REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Hummer driver shoots, kills patron over parking space

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Saturday, February 14, 2009 13:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3193
PAGE 2 of 3

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:49 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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"

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:00 AM

CITIZEN


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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:24 AM

RUE

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


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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:36 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


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.


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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:58 AM

RUE

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


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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA


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 I was pretty wigged out and very upset at the time, but I damn sure kept that pistol, and traded it in on a Colt .380 Mustang as soon as it was actually legal for me to own one.

Never fired it either, never had to, but there were a few occasions where having it in hand saved my ass, without a doubt.

So sure, yes I carry - and running the hell away not exactly being an option in my condition doesn't leave me a lotta leeway, nor does depending on the "mercy" of a merciless thug.


Oh yes, and regarding the incident in question, the guy who got shot contributed to his own demise by not calling in the cops to report the accident and waiting for them to arrive BEFORE getting out of his car.

In that kind of a situation you call em and wait till they show up BEFORE you shut off the engine and get out, and if the other driver goes violently bonkers you get the hell outta there and call back to advise the officers en route - you do NOT get out and confront them, it's idiotic.

Proper self defense is far far more than packin a weapon, but some peoples idiotic fear of a mere tool is all that ever gets focused on in these discussions, which is why they tend to go nowhere or get sidetracked.

A weapon is a tool, it's a piece of metal and wood, it's not gonna do ANYTHING all by it's lonesome.

People are what's dangerous, but those who cannot accept that find a scapegoat in weapons, and throw all the blame for crime and violence on an inanimate object to preserve their little plastic bubble where it's always the weapons fault.

That's flamin stupid, and it always will be.

-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 12:16 PM

CHRISISALL


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

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:23 PM

FREMDFIRMA


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

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:26 PM

KIRKULES


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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:29 PM

RUE

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


Spoken like a true 'little' man.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:32 PM

KIRKULES


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


My wife would appreciate your sympathy.

Over compensated Kirkules

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:57 PM

CITIZEN


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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:59 PM

CITIZEN


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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:03 PM

CHRISISALL


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

I am Iron Man.




The laughing Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:32 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


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

Hell, they are like the Sisters from Shawshank.


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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:36 PM

CITIZEN


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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:44 PM

PIRATENEWS

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




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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:54 PM

RUE

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


"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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:35 PM

CHRISISALL


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

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:09 PM

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.

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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:10 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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"

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:16 PM

RUE

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


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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:28 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 5:43 PM

RUE

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


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.

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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:24 PM

CITIZEN


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.

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

Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:24 AM

CITIZEN


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.

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

Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:27 AM

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 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 chest cavity - even this is dangerous as hell because in reality, they might not go down right away, and if you make muzzle contact with an automatic, it might cycle out of battery and jam after the first shot.

The two ways are really one - basically if you decide to resist at that point, you HAVE to take them out immediately, and trying to do so unarmed is suicidally dangerous, animal makes useful comment on this problem here.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/weapondisarms.html

The key point I am making here is that yes, deflecting the weapon away is well within the abilities of an average joe, but without a weapon of your own to back that up, what happens AFTER that is likely to be you getting shot.

And that's *why* being armed is important.
Quote:
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.

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 - women learned this regarding rape, and I ain't talkin about aquaintence rape or date rape, I mean out and out being accosted, they learned the hard way that cooperation is a damned bad idea and only encouraged that crap, consequently, that particular form of sexual assault has substantially declined ever since.

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.

You've always done the latter, and it annoys the piss outta me, just cause several people do not agree with you, does not necessarily mean they happen to agree with each other, either - and that's not just you, everyone has the tendancy to lump those in disagreement with em into a category instead of responding to them as individuals, which might save mental effort, but in the end can make discussion pointless.

And I did go back and re-read your comments, what you're basically saying is that resistance does not work or is not worth the risk, or at least that what you seem to be, and you can correct that assessment at any time you like.

And I am saying it does work, and is worth the risk, because it not only might save your ass, it discourages, rather than encourages and rewards, that behavior.

And no other measure is gonna do it against this type of offender because of their inability to process any future events beyond the next couple hours - only the immediate is gonna sink home.
Here's the mindset we're talkin about, in detail.
WHO IS THE SERIOUS, VIOLENT, HABITUAL OFFENDER?
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/lifestyle.html
No gun ban, increase in sentencing, or other down-the-road threat is gonna have any effect on these folk, but the idea they might themselves might get shot ?
That will.

-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  

Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:39 AM

FREMDFIRMA


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

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

Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:43 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


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)

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

Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:44 AM

CHRISISALL


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

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

Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:29 PM

CITIZEN


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 at all, because I don't have a clue what you're talking about, and b) Sophistry in it's own right. For all I know you have no answer, and rather than own up to that, you're just shouting "sophistry" and hoping that'll be enough to put the matter at rest.
Quote:
You've always done the latter, and it annoys the piss outta me, just cause several people do not agree with you, does not necessarily mean they happen to agree with each other, either - and that's not just you, everyone has the tendancy to lump those in disagreement with em into a category instead of responding to them as individuals, which might save mental effort, but in the end can make discussion pointless.

Really? Always? From where I'm standing in this thread, I've been the victim of the latter, not the perpetrator. How many times have I had to reiterate my statements, exactly?

Speaking of which:
Quote:
And I did go back and re-read your comments, what you're basically saying is that resistance does not work or is not worth the risk, or at least that what you seem to be, and you can correct that assessment at any time you like.

Err, nope. I have corrected that assessment at least twice already in this thread (along with god knows how many times when this topic last came up) in fairly plain English, so I fail to see how reiterating it YET a AGAIN is going to change anything, save maybe wear out my keyboard as I hammer out the same sentences over and over like a terminally scratch vinyl record. Nevertheless:
The best way to avoid being killed or injured in a violent confrontation, is to not have one. By having a violent confrontation, you're magnifying your likelihood of injury or death several times. I think that's a fairly obvious line of reasoning and correct line of reasoning.

Thus if there's a way of avoiding a violent confrontation, the best way to prevent injury is to avoid it, rather than to hit it head on and hope for the best.

If there's no way to avoid it, then sure, fight your heart out, because that's they only way to protect yourself.

Now I'm saying MOST street robberies don't end in violence if the victim hands over their wallet. In that case, in most circumstances, not attacking is the best possible course for ensuring your personal safety. Because there's no confrontation, so no possibility of injury.

Now, if once you've handed over your wallet, they're still standing there demanding more, then there's no avoiding violence, and the best course of action is self defence.

In short, I'm saying that YOU don't escalate the situation. If THEY choose to escalate it, or if they're going to (i.e. they're still standing there after you've handed everything over), THEN you have no choice.

Plain enough?

And I'm not just talking outta my arse, just because I'm not prepared to try and bolster my case with personal anecdotes, or by 'name dropping' experts (that ones even a logical fallacy, it's called 'appeal to authority'). I've been practising martial arts since I was four, the practice runs in my family. I've been exposed to huge amounts of personal experience and expert opinion on the subject.

I could trot out some experts, say Chris Ryan, who's one of the ex-SAS soldiers involved in the Gulf War "Bravo-Two-Zero" raid. I remember he did a series of self defence shows, based on real life situations a few years back over here. Can't remember much of it, but I do remember him talking about not forcing violent confrontation. I remember one situation in particular, where he pointed out that if you disturb a burglar, the best thing for you to do is to open the front door and step aside. It makes sense, your a burglar, you've been caught in the act, you're going to want to get away as fast as possible. If there's an open door, your going to go for that, if there's home owner in front of it, you're going to have to go through them to get to it.


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  

Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:08 PM

FREMDFIRMA


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

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

Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:53 PM

DREAMTROVE


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.

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

Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:14 PM

CITIZEN


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 me of trying to act innocent.
Quote:
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.

Bollocks. I've lost count of the number of times I've disputed that piece of horse shit on this thread alone. Evidently your the one who doesn't tolerate the horrible 'crime' of discussing self-defence you don't agree with, since you feel the need to lie to try and silence it. And yes, damn it, it's a fucking lie. I've stated my position enough times for you to get it by now.
Quote:
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.

Hmm, who's playing the innocent? No one is forcing you to argue, you're doing it of your own accord. It's not my fault you can't take responsibility for your own actions. You keep making these accusations, but they're obviously baseless. I've been going at you for what you said, not what Wulf said, the only person attributing words to people that didn't say them here, as far as I can see, is you.

So yeah, I accept it. We're not going to agree. Maybe in time you'll accept it as well.


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  

Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:54 PM

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.


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

Friday, February 13, 2009 12:17 AM

CITIZEN


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.

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

Friday, February 13, 2009 1:06 AM

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.

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

Friday, February 13, 2009 4:13 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


" 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.


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

Friday, February 13, 2009 4:27 AM

AGENTROUKA


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.

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

Friday, February 13, 2009 4:29 AM

CITIZEN


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.

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

Friday, February 13, 2009 4:41 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


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"


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

Friday, February 13, 2009 5:18 AM

CITIZEN


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.

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

Friday, February 13, 2009 11:09 AM

KIRKULES


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 future.


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

Friday, February 13, 2009 11:18 AM

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.


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  

Friday, February 13, 2009 11:22 AM

KIRKULES


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.

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

Friday, February 13, 2009 11:22 AM

CHRISISALL


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

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

Friday, February 13, 2009 11:26 AM

CITIZEN


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.

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

Friday, February 13, 2009 11:41 AM

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.

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

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

Friday, February 13, 2009 11:44 AM

CHRISISALL


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

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

Friday, February 13, 2009 10:48 PM

AGENTROUKA


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.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:10 - 4778 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL