thats assuming hes using one hand to hold the gun

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:34 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:38 AM

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:38 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

AND that there was only one attacker.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:41 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:43 AM

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:44 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:48 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:53 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:57 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:10 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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:18 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:29 PM

KIRKULES

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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

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

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:38 PM

KIRKULES

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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 1:10 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

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"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 1:47 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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:08 PM

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:28 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:10 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:12 AM

AGENTROUKA

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:21 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:33 AM

AGENTROUKA

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

"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"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:37 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:19 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:24 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:47 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:54 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

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"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:03 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:09 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:17 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:22 AM

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

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:33 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:39 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:51 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:23 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:41 AM