Armed OC Citizen Shoots Robber in the Act

[justashooter 430]

The thing I don't understand is how anyone can know with any certainty how they will react under extreme conditions. There was a similar thread a while back slamming the victims of the Virginia Tech shooter for not fighting back - and believe it or not this line of reasoning can be traced back to, among other things, the Holocaust - with people incredulous as to why the victims would not only not try to escape or overpower the camp guards (some did) but why they would actively collude with their captors to facilitate their own destruction (this happened to).

Anyone who can say with certainty how they would react to a scene like Virginia Tech (or a terrorist attack for that matter) is just engaging in lying bravado.

it's in the training and mindset, junior. it's like playing tennis or golf or riding a bike. if you've never done any of these things, or at least simulated them with an appropriate trainer, you have no idea. if you have done them or simulated, you know how and have the ability.

tens of thousands of men and women receive semi-realistic training in combat scenarios every year. we call them soldiers. you can receive similar training at various private sites around the country for a small fee. if you have friends with the right equipment, they will teach you just for fun. call me sometime and i'll train you personally. in a week you'll be a lean, mean, fighting machine.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyone who can say with certainty how they would react to a scene like Virginia Tech (or a terrorist attack for that matter) is just engaging in lying bravado.

There is truth to what you say here, many people,.. most of us have never had this type of experience..... so what?

That some might freeze up means very little and it's no reason to not be prepared in mind and ammo as much as possible.

Most police officers have never fired their weapons even once at someone, do we dismiss them as "unpredictable" and therefore dangerous?

Pike, do you realize how many people own guns in this country?

Where are these nightmare gun owners playing Clint Eastwood at?

Where are these trigger-happy news stories?

You can "be prepared" without needing to carry a weapon. In 31 years - of living and travelling in several countries, I've never once felt as though I needed a weapon to protect myself and I have never once been the victim of a violent crime.

I also know that random, spontaneous things can happen (through no fault of your own) that you can't avoid. But that doesn't mean I'm going to insist on wearing rubber boots (or staying indoors) during a thunderstorm on the offchance that I could be struck by lightning.

There's a heck of a lot of hysteria in this country over firearms and the second amendment and very little evidence that the broad availability of guns makes society safer. As usual, its just another simplistic argument to avoid a debate over complex social problems.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

YOU should only hope, that if you are in that situation, there will be the some gun carrying citizen around. If not, there will be a paint line on the floor, where the police outlined your body......... and the one beside you will be pike

Oh that totally isn't an argument I've heard before.

A person needs to be a victim of crime in order to realise how dangerous our society really is, and why having a gun is a necessary part of daily life.

I'm sorry - but that's bollocks.

Similar arguments have been trotted out in relation to the death penalty - that people who aren't for it would change their opinion if they or their loved ones were the victim of the piece.

At the root of that argument is an appeal to sentimentality - but the laws of the country aren't driven by sentimentality (hence why stoning, flogging and torture generally aren't permitted in "civilized" societies).

Sorry - but it does nothing for me. I have nothing to feel guilty about, but for you it must be exhausting to live in a perpetual state of fear.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Private Pike

[Peikko 1,575]

Paranoia is a wonderful thing. Those who display these symptoms necessarily don't believe that what they are doing is paranoid.

I have heard all the clap trap before viz a viz the downplay of fire arms to 'tools' but I don't buy it. Not because in real terms a firearm isn't a tool, of course it is, but simply because it's not a tool that is required for normal every day modern life. The downside of this tool is that it's pretty darn useless for anything else. Not so other 'tools' that we are surrounded by and that one could and should appropriately use in the unusual and rare circumstance of some kind of attack. The Wyoming Mountain Lyon attack should teach us at least that much

Oh, and no, I am not a big drinker Shooter and I certainly have never drunk alcohol at work, or in fact before lunch time.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

At stake is the America of the 1800's

It's sort of funny, but mostly it's pathetic because as Pooky and others have pointed out, it's this very line of thinking, that citizens should do the job more properly reserved for trained professionals, that has had a hand in creating this very violent culture that exists in pockets of America. Would that the rest of it remains outside this frontiersman thinking.

It's called self-reliance. You wouldn't know - they don't teach it in Europe.

that's not part of the raising the white flag class?

[Peikko 1,575]

At stake is the America of the 1800's

It's sort of funny, but mostly it's pathetic because as Pooky and others have pointed out, it's this very line of thinking, that citizens should do the job more properly reserved for trained professionals, that has had a hand in creating this very violent culture that exists in pockets of America. Would that the rest of it remains outside this frontiersman thinking.

It's called self-reliance. You wouldn't know - they don't teach it in Europe.

that's not part of the raising the white flag class?

As I said, such a reliance on gun possession to prop up one's notion of being in control is both pathetic and immature.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not so other 'tools' that we are surrounded by and that one could and should appropriately use in the unusual and rare circumstance of some kind of attack. The Wyoming Mountain Lyon attack should teach us at least that much

I imagine a lot of people can attest to killing an insect in their home with whatever object happened to be at hand.

Makes you wonder how many arachnophobes would fetch a firearm to take on a house spider

[john & jean 37]

At stake is the America of the 1800's

It's sort of funny, but mostly it's pathetic because as Pooky and others have pointed out, it's this very line of thinking, that citizens should do the job more properly reserved for trained professionals, that has had a hand in creating this very violent culture that exists in pockets of America. Would that the rest of it remains outside this frontiersman thinking.

It's called self-reliance. You wouldn't know - they don't teach it in Europe.

that's not part of the raising the white flag class?

As I said, such a reliance on gun possession to prop up one's notion of being in control is both pathetic and immature.

RELIANCE ON THE ACTION OF OTHERS, WHEN FACED WIT LIFE OR DEATH SITUATIONS, IS PATHETIC AND IMMATURE

[justashooter 430]

Paranoia is a wonderful thing. Those who display these symptoms necessarily don't believe that what they are doing is paranoid.

Oh, and no, I am not a big drinker Shooter and I certainly have never drunk alcohol at work, or in fact before lunch time.

paranoia is unreasonable fear. prudence is a response to reasonable fear. sure, i rarely choose to place myself in situations i am expecting to be dangerous these days. did that enough in my youth for a paycheck. still, i make effort to be prudent.

BTW, we call the mountain lions in America.

that's not part of the raising the white flag class?

england is close to france, but the white flag class is only taught in france. maps of the route to paris, on the other hand, are part of every german geography class.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's even more immature and pathetic is the idea that fear should influence a persons day to day behavior.

[Peikko 1,575]

At stake is the America of the 1800's

It's sort of funny, but mostly it's pathetic because as Pooky and others have pointed out, it's this very line of thinking, that citizens should do the job more properly reserved for trained professionals, that has had a hand in creating this very violent culture that exists in pockets of America. Would that the rest of it remains outside this frontiersman thinking.

It's called self-reliance. You wouldn't know - they don't teach it in Europe.

that's not part of the raising the white flag class?

As I said, such a reliance on gun possession to prop up one's notion of being in control is both pathetic and immature.

RELIANCE ON THE ACTION OF OTHERS, WHEN FACED WIT LIFE OR DEATH SITUATIONS, IS PATHETIC AND IMMATURE

You are taking what I said and projecting it into a different situation. I do not know why but, that's what you are doing.

[Peikko 1,575]

Paranoia is a wonderful thing. Those who display these symptoms necessarily don't believe that what they are doing is paranoid.

Oh, and no, I am not a big drinker Shooter and I certainly have never drunk alcohol at work, or in fact before lunch time.

paranoia is unreasonable fear. prudence is a response to reasonable fear. sure, i rarely choose to place myself in situations i am expecting to be dangerous these days. did that enough in my youth for a paycheck. still, i make effort to be prudent.

BTW, we call the mountain lions in America.

that's not part of the raising the white flag class?

england is close to france, but the white flag class is only taught in france. maps of the route to paris, on the other hand, are part of every german geography class.

Feeling that it is normal and necessary to own/carry a gun as one goes about normal every day activities in modern society is paranoid. Prudence is simply ensuring that one does not knowingly engage in risky activity.

[justashooter 430]

You can "be prepared" without needing to carry a weapon. In 31 years - of living and travelling in several countries, I've never once felt as though I needed a weapon to protect myself and I have never once been the victim of a violent crime.

I also know that random, spontaneous things can happen (through no fault of your own) that you can't avoid. But that doesn't mean I'm going to insist on wearing rubber boots (or staying indoors) during a thunderstorm on the offchance that I could be struck by lightning.

There's a heck of a lot of hysteria in this country over firearms and the second amendment and very little evidence that the broad availability of guns makes society safer. As usual, its just another simplistic argument to avoid a debate over complex social problems.

you must have traveled in the nicer parts, my friend.

the only hysteria over guns in this country is on the left. on the right we are not hysterical. there is evidence demonstrating the reduction of crime related to the private posession of firearms. people use guns in self defense or defense of others every day. it just rarely makes the news because it doesn't fit with the leftist agenda.

on the first google page from the DOJ:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm

suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended

themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.

another off the first page:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

had enough?

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, and, do I care that I spelled lion 'lyon'? No. Does it embarrass me that I made a mistake? No. Can I own up to the fact that I did it? Yes. Does it make you feel good to find an error in one of my posts? Seemingly so, disproportionately so in fact. Bravo Shooter, did I make your day?

You can "be prepared" without needing to carry a weapon. In 31 years - of living and travelling in several countries, I've never once felt as though I needed a weapon to protect myself and I have never once been the victim of a violent crime.

I also know that random, spontaneous things can happen (through no fault of your own) that you can't avoid. But that doesn't mean I'm going to insist on wearing rubber boots (or staying indoors) during a thunderstorm on the offchance that I could be struck by lightning.

There's a heck of a lot of hysteria in this country over firearms and the second amendment and very little evidence that the broad availability of guns makes society safer. As usual, its just another simplistic argument to avoid a debate over complex social problems.

you must have traveled in the nicer parts, my friend.

the only hysteria over guns in this country is on the left. on the right we are not hysterical. there is evidence demonstrating the reduction of crime related to the private posession of firearms. people use guns in self defense or defense of others every day. it just rarely makes the news because it doesn't fit with the leftist agenda.

on the first google page from the DOJ:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm

suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended

themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.

another off the first page:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

had enough?

Enough of what? Laughing at your 'cause/effect' analysis skills? Absolutely not, it's hilarious, as usual

[justashooter 430]

Enough of what? Laughing at your 'cause/effect' analysis skills? Absolutely not, it's hilarious, as usual

pike's point was that guns are not used in self defense or reduction of crime often.

in 3 minutes i demonstrated to him that they are. question asked, and answered.

don't argue with me. argue with the Department Of Justice. it's their words.