Car jackings gone bad...

[spin]

A would-be carjacker found himself on the receiving end of several bullets after one of his intended victims successfully wrestled away the gun and shot him, all in the drive-thru line of a Metairie fast food restaurant.

****snip***

Chestnut, 44, apparently tried to carjack an unidentified 53-year-old Kenner mother and her 17-year-old son, who were waiting in line to place an order about 1:30 a.m. Monday at Arby's Roast Beef Restaurant, 3847 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Fortunato said.

Chestnut approached the driver's side of their car on foot and pointed a revolver at them, demanding money and the car. As he attempted to pull the mother out of the car, the teenager began to struggle with Chestnut over the weapon, Fortunato said.

At least one shot was fired inside of the car before the teen got control of the gun. He then shot Chestnut several times, Fortunato said.

The 17-year-old won't be charged in the incident, Fortunato said.
http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/06/a_wouldbe_carjacker_found_hims.html

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- An accused carjacker died when he was shot at a car wash Monday night, KMBC's Martin Augustine reported.

Police said they were called to Troost Avenue and Gregory Boulevard at about 7 p.m. on a vehicle fire. When officers arrived, they found that a black pickup truck had crashed into a wall at the Turbo Wash and caught fire.

Police said witnesses pulled a man who had been shot out of the pickup. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Police identified him as Cortez P. Tyler, 19, of Kansas City, Kan.

A man came forward and told police he had shot the man who was pulled from the pickup because he tried to carjack him.

The man told police he had been drying his pickup at he car wash when he was approached by a man pointing a gun who said he was taking the vehicle. However, the pickup owner also had a weapon and he said he shot the carjacker when he tried to drive away with the vehicle.
http://www.kmbc.com/news/9430128/detail.html

HOUSTON (KTRK) -- A 74-year-old man turned the tables on a would-be carjacker by shooting him twice in the chest in southwest Houston.

It happened at Corona near Wilcrest around 7am. Police tell us the man was sitting in his car in front of his house, waiting to take his wife and daughter to the airport. He opened his door when he says a teenager approached him, put a knife to his throat and wanted take his car.

Instead, that 74-year-old pulled out his own weapon that he kept in a grocery bag on the passenger seat of his car and shot the teenager twice in the chest. That teenager ran across the street bleeding and made his way into a neighbor's home. He ran through the house and tried to get out the back door. It turns out there wasn't a back door and he woke up the homeowners, who were asleep inside.

****snip****

The 74-year-old man was taken to the Westside police station, where police are interviewing him. Authorities say they don't expect to file any charges.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6928959

[sui generis]

1. be afaid be very afraid

gangbangers ever damn where.

[SteveM]

60. No, gangbangers aren't everywhere. Just running into resistance.

Do you have a problem with that?

[sui generis]

65. I'm just laughing at the term gangbangers

used by people who wouldn't know one from a hole in the ground. So yes, I have a problem with that. Do you have a problem with that?

[Euromutt]

81. You're the ONLY person who's used the term "gangbanger" in this thread

So whatever problem you have, it's with nobody but yourself.

Or do you have problem comprehending that "carjacker" is not synonymous with "gangbanger"?

[sui generis]

86. carjacker is the new black? /nt

[SteveM]

85. Know some who are in "a hole in the ground." No problem with that (nt)

[meegbear]

2. But if the carjacker suceeds, it's bad for the car jackee ...

Thus wouldn't any car jacking be one that has 'gone bad'?

[tridim]

3. Yay death!

[proteus_lives]

8. I think you should shout:

"Yay for people defending themselves!"

[tridim]

10. I will if the OP posts ALL carjacking outcomes that involve a gun.

Instead of just pointing out the rare "successes".

[Treo]

14. The successes aren't all that rare

And even if my sucess (hypothetical) was the only one I'd still carry a gun

[Euromutt]

59. Why should he?

It's not like some anti on here isn't champing at the bit to do it for him.

How about all the carjackings that were committed with a legally owned firearm? And in return, you can list all the carjackings that were foiled (i.e. halted while in progress) because of the timely intervention of law enforcement personnel.

[Treo]

4. Mis-titled post?

These all sound like car jackings gone GOOD
EDIT SPELLING

[divideandconquer]

5. Killed with his own gun?

Wonder how many people are killed every year with their own guns?

[Treo]

7. Far less

Than Sarah Brady would have you believe

[Katya Mullethov]

74. If he knew whom he was jacking

That would count as a "two-fer" .

Killed with his own gun by someone he knew .

[damntexdem]

6. Sounds like carjackings gone good, to me.

[proteus_lives]

9. Sometimes I work til 2am.

And I have to walk to and through a parking garage. It's safer to carry that late at night. Always drive with your doors locked and windows up late at night.

Good for this people, they defended themselves and probably avoided a worse fate.

[tridim]

11. So if you were mugged in the parking garage for pocket change

would you shoot the perp dead?

[Treo]

12. The problem

Is that you don't know what "the perp" wants until he/she/they/it are done. I'm not wiling to trust my life to the mercy of a crook. Also you don't "shoot the perp dead' you aim center mass and continue to engage the target until it no longer presents a threat.

[tridim]

13. So, shoot first, ask questions later?

Judge, jury and executioner. Lovely.

[Treo]

15. Then don't attack me in a parking garage at 2 A.M. NT

[cognoscere]

18. Why not? The police seem to be doing it with increasing regularity. n/t

[proteus_lives]

22. And if you're mugged,,,,

Would you just go limp and accept your fate? Why is defending yourself "bad"?

[tridim]

27. That's exactly what I did when I got mugged.

Cost me about $2.50.

[Treo]

32. You're lucky NT

[proteus_lives]

35. And the next time it might cost you more.

They decide to kill or rape you because you're making it so easy for them. Were there any other people around the last time? Maybe the person will decide they don't want you around to ID them later.

It's your life why make it the responsibility for it someone else's decision?

[tridim]

39. I'm not going to fight over a few bucks.

Because if I did, my risk of getting hurt or killed goes up dramatically, regardless of if I'm armed.

I assumed everyone knew that.

[proteus_lives]

42. I'm not talking about a few bucks.

I'm talking about a person's safety. A point you keep ignoring.

I'm not worried about the risk of fighting back, I'm worried about placing my fate in the hands of a criminal.

[Treo]

43. What will you do

When the mugger takes your money then decides he wants to kill you? You went limp remember? Now he's way inside your bubble with a weapon (or not but you won't know until it's too late) I'm not sure who would keep these statistics but I'll bet you the odds of a favorable out come for me if I'm armed are astronomically higher that they odds of a favorable out come for the mugger if I'm armed.
EDIT Added cite

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

[PavePusher]

46. There are numbers around somewhere...

I beleive it was part of the DOJ crime stats, that show that people (victims) who resist are actually less likely to be injured/killed than if they are passive. I'll try to find it, or prepare to eat crow if I can't.

[Euromutt]

79. Kleck compiled them from NCVS data

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff_table7.html

Kleck's conclusions were, in broad terms, that ran the least chance of suffering physical injury if you resisted with a weapon (not necessarily a gun). Fully complying with your assailant brings absolutely no guarantee that you won't be hurt.

[PavePusher]

83. That's the one.

I couldn't remember or find it. Thanks!

:toast:

[SteveM]

63. Then what would you "fight" over? (nt)

[rd_kent]

70. How much would it take? $50? $100? $1000?

Where is YOUR line in the sand?

[slackmaster]

23. Do you really not comprehend the difference between judicial punishment and self-defense?

:crazy:

[tridim]

29. Killing a human being because he wants $5.00 is beyond self-defense.

[Treo]

31. Again

You don't know that's all he wants until it's too late.
I've been attacked. It happens fast and you don't know it's happening until you're full on into the attack. The one time it happened to me a defensive display was enough to change the attackers' (intentional plural) mind. No one (including me0 was hurt and the last thing I heard the attackers say was " oh shit he's got a gun". Win/ Win I didn't gey robbed and they didn't die

[slackmaster]

34. I wouldn't kill a person for wanting money

I'd kill a person to prevent injury or death.

[Treo]

36. You're not trying to kill a person

you're trying to end a threat

[proteus_lives]

37. It's not about 5 bucks.

It's about someone has decided to assault you and you defending yourself.

[Euromutt]

44. Tell the mugger that

It's all very well proclaiming that mere material goods aren't worth a human life, but any armed robber, by definition, has already decided for himself that he doesn't believe that: he is prepared, or at the very lest wants you to believe that he is prepared, to inflict grievous bodily harm up to and including death on you in order to acquire your material possessions.

And that is what legitimizes self-defense in these instances. It's not about not parting with $5 or $10 or even a few hundred dollars (though if that's your rent money for this month, we're talking about more than mere inconvenience); it's about the fact that the guy is using a weapon to threaten you with severe injury or even death.

[PavePusher]

47. You have no moral or legal justification to insist...

that i must risk injury so that a criminal can take $5 from me. Do you know how long it takes some people to earn $5? Do you think they will ever get back the money or the time they spent earning it? If they ARE injured, will you volunteer to compensate them for their time and suffering?

[sui generis]

66. that's the core of the argument

for me. You're afraid of a little pain, so you'd rather shoot someone dead than risk it. That's not very manly, or whatever you are.

I do get that there are reasons to have and/or use a gun in self defense, but damn nearly every one of the people in this gunjeon who THINK they need it will almost certainly never ever be in a situation where they MIGHT need it, and if you ever happen to be in one of the fantasy situations like all the self-justifying NRA publication fearmongering emails that get posted here and elsewhere seem to believe are ordinary reality, your pop gun probably still won't be enough to save your jumpy ass.

I'll lay my bets with a gangbanger over a jumpy gunjeoner any day of the week, except of course in fantasy land NRA wild-wild west where the righteous gun owner always saves the day and shoots 'em dayud.

:eyes:

Really, I'm not a gun grabber, but these insipid made up congratulatory stories are just retarded, and believe me I get them in my inbox too always right around the same time. That tells me somebody with an agenda is running a campaign.

[PavePusher]

67. I'm not afraid of a LITTLE pain,

I'm afraid of a LOT of pain. I've been hit by drunk drivers three times. One time broke an ankle and two ribs. I couldn't stand up for more than 30 seconds or breath correctly for 2 months. Am I supposed to take your assurance that a criminal only wants to give me "a little pain"? How do you propose to gaurantee this? What is your reasoning that I should have to suffer ANY pain for the enrichment of a criminal? Who are YOU to moralise this?

Take your "pain", fold it up into nice sharp edges and stuff it.

"That's not very manly, or whatever you are."

Ah, now we get to the attempted insults. Yet another Internet Tough Guy(tm).

Bu-bye now.

[sui generis]

72. I'm sorry about your loss

life must suck with your congenital inability to laugh. Oh and "internet tough guy" is the latest boring meme in this forum, used by people who can't think for themselves.

Anyway toots or whatever you are - I guess you shoulda shot those drunk drivers.

Your outrage is kinda piffly, sorry to say, and on the way there to that non-event YOU MISSED MY POINT. These bullshit "good thing I had me a gun" stories and their distributors are tiresome horsecrap.

I guess I could have said that with a lot fewer words, now that I think about it.

[Treo]

76. These bullshit "good thing I had me a gun" stories

Unless,of course, you happen to be one of the ones who's life was saved because they had them a gun

[sui generis]

88. I'm sure you know dozens, courtesy of your email and NRA

:eyes:

[Hoopla Phil]

94. Oh noes! "I don't like WHO reports it." Therefore, it never happened.

At least in some peoples minds.

[sui generis]

104. well at least you have more than 20 posts

so I won't be as much of a total dick to you as you would otherwise deserve.

I guess the opposite of "Internet Tough Guy" is the "All Knowing Defenders of Humanity" gunjeoneer.

If you were that you wouldn't be here.

[PavePusher]

121. Because post count is directly proportional...

to the validity of what the poster is saying.

Whatever.

Come back when you have something substantial.

[votingupstart]

140. kind of a weak argument -

if the because the poster has just a few post he (or she) must be wrong? are you really arguing that?

[Treo]

97. I know one because it's me NT

[PavePusher]

78. One more time for the hat trick...

Please justify your belief that I should suffer pain for the benefit of a criminal trying to take my property, money or health/life. Try. Try hard.

[sui generis]

87. oh lordy

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? If you want to have a fight with me you gotta get smarter. I'll give you a decade or so, then get back to me.


Try. Try hard. I'm just saying the alternative to a hangnail is not the death penalty. I'm sorry you disagree, but I'd take your pop gun away from you if I saw you pointing it at someone who was unarmed.

[PavePusher]

92. You will do nothing.

And you've avoided the question. Again.

[Hoopla Phil]

95. Heaven's to Betsy! As long as my head is in the sand nothing bad will happen to me.

[sui generis]

102. oh my stars and garters

everyone who isn't a paranoid twit carrying a gat has their head in the sand. silly.

[Treo]

98. Let us know

but I'd take your pop gun away from you if I saw you pointing it at someone who was unarmed.

Most firearms incidents end W/ a defensive display, the bad guy starts the attack, the citizen presents a firearm and the bad guy, realizing he’s about to get shot, takes off. You don’t often get the “holding the “perp” at gunpoint” scenario.

That said, jumping in the middle of a situation like that w/ the citizen going through a major adrenaline dump is one of the best ways I can imagine to get yourself shot.

I’m also amazed at the number of wannabe bad asses that make that statement. You don’t know me, you have know Idea if I’ve had any martial arts training, you don’t know if I’m a cop in the middle of performing a lawful arrest (another real good way to get shot), you have no idea how mean I might or might not be. But you’re “gonna “take my pop gun away” Let us know how that works out for you
EDIT GRAMMAR

[sui generis]

103. if you're in the gunjeon I can almost guaranty a few things

1. you aren't a cop
2. you don't have martial arts training
3. you've never met a real criminal or been in a real life threatening situation.

So when you do get there if you haven't managed to shoot your balls off on the way to meting out your vigilante justice, LET ME KNOW HOW THAT WORKS OUT FOR YOU.

[Treo]

109. I'm sorry

I didn't realize who I was dealing W/ clearly you are the baddest dude on the internet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnsg0jDbHk4

On a serious tip yo be perfectly clear I am not and have never claimed to be a cop

BTW isn't a troll someone who comes around to start fights rather than engage in discussions? Who spend all his time baiting other forum members? And who ,generally, generates nothing but conflict? I was just wondering

[sui generis]

119. there's a new m.o. in town

if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen play victim and accuse a poster of being an internet tough guy, or a mall ninja. Anyway, poking fun at stereotypes. If you fit the stereotype, then yes I'll disrupt you but if not, why do you care?

[Treo]

141. It occurs to me

That you are a self-proclaimed martial artist posting in "the Gungeon" about how anybody who posts in "the Gungeon" must be lying about their martial Arts experience.

Just one of those things that makes you go "hmmmmmmmmm"?

Edit spelling

[GreenStormCloud]

110. That is a very good way to get yourself shot.

I'm just saying the alternative to a hangnail is not the death penalty. I'm sorry you disagree, but I'd take your pop gun away from you if I saw you pointing it at someone who was unarmed.

If I have my gun out and pointed at someone, it is because I am in fear of much more than a hangnail. I am in fear of my life or of great bodily harm. Each year many people are killed by assailants using nothing more than their hands and feet.

If I am so in fear of an attacker that I have pulled my gun, and you start trying to take my gun away, I will immediately conclude that you are with my assailant in attempting to do me harm and I will defend myself against you. IOW - I will shoot.

BTW - Taking my gun away is going to be extremely difficult to do. I have been trained in weapons retention. It is actually pretty easy. I will not be holding the gun the way they do on TV.

[Treo]

112. It occurs to me

Since DU is full of Mall ninjas who are totally confident that they can disarm a gun owner at whim wouldn't that in itself justify use of deadly force against an unarmed assailant? I mean, you never know it might be an internet ninja

[sui generis]

118. internet ninjas? is that the new "internet tough guy"

I guess DU is full of heroic gun heros who will single handedly save the day with their "mall" gun license and special forces training.

:P

good one, internet ninjas. Actually, 30 years of MMA kickboxing, but we only fight other trained fighters, and it's a sport, not a secret martial art chung mucky ducky way of life.

[Treo]

120. YYYYYAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNN NT

[Euromutt]

127. And the law will probably be on the shooter's side

Since generally, the law acknowledges that the belief is reasonable that someone who is trying to gain control of your weapon intends to use it on you.

It might be added that an assailant does not necessarily have to be armed for the (threatened) use of lethal force in self-defense to be justifiable. A young able-bodied adult vs. an invalid, a senior citizen or a child is regarded as a sufficient disparity of force; three or more assailants vs. one defender; someone who is known to be a skilled martial artist vs. a non-martial artist.

But hey, maybe Sui over there thinks he's so damn tough bullets will just bounce off his chest, or maybe that he can dodge them like Neo. For somebody who's so free with insinuating that others suffer from Hollywood-inspired delusions (see "Arnold's Law" http://www.bullshido.org/Arnold%27s_Law), he seems to be no stranger to them himself.

[GreenStormCloud]

113. It is mildly amusing that you call our guns, "popguns".

The implication is that we carry impotent toys to pretend with. Some of us have posted what we carry, and we carry guns in calibers of .45, 9mm, and .38Special. So what would you consider a serious caliber for personal carry?

[Treo]

71. What I'm afraid of

I'm a former boxer (I have the fake teeth to prove it), I've also been shot. I'm not afraid to take an ass whuppin (and I've proved it by taking one on several occasions.

What I'm afraid of is ceding responsibility for my safety to a thug who has already proven he has no regard for my wellbeing by attacking me. It seems that you gun grabbers refuse to acknowledge that bad guys can and do kill, or maim their victims every day.

Ya know what I don't have to justify my choice to defend myself W/ a gun to you. I'm W/in my rights to do so and I choose to. That's all the justification you get.

[sui generis]

73. Let's see - read my profile

and I'm not a gun grabber so you tutu wearing girlie men (makes as much sense right?) can stuff your outrage.

I didn't ask you to justify anything. I just commented on the stupidity of threads like this.

Gad you ladies, next you'll call me an internet tough guy or some other equally original bit of dookie. Seriously, how often are you around thugs? That's a rhetorical question - I really don't care about your answer.

How is it that most Americans live their whole lives without once ever meeting a thug in person and yet the gunjeon folks seem to be surrounded by gangbangers living in every shadow and behind every tree?

Again a rhetorical question, but the point being, there are a lot more of YOU carrying guns looking to put a cap in some hoodie wearin' tatted pierced "gangbanger" (cause that's what they all look like, ya know) than there are thugs carryin gats wherever you tend to hang out, shop and go to church.

[Euromutt]

82. Again, who's mentioned "gangbangers" in this thread except you?

Quick Ctrl+F here... and the answer is nobody. Nobody's mentioned "gangbangers" in this thread except you, and people responding to you.

So why don't you take your straw man and go play elsewhere?

[sui generis]

89. you're too much fun.

carjackers are the new black, my bad. Do you know someone who knows someone who knows someone who got carjacked? You guys are ridiculous, and worthy of ridicule.

[Hoopla Phil]

96. No, carjackers are criminals that steal cars from the driver by threat of violence.

Why do you make this a racial issue?

[sui generis]

105. where did I make this a racial issue? do tell.

are you an idiot? Have you never heard the phrase before? That racial was all up in your head.

Anyway, apparently car jacking is more popular than gang banging, that's all.

[Euromutt]

125. You said "carjackers are the new black"

Twice, in fact. Now I assume that by "the new black," you meant something to the effect of "boogeyman du jour", but surely you can see that some people might interpret that as referring to skin color rather than fashionable clothing? Which, in turn, makes it sound like a veiled accusation of racism.

[Treo]

99. Rhetorical questions

Seriously, how often are you around thugs?

My ex SIL is currently finishing up a 7 year sentence for meth

His brother(s) are all ex cons (or cons)
about half their extended family are bangers (and I mean real bangers)

I live next door to a crack house

I grew up in the hood and used to live in S Houston and the Hilltop area of Tacoma.

Other than that I don't have a clue

[sui generis]

106. And I lived in spanish harlem before Giulliani

I'm not sharing my wicked past but I did not hang out with the good guys. You live next door to a crack house? Was it there when you moved in or did it move in?

Just curious - do all the meth heads you know have guns? What kind of crack house is that? I mean, I have an idea from hollywood what a crack house is and an idea from personal knowledge what a crack house is, and they're not the same.

Are you next to the hollywood version or the real version?

[Euromutt]

84. Well, you can try to redefine the argument, but nobody's under any obligation to play

Last time I looked, I hadn't changed my name to Tyler Durden. I really don't find the idea compelling that I should consent to having any violence inflicted on me just because you think it's "manly" (like I need your validation regarding my masculinity anyway). Frankly, if it takes being threatened with a gun to make some fuckstick think twice about trying to beat me up, then that's what it takes. You keep your psychotic little hands to yourself, and I won't have to think about which tool I'm going to use to hurt you. I think that's more than fair.

[GreenStormCloud]

51. So in your alternate universe, muggers are always gentle...

and never harm their victims? In the universe that I live in, those who do not resist a mugger have the highest injury rate. The lowest injury rates are by those who resist with a gun.

Once someone starts a violent attack on me, it isn't about the money, it is about the violent attack. Why are you blind to that?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. So now we aren't talking about a mugger but a bum asking for $5.00?

[Treo]

54. Who I'm still not going to let approach me NT

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. Just pointing out the moving goalpost.

[spin]

57. If he wants $5 he can ask....

I often get panhandled and I often am generous. (Recently, I don't always carry money, but merely a debit card.)

Walk up to we with a gun or a knife and demand money, and I will have to make a quick determination on just how dangerous you are. I would not want to shoot you, but your aggressive style of approaching me puts you at a distinct disadvantage of getting a positive outcome. Mugging me or attempting pull off a car jacking may prove hazardous to your heath.

One of my shooting buddies was a victim of an attempted car jacking. He was sitting at a stop light when the carjacker approached his vehicle and stuck a handgun through the open driver's window.

Realizing that there was no car in front of his and no traffic coming, my friend merely said, "Fuck you" as he punched the accelerator pedal and shot through a red light. All is well that ends well.

[eallen]

129. You don't understand difference between burglary and robbery

It is one thing to burgle an unoccupied building, or steal a parked car, or vandalize it for its contents, or otherwise commit a variety of crimes that involve only other people's property, without putting any victim's person at risk.

Mugging and robbery and car-jacking by definition involve assault on the victim's person. It is the perpetrator in those crimes who has already raised the stakes from property to risk of bodily injury, by choosing the threat of personal force as the means of theft. The mugger might well beat the victim who has only $5 on their person. Ending that crime is not about the money, whether $5 or $5,000. It is about the bodily risk faced by the victim.

So yes, if there is opportunity to end a mugging or car-jacking by shooting the criminal, I would do so. Without hesitation. Not because of the property that might be stolen, but in defense of the victim whose safety the robber puts at risk. Those who commit crimes by physical assault cross a special line.

:hippie:

[one-eyed fat man]

142. It ain't about the money

Killing a person because they asked for 5 bucks is not it. The mugger was not pan-handling. He made it pretty clear that you didn't have the option to politely refuse his wealth redistribution program and continue about your own business.

Even if YOU are absolutely fine with relying on the tender mercy, human kindness and Christian charity of someone who'd stick a knife in your ribs or a gun in your face and say, "Your money or your life?" It does not mean anyone else has to submit.

Robbery is a crime that is by definition confrontational. Do you really think the long odds are with you when a criminal purposely chooses to get in your face to demand your stuff rather than break in while you are not there?

[SteveM]

62. Don't know about self-defense? Don't like it? Read Gandhi...

He had a far better outlook on the need for self-defense than you do, apparently.

[spin]

101. Like this quote...

The truly non-violent action is not possible unless it springs from
a heart of belief that he whom you fear and regard as a robber...
and you are one, and that therefore it is better that you should die
at his hands than that he, your ignorant brother, should die at yours.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

There are rumors that Gandhi drink his urine every day. While drinking urine might be a very healthful idea, it doesn't appeal to me. Also the non-violent approach may be great but Homie don't play dat game.


edited to correct HTML screw up.

[rd_kent]

69. Let me know how doing the opposite works out for you

if you are able.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. Is the assailant armed? Is the assailant by himself?

How old is your "victim"? How old is your assailant? How much does the assailant weigh? How much does the victim weigh? Did the mugger say, "Can I have some change?" or "Give me all your fucking money or I'll kill you."? Get back to me on that and we can discuss it.

[Treo]

17. Don't bring logic

To a gun fight. You are a gun owner, therefore you are hateful, evil, a shade to the right of Attila the Hun politically and you probably like to sacrifice puppies to Baal. No matter what the poor innocent victim of society is armed W/ YOU are at fault for daring to defend your self W/ an EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil gun

[tridim]

20. The poster said none ot that matters. He'd shoot first.

[Treo]

25. Not exactly

I'd shoot second. First would be you making an overtly aggressive move. And again if you don't want to risk being shot don't mug people

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. So you just wanted one opinion?

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Circumstances may vary but, likely yes.

Because I would respond with lethal force as soon as a lethal threat was perceived.

It's not about protecting my pocket change. Once you announce hostile intent, 'it's on'.

[proteus_lives]

21. If someone attacked me, yes I would defend myself.

I'm not concerned with their reasons. If someone mugged me in the parking garage I would defend myself and if that meant shooting them, it's a decision I'm prepared to make if forced to.

[slackmaster]

24. How would I know the assailant only wanted pocket change?

People who are panhandling simply ask for "spare change". That's the rule.

Doesn't anyone give a shit about the fucking rules any more?

[tridim]

28. Because most muggings start with "Give me your money"

Apparently at that point the poster would shoot the mugger.

[Treo]

30. Not exactly

At that point I'd say you need to sttep back NOW! actually I'd say that if someone I didn't know approached W/ in 15 feet of me in that type situation or approached my car.
BTW you can address me I won't shoot you

[slackmaster]

33. If I thought the person was willing to use force on me, I'd be inclined to shoot too

Wouldn't you?

[tridim]

40. I don't own a gun, so no.

[Treo]

41. Let me break it down for you

Someone who is willing to attack a complete stranger has broken the social contract and presents a threat to society. He has chosen to put himself at risk by preying on me. Had he left me alone his life would not have been endangered. It’s not my fault he made that choice and it’s not my responsibility to ensure his safety

[sui generis]

91. and anyone who breaks the contract with society

as determined by these lame ass street lawyers, like yourself, is now available for human hunting.

Let's face it, most of the gun owners who are moved by bullshit NRA circulations like the OP just want an excuse to shoot a human.

It's Friday, bring your popcorn bitches. :P

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. If you were being attacked with a knife and had access to a gun would you use it?

[Treo]

58. Absolutely

Deadly force is deadly force

[spin]

75. I you didn't you are a fool...

A knife can do a lot of damage and possibly kill you.

You probably have seen some knife wounds.

[Treo]

77. Worked in an ER for two years, seen quite a few NT

[proteus_lives]

38. Yes, I would because I assume at this point, they are pointing something at me.

They are willing to harm or kill you for money but you won't harm them to defend yourself?

[Statistical]

45. 924 victims were executed during a robbery in 2007.

I doubt the criminal informed them they would be executed once the robbery transaction was concluded.
As long as criminals are killing victims in a robbery then being targeted for a robbery means you may also be targeted for a homicide. The law allows citizens to use lethal force when they have reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent bodily harm or death. The key word being reasonable. The victim doesn't know for CERTAIN they will be killed. Generally by the time they know that for certain it is too late.

Given 924 people were killed in a robbery in 2007 and tens of thousands injured I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to have a fear of bodily harm or death is you are robbed.


According to the FBI 924 people were killed in a robbery in 2007.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html
One in six people murdered by a stranger were murdered during a robbery.

Death during a robbery was the second leading situation (after arguments) when the killer was a stranger.

I can control who my friends are, who I allow in my house, or even which members of my family I associate with. I can control who I have an argument with or who I have criminal dealings with.

I can't control who is going to rob me and I don't know if they intend for me to end up like one of those 924 people in 2007.

The law says I can use lethal force to prevent my self from being a victim of violent crime.
I honestly hope the criminal lives. I will be shooting to stop.

[Euromutt]

48. Wrong

The way you know for certain it's a mugging is when the mugger threatens the victim with violence if his (unlawful and unreasonable) demands are not met. At that point, in my book, you're justified in drawing and, depending on the precise circumstances, threatening to shoot or actually shooting.

Again, it's not about the money; it's about the threat to the victim's physical well-being.

FWIW, incidentally, the way the Kansas City story is reported in the OP, it sounds like an unjustified shoot to me:

<...> the pickup owner <...> said he shot the carjacker when he tried to drive away with the vehicle.

At that point, the carjacker no longer posed a threat to the owner's life or limb. Moreover, by shooting the carjacker while he was already driving, the owner in effect turned his truck into a three-ton unguided missile.

[PavePusher]

49. And apparently, at that point, you think they should just give up their money. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

64. Please provide a bit more information.

Most robberies also involve a display of force, a threat of some sort to let you know what will happen if you don't surrender your valuables. Muggings start with a violent attack, usually a blow to the head. While you are down dazed, the mugger takes your stuff off of you. You were robbed, not mugged.

So when the guy says, "Give me your money.", what kind and level of threat is he showing?

[SteveM]

61. If I was being mugged, the $ wouldn't mean a damned thing...

If I had a chance, I would shoot until the threat ended. You can keep the change.

[rd_kent]

68. Depends on the situation

If the perp had no weapon, I would just show mine and that would probably end it. If he had a weapon and chose to continue after seeing mine, well, who know how that would play out.

Your "pocket change" nonsense is irrelevant. The fact that someone is trying to take something that is not theirs is.

[Euromutt]

80. Actually, what's relevant is that that person is threatening your life and/or limb

You want to take my wallet without my consent? Learn some pick-pocketing skills. But the moment you wave a fist, knife or gun at me, it ceases to be about money; now it's about the fact that you're threatening my physical well-being.

[Euromutt]

50. Stupid moves in these stories

First story: trying to jack a car waiting in line at a drive-through has got to be one dumb move. Even once you get the occupants out, there's vehicles in front of you, and if there isn't one behind you, one could come rolling any moment, which effectively means you've got no escape route.

Second story (and I've already point this out elsewhere): reads like a bad shoot to me. The vehicle's owner didn't shoot until the carjacker was already driving away, i.e at a point where there was no longer a threat to the owner's physical well-being. Moreover, by shooting the carjacker while he was driving, the owner in effect turned his truck into a three-ton unguided missile, thereby creating a lethal hazard to bystanders. If I were the cops, I'd be charging the guy with reckless endangerment at the very minimum.

[spin]

56. Some people have criticized the title of the OP...

and said that the title should have been "Car jackings gone good". I think you caught the real meaning. The third incident was a little different as the victim stopped the attack, however he was caught off guard which leads me to wonder if he was practicing situational awareness. Had he not opened his door, an attacker with a knife would have had little chance to pull off a car jacking. I also wonder what caliber firearm he was using. I may be nitpicking and perhaps more information would answer my questions.

[sui generis]

90. In other news The Gunjeon wins the prize for highest number

of low post contributors. Gosh I wonder what that could possibly mean. :shrug:

[PavePusher]

93. Ahh, innuendo. Nice tactic.

Could you maybe make a supportable point, or answer a direct question?

Or are you just here to inflate your post totals? 'Cause that seems to be some kind of self-validation for you.

[sui generis]

107. I wasn't talking about you, so quit being paranoid

anyway, you want to play smack down? I'm not here to "answer questions". I'm here same as you, to share my over inflated opinion of world events and people not present. And a few who are.

I suppose you are more noble or something. :eyes:

beat it brat.

[spin]

100. When I see a poster with over 10,000 posts, I'm impressed...

what do you consider a low post contributor?

[sui generis]

108. under 50

for the record.

You can always tell when 99 percent of those posts are in a single forum. Makes you wonder why they chose a democratic forum to complain about the liberal gun grabbers. . . . that's all.

Just a little dissonance. ;)

[GreenStormCloud]

111. Maybe they are Blue Dog Democrats, or 2nd Amendment Democrats,...

and this is DEMOCRATIC Underground. So that should include those variations of Democrats.

[spin]

114. I see your point, but at one time all of the regular posters...

had less than 50 posts. When I first started posting, most of my posts were in the Gungeon. Gun rights are an issue that I am interested in, and I believe I have some knowledge of the subject after 40 years of target shooting.

I belonged to FreeRepublic and had occasionally posted on gun issues. After I retired I had the time to post more often and I posted a couple of replies on FreeRepublic that said that Bush the Junior was considering an attack on Iran. I backed these statements up with excerpts and links to the BBC and a Israeli newspaper.

I was banned in a heartbeat.

So I shrugged my shoulders and just moved over to DU. I found the discussions in the Gungeon more lively and challenging then FreeRepublic or the pro-gun boards. Many times I found my views challenged with good arguments. I had to carefully consider my views and in some cases change them. Often I was insulted. Insults are like rain to me. I walk through rain and enjoy it. I don't melt. Insults also drain off me with no effect. If they upset me, I would simply post on pro-gun forums where everybody agreed with me. Boring. I enjoy the verbal combat and find it entertaining and addictive.

While the Republicans SEEM to support gun rights more than the Democrats they are basically weasels and would sell out gun owners very quickly if they perceived a political advantage in doing so.

Democrats appear to be more up front and honest. Many oppose gun ownership, but a significant number are pro-gun.

So I usually welcome new posters, both pro and anti-gun when I encounter them. If they are trolls the moderators will notice and tombstone them. Moderators have a thankless job but they seem to exercise their powers in a fair manner.

I believe the Democratic party is a big tent with room for both pro and anti-gun advocates. As dissatisfaction with Republicans grows many more people will join the Democratic party and some will participate in DU. Many of those people will be pro-gun. The old time very liberal anti-gun posters will find this disturbing, but the Party will be stronger.

And the Democrat's position on many issues is far closer to mine than the Republican approach that favors big business and international corporations and war for profit and ego.

[GreenStormCloud]

115. Outstanding post !

I believe the Democratic party is a big tent with room for both pro and anti-gun advocates. As dissatisfaction with Republicans grows many more people will join the Democratic party and some will participate in DU. Many of those people will be pro-gun. The old time very liberal anti-gun posters will find this disturbing, but the Party will be stronger.

Well said.

[spin]

116. Thanks for your support. (n/t)

[sui generis]

117. awesome -

you have my respect - and thanks for your honesty. It's an odd thing - I'm not a gun grabber by any means but I do see folks over here who are so passionate about this one topic that they get irrational.

I'm a pretty jocular guy - usually when I'm being "mean" it's more poking fun and the guys that get it, get it and know it's not a personal condemnation.

As a queer dude I'm used to poking fun at "our" stereotypes too - it takes the teeth out of the stereotype and even makes me look at it from a different point of view sometimes. My dad sends me these "saved the world with my gun" emails all the time, even though he's a suburban Kansas farm boy who's never come across anyone more dangerous than a homeless person panhandling for change (apart from his stint in Vietnam). I also have professional contacts who live in gated communities in Dallas and never do anything more risky than park down the street at church, and yet they're just certain there are wicked people everywhere against whom the only defense is an immediately available firearm, and they are absurdly passionate about these boogeymen.

I know most gun owners are pretty rational and not obsessed with stories to justify having a firearm, but the rest tend to congregate in "gungeons", and really don't seem to see the same world the rest of us live in.

Anyway, thanks for the level headed answer - I'm very pleasantly surprised and also pleased to make your acquaintance.

-sui

[spin]

122. Having visited gun ranges on a regular basis for 40 years...

I've met a lot of gun enthusiasts. Generally they seem rational but most are Republican because the Democratic Party has an anti-gun reputation. Today it seems a rational Republican is a contradiction in terms.

Most of the regular shooters had a concealed carry permit and carried. Three of the people who carried concealed told me of incidents where they had reason to display their weapons.

One was a fellow employee driving to work late at night who in some way irritated another motorist. When they pulled up to a red stop light, the angry motorist got out of his car and walked toward my co-workers car with a tire iron in his hand. He obviously meant to use the tire iron to attack my friend. The first thing that my co-worker thought of was to simply drive away, but he was blocked in the front and the back and the drivers side by other cars. On the passenger side of his car was a deep drainage ditch. So he pulled a 9mm semi-auto pistol from his glove box and held it in his hand on the steering wheel so that it would be visible to the angry motorist. The man walked up to the car, noticed the pistol and returned to his car. No further problem after the light turned green.

The second involved a locksmith who was called to open the trunk of a car late at night in a bad neighborhood. After he opened the trunk, the person who had called him attempted to rob him with a knife. The locksmith pulled a snub nosed revolver and tried to jam it up the robber's nose. He got his money for the job and got out of the neighborhood as fast as he could. He decided to stop responding to late night calls for his services.

Two of my co-workers were using a metal detector to check out a site in downtown Tampa on a Sunday morning. A building had just been demolished and they were hoping to find some interesting items. A man walked up with a knife and demanded that they give him their wallets. One of my co-workers had a .45 auto in a shoulder holster under a light jacket. He pulled his jacket aside to show the robber his weapon. The man turned and walked away cursing. All is well that ends well.

Considering the number of shooters I've known and talked to over the years, that a fairly low number of incidents where concealed weapons were used.

The reason for this is that despite misconceptions, people with concealed carry permits avoid areas and times where they might have an encounter. They realize that using a concealed weapon can result in far more trouble than it's worth.

But I know I lot of people who own firearms but do not carry them outside of their homes. Again a couple had to use a firearm to stop an intruder but still a very low number. One was my daughter who stopped an intruder who was in the process of forcing a sliding glass door open. She pointed a large caliber revolver at him and he ran. No shots were fired. I know far more people whose homes were broken into when they were not home. Firearms in the house do nothing to prevent such robberies and several people told me that their entire firearm collection was stolen. Then they decided to buy a safe to store their firearms in. Kind of like locking the barn door after the horses have escaped.

Now I do often carry. Today for example I went shopping at a drug store, a grocery store and a dollar store. The drug store and the dollar store where within walking distance of my home but the grocery store was 30 miles away in another little town. I carried a snub nosed .38 special in a pocket holster in my front pocket.

Did I expect trouble? No. Did I think that there was any chance that I would have to use the weapon? No.

So why did I carry it?

I knew a fellow shooter who always carried a full sized semi-auto pistol in a belt holster with a scrubs top covering it. Normally at his business he had the firearm under his suit jacket.

Carrying a full sized semi-auto is a pain in the ass, especially in the summer heat in Florida. He was even carrying the firearm at the indoor shooting range we were practicing at.

So I asked him why he carried his weapon constantly. His reply was, "Because when I wake up in the morning there's no reminder on my calender stating that I need to carry my weapon that day as I will need it." While that made sense, I still felt that the guy was a little paranoid. Later I was talking to the range master and discussing the incident. He pointed out, "You have a carry license and know how to use your firearm. You need to carry that weapon regularly as you can never predict when you might need it and it's a privilege the state has granted you in the hopes that you will be able to protect yourself and others from violent attack if necessary. If enough people do carry and do use the privilege in a responsible manner, violent crime should decrease." The range master was a retired police officer and often said that the cops always show up after the damage is done to fill out the necessary paperwork.

I've known a couple a gun owners who seemed to expect black helicopters to swoop down at any minute and teams of elite military special forces would jump out and start confiscating weapons. I try to avoid these people. Once at the range I often shot at, a individual showed up and started talking extreme right wing bullshit and acting like he was recruiting for a militia organization. The regular shooters managed to make him feel uncomfortable enough that he left and never came back.

edited to add:
Thanks for the compliment. I've enjoyed our discussion also.

[Treo]

123. Responsible, law-abiding, citizen

When I got my permit, it came W/ a (form) letter from the county sheriff, it said in part


This privilege carries with it a significant responsibility that you as a responsible law-abiding citizen exercise sound judgment, restraint and safety in the use and handling of firearms. Remember that the use of deadly force must always be a last resort."

The words really struck me when I read it. Carrying a gun is a big deal; there’s a lot of responsibility involved with that and it isn’t something to be done lightly. I’ve had one occasion to use a gun in self-defense. It was me V. a carload of kids carrying baseball bats and tire irons. I don’t know if they were trying to intimidate me or they seriously intended to attack me. I do know that when they saw the gun (my ability to project equal force) they took off and NO ONE got hurt. If I were “looking for an excuse to shoot a human being” that would have been it. That was 26 years ago and I’ve not actually needed a gun since. But, if I ever do need one again I will need it right now that’s why I carry.

EDIT typo

[paulsby]

126. if automobile operators exercised the same care

with automobilies that CCW'ers exercice with their guns, this would be a MUCH safer country.

[spin]

130. It very rare to have to use a concealed weapon for self defense...

most people will never have to use one.

But a few will, and possibly the weapon will save their life. Some will be able to defuse the situation by merely showing their weapon as you did. A very, very few will have to actually shoot their weapon. If the attacker is wounded or killed there are legal and psychological aftereffects. As bad as the legal problems are, the PSTD can be worse. Cops who have been involved in a shooting often suffer symptoms and they have access to counselors and psychotherapy difficult and expensive for the average citizen. Avoiding confrontation is a good approach.

Abstract Shooting incidents are a rare phenomenon in low violence police work. However, when an incident occurs, the psychological impact for the officers involved may take the form of severe PTSD symptomatology. Of 37 police officers who had been involved in serious shooting incidents between 1977 and 1984 we found that 17 (46%) fulfilled DSM-III criteria for PTSD, either at the time of the interview (n=7, 19%) or prior to it (n=10, 27%). Of the PTSD-negative group 17 still showed an impressive pattern of PTSD symptoms. Only three showed no symptoms of PTSD at all. Lauferet al. (1985) presented a two-dimensional model which seems to fit the PTSD-pattern in police officers reacting to trauma. From clinical experience, it is apparent that most police officers involved in these incidents seek refuge in denial (Lazarus, 1984). Focused psychotherapy in combination with working through of the incidents and sometimes psychopharmacological intervention appear to be of value in alleviating PTSD in police officers. Preliminary experience in psychotherapy with these police officers is presented in two case vignettes.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5607q4h6p23012m/

[Treo]

131. IMO

Most people that carry a weapon are a ware of that and go to great lengths to avoid ever having to use their weapon (hence, my earlier question about being in a dark alley in the first place) That's why I resent the gun grabbers characterization of us as "cowboys who are just looking for an excuse"

[GreenStormCloud]

132. I definately try to avoid potential situations.

I know full well that if I have to shoot someone, that even if I am completely, both morally and legally in the right and obviously so, I am still in a boatload of trouble.

Sometimes you can't avoid some risk. Sometimes you have to go to an all-night grocery store, and walk from your car to the store and back. Sometimes you have to use an ATM at night. Sometimes your car breaks down while you are driving. Sometimes you do everything right, but it just isn't your day.

The attitude of "Why were you there?" on the part of the anti-RKBA folks has a strong blame-the-victim mentality to it.

[spin]

136. True, but planning ahead can enable you to avoid many of these situations...

I usually kept a couple of hundred dollars cash at home. No reason to go to the ATM at night. (If a hurricane was approaching, I would up the amount to at least $500.)

I always tend to buy a stockpile of essentials and replace them as I use them. It's rare that I ever go to a 24/7 convenience store and if I do and I notice strange activity in the parking lot, I just find another store.

Usually I replace my battery every three years before it goes bad. I'm careful about vehicle maintenance and try to anticipate problems and fix them before they leave me stranded.

But shit happens and when it does Murphy's law says it will happen at the wrong time in the wrong neighborhood. A legal concealed weapon and the ability to use it is very reassuring at that point.

If anything can go wrong, it will.

If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which something can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.
Corollary: It will be impossible to fix the fifth fault, without breaking the fix on one or more of the others.

If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-laws.html

Always remember that Murphy was an optimist.

[Euromutt]

124. Good points all

Personally, I like talking about guns, but I've grown a little tired of doing it on fora where I really don't see eye to eye in terms of general political views with an overwhelming majority of the posters. This is just about the highest concentration of gun owners who aren't to a man political troglodytes. Small wonder we congregate here.

[spin]

128. Interesting and quite possible...

I think the moderators eliminate the "political troglodytes" rather quickly which makes a better forum to post on then the pro-gun sites.

[Treo]

133. Mugging gone (depending on your perspective) REALLY wrong

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1885966/gun_control/

[PavePusher]

134. No, that is exactly how all muggings should go. n/t

[Treo]

135. I did say depending on your perspective NT

[spin]

137. Damn, that was good...

however I would have went for center body mass.

[Treo]

138. Well , You know Denny never does it the easy way

The scary thing is the grabbers think that clip is accurate

[spin]

139. It was entertaining...

but most movies and TV shows are.

[Euromutt]

143. Eh, any time Boston Legal turns to guns...

...it tends to annoy the living piss out of me. It did in the second season, anyway. Once you start accumulating some knowledge about firearms, you quickly realize how little TV writers know about them, or the people who own them. I've lost count how many negligent discharges I've seen Denny Crane commit, and then there was an episode in which some guy sued his congressman for failing to support a renewal of the AWB, following which the plaintiff's son had been killed using an "assault weapon." Uh, say, doesn't Massachusetts have a state-level AWB? So why would it be germane that the federal AWB lapsed?

That sort of thing.

[spin]

144. You would think that evetually...

the idiots that make these shows would wake up and realize that a significant portion of their viewers own firearms. Like you, these viewers catch faults. Handling firearms safely wouldn't hurt the plot and a little realism is a good thing.