posted
The following events were all reported in newspapers, then reprinted in the "The Armed Citizen" column in the May issue of American Rifleman. You can check them yourself.
12-6-98: Torrance, CA. Restaurant patrons were terrified when a customer pulled a knife and began threatening others inside the restaurant. Another customer, with a carry permit, responded by drawing a handgun. Two of the Good Samaritan's shots struck the arm of the knife-wielding man, ending the chaotic episode.
12-21-98: Caldwell, ID. Residents of a home awoke early one morning to noise from the kitchen. Armed, they investigated and surprised a man crawling through a window. They held him at gunpoint until police arrived. He was later charged with: burglary, felony possession of heroin and mathamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphenalia.
1-11-99: Midlothan, VA. At 3AM. two people brandishing knives entered a gas station, ordering the attendant to open the cash drawer "or I'll kill ya!" The attendant, faking obedience, instead retrieved a handgun kept for just such an emergency and leveled it at the bandits, who fled.
1-29-99: Shreveport, LA. Two masked gunman entered a grocery store, demanding money. The owner grabbed a shotgun and managed to fire several shots at the men, who fled. They later were caught attempting to get treatment at a nearby hospital, and were charged with armed robbery.
2-1-99: Lancaster, PA. having entered a grocery store and demanding "give me the money!" in spanish, a knife-wielding would-be robber was befuddled when the owner's son grabbed a .357 Mag. handgun and pointed it at the intruder, who said "Hey, you can't shoot me!" shed his mask and knife, and ran.
2-5-99: Phoenix, AZ. Donald mays, 35 finally met his doom after jumping out of a neighbor's closet and scuffling with the homeowner. Mays, who had a prior record of such attacks, including tying up and robbing victims, and even rapong, choking, and threatening to kill a female victim, was fatally shot by the homeowner.
2-7-99: Agusta, GA. Sebron Mitchell, 91 was attacked by a man many years his junior who "tore the door down," put a butcher knife to his throat, and demanded money. While the suspect was distracted rifling through a drawer, Mitchell grabbed a .32 cal. revolver and wounded his assailant, who fled. The attacher was later arrested, treated at a hospital, and sent to jail.
2-14-99: Bucks County, PA. A man came upon a 12-year-old boy being attacked by a pit bull. Grabbing his .357 Mag. handgun, he cautiously approached the enraged animal and fired. The animal was later destroyed.
2-21-99: Ypsilanti, MI. A 76-year-old woman found herself facing a black-clad, knife weilding robber who broke into her house, Handing the culprit $200 allowed her time to crawl away and retrieve a handgun. When she turned the gun on the man, he screamed, begged for his life, then fled.. dropping the money.
Chalk up a few for our side, guys. I have hundreds more.
------------------ You're just JEALOUS because the little voices talk to ME!
posted
Of course, this isn't really surprising considering where you got the information from.
If someone had a copy of 'The Unarmed Citizen' I'm sure we'd have just as many stories from the flip side.
The most important fact: More people die (as a percentage of the population) from shootings in the US than in countries which have tighter gun control.
------------------ 'Those are the headlines. Happy now?' -Chris Morris.
posted
I live like two minutes from Torrance. We barely ever hear about good samaritans doing that sort of stuff. All they ever show on the news is what the bad guys do.
posted
Where I got the information from got its information from the newspapers. And, of course, most incidents like those above never even make the papers, since successful defense without a successful crime is rarely reported or followed up.
what percentage of that percentage you're talking about is made up of people who die because they're shot by the cops during commission of a crime, or by the people they're trying to rob/kill?
They shouldn't count in a properly done statistical sample, since what those numbers show is the EFFECTIVENESS of having guns, rather than their detriment.
"accidents" (read: "stupid people") shouldn't count either, since we're talking about intentional violence.
>"If someone had a copy of 'The Unarmed Citizen' I'm sure we'd have just as many stories from the flip side."
This appears to be a total non-sequitur to me. Want to explain what it means? All the "unarmed citizens" incidents would have ended with the intended victims being actual victims, having been robbed, raped, and whatever.
------------------ You're just JEALOUS because the little voices talk to ME!
"One post-high-school kid talked about things were different in the past, when kids didn�t have access to guns. I thought of the rifles hanging in my basement in Fargo. I thought of the conversation I had with a friend at work, who was describing how one could order a machine gun by mail order in the 40s."
Typical. Many people had access to guns in the past. The cultural norm was that people who owned guns respected the fact that killing other people was wrong except in self defense or the defense of another. My grandmother slept with a pistol under her pillow when she was a young mother. Wonderful lady. Never shot anyone. Could've, though.
Having the means to kill another human being does not equal the desire to do the same. If you become a murderous creature with bloodlust on the brain just because you have an instrument of death in your hand, I don't want to see you with a gun. Nobody does.
--Baloo
------------------ Next: proving that stepping on a crack won't break your mother's back. Nothing against Mom, but sometimes we all have to make sacrifices for the greater good.
posted
Unfortunately the culture of guns have changed and now many people believe that a few dollars are worth more than a human life. Whether the life is that of a victim or a criminal.
IP: Logged
posted
Well, the criminals believed that first, so they deserve what they get.
I'm sorry, but I don't have any, ANY tolerance for murderers, thieves, rapists, and so forth. Call me mean-spirited, I don't care. I'm a lot LESS mean-spirited than they are.
There's no call for any of it. There's no NEED to steal ANYTHING to survive. Not in this country, anyway. I mean, I might have pity on the guy who would steal food, or medicine for his sick kid, but really, how many people do that? Especially in this country, where our tax money is supposed to PAY for all that? Most of them would rather have your stereo, your TV, and a few hundred dollars in cash. And they'll gladly and without conscience kill you for less.
No, thieves steal not because they NEED, but because they WANT. Well I want things too, but you don't see me breaking into houses to get them. You don't see me holding up a grocery store. Why? Because I can pay for my own stuff, and what I can't pay for, I don't NEED. Or I'll go out and do extra work and EARN the money for it. Or sell something I already have. You'd be surprised what people will pay you to do.. and how little money it takes to get by. Therefore, my stuff is MINE, and no scumbag who doesn't see fit to earn his own stuff can have mine. Show me the life-and-death REASON you have to have my stereo system, and it's yours. But try and take it without cause, and you're gonna need an ambulance. Or a mortician.
It's this misguided belief that when you choose a life that harms others, you should retain your rights as a normal human being does, that causes a lot of unnecessary grief in this country today.
In my opinion, when you choose to ignore the human and property rights of another, you abrogate your own. End of story.
------------------ You're just JEALOUS because the little voices talk to ME!
posted
I would presume he's never broken into someone's home armed with a deadly weapon to do any of those things.
Ever hear the term: "proportional response"? That means, for instance, that if you detect a shoplifter in the act, you are within your rights to impose a citizen's arrest and call for store security. Blowing him away is not an option.
If, on the other hand, the shoplifter pulls a gun out and you (as a reasonable person) believe that you or someone in the immediate vicinity are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm, you may start shooting. Just remember that nobody's wearing "Good Guy" or "Bad Guy" badges when store security arrives.
In the above situation, you would be unlikely to be convicted (and in some jurisdictions, even charged with the crime of shooting the perpetrator. You might have difficulties depending on the legality of having a firearm (presumably concealed) in a public place. Here in New Mexico, it is legal to carry an UNconcealed firearm anywhere the law does not prohibit such. (Check your guns outside the post-office, boys).
English common law (upon which our own legal system is founded) recognizes that it is okay to break the law if, in doing so, you are upholding a greater law. Thus, if your father has a heart attack while giving you driving lessons and passes out, it is laudable as well as LEGAL for you, without a valid license, to drive him to the hospital or other immediate aid. If granny, on the other hand, wanted you to drive to McDonalds to bring her a happy meal, take the shoeleather express.
--Baloo
------------------ I just hope that no one in heaven wears stupid T-Shirts that say �I Survived the End of the World and all I got was this crummy T-shirt!�
posted
PsyLiam: Actually, I once stole all of $10 off of my little brother's bed, in plain sight of him. I gave it back five minutes later. I was teaching him that it was a bad idea to leave money lying around unprotected where unscrupulous people might get it.
And no, I've never copied a computer game, and never taped someone else's CD. (I have made tapes of my own CD's, because I can't listen to them in my car, - and since many of the CD's I buy are singles and maxi singles that contain songs never put on tape - but since I paid both for the original CD and the tape, and never gave or sold copies to anybody else, I wouldn't think any court in the land would consider that theft. In a library setting it would fall under the "fair usage" copyright clause.
That's it. That's the sum total of my criminal life. That and two speeding tickets (one contested and won).
Howd'ya like THEM apples?
------------------ You're just JEALOUS because the little voices talk to ME!
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
Once upon a time there were three bears, Daddy Bear, Mummy Bear, and Baby Bear, and they lived in a little cottage in the forest.
Now, one day all three bears sat down for breakfast. They were having porridge. But then Daddy Bear said "it's a nice day! Why don't we all go for a little walk while our porridge cools?" And so, off they went.
Meanwhile, a juvenile delinquent single mother who's probably Jewish too came walking through the forest looking for ways to assist the UN and the World Bank take over the land of the free. Her name was Goldilocks, and when she saw the cottage she said "what a quaint cottage! I wonder if there's anything in there to further my quest for world Communism?" So in she went, a clear case of B&E.
First she efficiently cased the joint, noticing the three beds that were too hard, too soft and jsut right. "Hmm," she said, "I'll have to get the boys round with a lorry for all this! But I wonder waht else there is? Ooh, Porridge!"
Now, she first tried one bowl and it was too hot, and the second was too cold. But the third was just right. She was just about to eat it when the bears returned. "A burglar!" screamed Mummy Bear. "Who will protect us?"
Daddy Bear didn't hesitate. He drew his Smith & Wesson 8mm semi-automatic (review this issue, p. 34) and shot Goldilocks dead with only two magazines full of bullets. To be completely sure he riddled the corpse with rounds from an Armalite AR-15 (Editors Choice, June 88) converted to fully automatic fire in complete violation of the unconstitutional edicts laid down by those quislings in Washington (see our "How To" section, p. 83).
And the moral of this story is, guns don't kill people, bears kill people.
------------------ "Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things!" - Silent Bob
posted
And, of course, the REAL moral of the above story is, "some anti-gun people will say just about ANYTHING, no matter how prejudiced, discriminatory, stereotypical, and ludicrous, to try to sway more people to their side."
Come now, if I were REALLY being paranoid, I'd point out some of the odd little things that have come up after the Littleton incident... like the fact that a Certain Intelligence Agency <-HINT kept police teams from entering the building until after some of their agents went through first. Or the odd coincidence that the incident took place JUST as Colorado was preparing to vote on a referendum to allow people more carry permits.. and just as the NRA convention was coming to Denver.
Provacateurs in the background? You didn't hear it from me...
------------------ You're just JEALOUS because the little voices talk to ME!
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
I must say it's curious the way you automatically assume that I'm anti-guns. What I was actually satirising is the whole of the absurd column you've brought to our attention. But of course, it seems I'm either with you or against you, and since the 'with you's' would never dare to joke about something so sacred as ownership of the Holy Gun, I must be against you.
And that paranoia of yours. I'd do something about that. I mean, if I suggested that the whole crime epidemic in America was actually instigated by the NRA to justify gun ownership, I'd be called a loony. Please try to be sensible.
------------------ "Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things!" - Silent Bob
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
And there's more! Now, let's examine this whole CIA thing. Now, what you're saying is that as a major tragedy was reaching its conclusion, operatives of the US's foreign intelligence service, whose mandate prohibits domestic operations, showed up and prevented the local law enforcement from responding. That they were able to wield such authority despite the fact that any policeman worth his salt would know they couldn't? And that their presence has gone completely unremarked by all the world's press in the thousands of column inches and minutes of TV time?
And you're saying that the whole thing was caused anyway to promote a referendum and disrupt a conference? How many years in advance have these two events been scheduled? Because by all accounts that's how long these two sick kids were slowly building up to it. . . did they have somthing put in their water? Were they abducted and brainwashed for long periods?
I pride myself on being a reasonable, rational person. I am willing to admit that there are problems with the concept of strict gun controls - in this country, they did not prevent Hungerford, nor did even stricter ones prevent Dunblane. But one incident every ten years is far better than ten incidents in one year!
I just don't know what to say here. I just can't understand this mania for owning guns, and the sheer unwillingness to grant the fact that if there aren't so many guns around, then such horrors become that much less likely.
And please. . . the CIA? Don't waste our time.
------------------ "Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things!" - Silent Bob