Naked Man Takes 'Risk', Gets Shot At
By Associated Press
Wed Jun 14, 11:36 PM

ANN ARBOR, Mich. - A marriage-minded man ran naked through his neighborhood, trying to show his hesitant girlfriend that taking risks is important. He got more than he bargained for when he ended up being chased and shot at.

"Just when you thought you had heard everything," Ann Arbor police Detective Sgt. Jim Stephenson told The Ann Arbor News.

The couple were discussing marriage early Wednesday when the woman said she wasn't sure if she was ready, according to Ann Arbor police reports. The man responded that taking risks is an important part of life and, to prove his point, jumped out of a first-floor window and ran naked across the street.

Before he could return, he spotted a couple walking and hid in some bushes to avoid them. A 28-year-old man noticed the bushes rustling and bare feet underneath, then drew a .40-caliber handgun and ordered the naked man out, police said.

The naked suitor ran away, but the armed man gave chase and threatened to shoot, police said. The gunman fired a shot and the naked man fell to the ground, suffering minor injuries.

A resident called police, who arrested the gunman on charges of aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon. He was taken to the Washtenaw County jail but released following further investigation, police Sgt. Patrick Hughes told The Associated Press.

The naked man was not arrested and didn't want to pursue charges, Hughes said.

happy that Canada has avoided the gun culture, it is slowly changing, but I prefer this.

If I was walking late at night with a loved one and some naked freak jumped out, I would probably get very defensive and protective of my loved one.

Fists and knives would tend to be a defensive weapon requiring the stranger to close the distance (I wouldn't go after them, and my arms are only so long). A gun speeds up the judge/jury/executioner process.

I am happy that Canada has avoided the gun culture, it is slowly changing, but I prefer this.

The story in the OP is played out frequently - without the gun. Two (probably) good people's lives cross with one making a bad decision, the other a panicky bad decision, a gun in the mix and a bunch of lives were almost ruined.

Yes, I know. Crimes have been prevented by giving citizens access to guns and the citizen producing them when threatened. I don't live in a gun culture with an arms race between felons and citizens.

If I was walking late at night with a loved one and some naked freak jumped out, I would probably get very defensive and protective of my loved one.

The judge jury executioner statement is around the idea that when you shoot someone, they deserve to die. Because they might. Pulling a gun and not shooting it is a statement that the person in front of you may die.

A handgun gives the victim, family of the victim, potential victim power to inflict a capital punishment from a place of emotion - and possible error. Sometimes it is justified, sometimes not.

Free way shootings (as happen in LA) are potential capital punishment for driving offenses (and possibly killing innocents). That is a combination of available gun (legal or not), an out of control anger, and a feeling of both injustice and being able to get away with it. Extreme case - and reported heavily in the media so it seems more common than it is. In Canada we have attempted freeway knifing, but they don't seem to be as successful.

The Arms race I spoke of was that if guns are everywhere (or perceived to be everywhere) then the citizens arm up. The felons have to arm up too, or risk getting shot. More gun crimes, more armed civilians, more gun crimes (and accidents).

I can't agree with you on this one, do some simple searches and see how many peole died in Aus. Can. Eng. by gun, look at the gun laws of each country, compare those stats with US gun deaths and get back to me. The statistic most certainly do not "bear out".Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network

Additional data can be found in Table A.10 of the World Report on Violence and Health, published by the World Health Organization on 3 October 2002

...or have gun will shoot....
http://www.comcast.net/...ml&cvqh=itn_nakedman

...personally I would have shot the guy. I mean you just can't have people running around neked all the time....next thing you know someone like Rosy O'Donnel will come streaking through your neighborhood while your eating .....these are our gauranteed rights....shooting at neked people is something we need to preserve and protect....


Bang

MaD

I can't agree with you on this one, do some simple searches and see how many peole died in Aus. Can. Eng. by gun, look at the gun laws of each country, compare those stats with US gun deaths and get back to me. The statistic most certainly do not "bear out".Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network

Additional data can be found in Table A.10 of the World Report on Violence and Health, published by the World Health Organization on 3 October 2002

I don't have time to pursue the data and collection method for these statistics right now, although they don't look right. Even assuming those are correct, it does not make a convincing argument against legal gun ownership.

-These statistics consider ONLY gun deaths, it does not say how many are in self defence and how many are criminal.

-They do not consider other forms of violence and crime; guns tend to lower both of these, especially violent crime against females.

-F

JRed -- good data points. I'll conceed that the rates of gun violence drop in most countires where bans are instituted. I should have stated the rate of violent crime rises or isn't impacted significantly. That comment is based on what I've heard and I have no data to back it up, so I'll do some searching when I get a chance and post again later.

Ed

The thing is even in a hypothetical more violent/less gun society there would be fewer deaths. I really do not believe that the USA has a lower violent crime rate compared to say Switzerland, Japan and I know for a fact Canada has a lower violent crime rate, we are working hard to change that though.

Different cultures, dude.

Banning alcohol from the Native American Reservations hasn't resulted in a decreased rate of alcoholism compared to other parts of the US.

Banning drugs didn't result in a reduced rate of drug addicts.

Banning alcohol during prohibition didn't result in fewer alcohol related crimes.

Banning speeding hasn't resulted in a reduced rate of traffic accidents/deaths.

Banning gambling in some areas hasn't reduced the amount of gambling.

Switzerland, Japan, et al have cultures that differ on numerous facets compared to the US. Gun laws are but one of those facets, and to place the blame for statistic differences on just one facet is just a little too convenient for my tastes.

However that does not change the statistics that clearly show a relationship between guns and death. I feel this makes a good argument for gun control in countries without current (major) gun problems, my own country, Canada for an example.

Sure, I see your point, but on the whole, America has a lower rate of accidental strangulation by lederhosen than does, say, Switzerland. Should the Swiss ban lederhosen?

The primary problem I have with the gun control argument you (and others) have put forth is this: The simple act of owning a firearm does not automatically equate to causing the death of another. Did you know that yesterday, several hundred thousand firearm owners didn't shoot anyone? ;)

Like owning a car, it is the improper, uneducated, inexperienced use that creates the problem. There are far more factors involved (how much drug crime does Switzerland have, anyway?) to make such a black-and-white argument of "less control means more deaths."

If it were up to me, I'd make a law about guns that requires much more education and training. LOTS of it. Every year. IMHO, and I think the stats will support this (though, admittedly I haven't checked yet,) this increase of education and training will have a much greater effect more restrictions.

Man, this may sound crazy but I bet more Americans have died by lederhosen strangulation than have Swiss, now if you were talking fondue skewering and cuckoo clock blugeonings........

What you propose is a form of gun control, if mandatory training and education is what you are getting at.

apples and oranges. look at the rate of change of the violent crime numbers around the time that the guns were banned. look also at the same rates in states in the US that passed concealed handgun laws. In Texas, there was a decrease in the rate of increase of violent crime about 6 months after the CHL law was passed. That was about the time that the law was tested in court.

I gotta call BS. No self-respecting American would be caught dead in lederhosen. 'Cept mebbe those freaks up in Wisconsin, but can you blame 'em? Heck, they don't even have a decent football team anymore... nothing left to do but eat cheese, drink beer, and wear women's clothing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, you know.


OK, I'll give you that, but it's not "Gun Control" in the same sense you were advocating before (i.e. a ban on guns.) It's only "gun control" in the same sense that having to take a driving exam to get a license to drive is "car control."

empahsis mine. i wouldnt call that a success. a success would be a decrease of the rate of violent crime.

anyway, i wont get into details now because i go climbing in 45min and i still havent eaten or packed.

but i think that comparing usa with other countries that have stricter gun laws is comparing apples and oranges. why? because of the numeber of (legal and illegal) guns in usa. and if you made a law that requried citizens to return their guns, you can bet that the honest ppl would be the only ones to abide by it. criminals would happily keep theirs.

so while im am against pro-gun-laws, i strongly believe that implementing stricter laws in the usa would be a BIG mistake. it would just make a bigger mess than it already is.

So you figure the W.H.O. has a secret agenda? What would that be?

Where would you pursue your gun deaths stats, the N.R.A. or other gun company sponsered groups?

Really, what does it matter if the deaths are criminal/self defence.

Are you implying that these other countries are with higher crime rates (not true) because people do not own guns?

Are you implying that the USA is less violent country because of guns, less violent than any of the above countries?

Sure, I see your point, but on the whole, America has a lower rate of accidental strangulation by lederhosen than does, say, Switzerland. Should the Swiss ban lederhosen?

If you actually look at the crime stats I think it's pretty irrelevant if you have a gun or not. Most crimes are intra-racial and happen in ethnic lower-income households. So draw your own conclusion here on whether or not you need a gun. (If you're white and not poor, chances are you don't really need to carry a concealed weapon)

Guys, basically every household in Switzerland has a gun and training, you know, from compulsory military service, and until a couple of years ago, they even got a box of grenades (not sure if it is still the case), and you are using the Swiss as a "good" example...

CR doesn't even have an army, the police force is a joke, we have a pretty bad immigration (illegal) problem and lots of guns (getting a legal CCW is easy here)... guess what, very low homicide rates too...

-F

If you actually look at the crime stats I think it's pretty irrelevant if you have a gun or not. Most crimes are intra-racial and happen in ethnic lower-income households. So draw your own conclusion here on whether or not you need a gun. (If you're white and not poor, chances are you don't really need to carry a concealed weapon)

If you actually look at the crime stats I think it's pretty irrelevant if you have a gun or not. Most crimes are intra-racial and happen in ethnic lower-income households. So draw your own conclusion here on whether or not you need a gun. (If you're white and not poor, chances are you don't really need to carry a concealed weapon)

Guys, basically every household in Switzerland has a gun and training, you know, from compulsory military service, and until a couple of years ago, they even got a box of grenades (not sure if it is still the case), and you are using the Swiss as a "good" example...

Apparently the sarcasm and humor got lost in translation.

As well as knives, Devon and Cornwall police also received an 8lb anti-tank rocket launcher, known as a "tankbuster", which has a range of up to 350 metres.

A force spokesman said: "The amnesty is for all weapons and if someone wants to get rid of a rocket launcher, that's fine by us."

I have lived in California, and I considered getting a gun when I lived there.

Its always amuses me when someone that seems to be against the ownership of firearms for personal protection finally comes out and says something like this:



So when its your ass on the line it just might be okay to own a firearm, eh?

Awesome! danooguy is back and bastardizing and cherry picking quotes again.

And before the NRA talking points book get's opened up I am very skepitcal of gun control and would never suppoert "BANNING GUNS!!!!!"

Or, we can just keeping banning weapons all the way back to the "club" used by cave men. When you take the weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens you have guaranteed that society will be dominated by the physical strong and superior. The small and weak will be forced to defend themselves with inferior weapons and the table will be set for rape and pillage.

It's already happening in England where knife violence has increased at an alarming rate. Who has a better chance of winning a knife fight? Someone physically more superior. My wife, your girlfriend, our parents have very little chance in hand to hand combat againsts maurading thieves. A gun is the only weapon that gives everyone the same chance to win a battle.

Mixed feelings on this European news tidbit, about how soccer hooligans are using cellphones in lieu of knives and crowbars. On the one hand, it’s great to see outmoded gadgets put to some use, apart from cluttering up closets and landfills. On the other, I’ll bet that getting pegged in the forehead by a Nokia handset hurts like nobody’s business. Though I guess that serves some wankers right for rooting for Blackburn Rovers.

Know what the difference between you and people in the UK is?

We in teh UK don't want guns, because we're not convinced that we and our families are about to be robbed and raped at any moment.

There's a word for people like you who are afraid to stand up for themselves, and you won't like it very much.

Mad Dogs and Englishmen

By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM

June 17, 2006; Page A11
With Great Britain now the world's most violent developed country,
the British government has hit upon a way to reduce the number of
cases before the courts: Police have been instructed to let off with
a caution burglars and those who admit responsibility for some 60
other crimes ranging from assault and arson to sex with an underage
girl. That is, no jail time, no fine, no community service, no court
appearance. It's cheap, quick, saves time and money, and best of all
the offenders won't tax an already overcrowded jail system.

Not everyone will be treated so leniently. A new surveillance system
promises to hunt down anyone exceeding the speed limit. Using
excessive force against a burglar or mugger will earn you a
conviction for assault or, if you seriously harm him, a long
sentence. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one
burglar and wounding another during the seventh break-in at his
rural home, was denied parole because he posed a threat to burglars.
The career burglar whom Mr. Martin wounded got out early.

Using a cap pistol, as an elderly woman did to scare off a gang of
youths, will bring you to court for putting someone in fear.
Recently, police tried to stop David Collinson from entering his
burning home to rescue his asthmatic wife. He refused to obey and,
brandishing a toy pistol, dashed into the blaze. Minutes later he
returned with his wife and dog and apologized to the police. Not
good enough. In April Mr. Collinson was sentenced to a year in
prison for being aggressive towards the officers and brandishing the
toy pistol. Still, at least he won't be sharing his cell with an
arsonist or thief.

How did things come to a pass where law-abiding citizens are treated
as criminals and criminals as victims? A giant step was the 1953
Prevention of Crime Act, making it illegal to carry any article for
an offensive purpose; any item carried for self-defense was
automatically an offensive weapon and the carrier is guilty until
proven innocent. At the time a parliamentarian protested that "The
object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and
it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy." The
government countered that the public should be discouraged "from
going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty
of society to protect them."

The trouble is that society cannot and does not protect them. Yet
successive governments have insisted protection be left to the
professionals, meanwhile banning all sorts of weapons, from firearms
to chemical sprays. They hope to add toy or replica guns to the list
along with kitchen knives with points. Other legislation has limited
self-defense to what seems reasonable to a court much later.

Although British governments insist upon sole responsibility for
protecting individuals, for ideological and economic reasons they
have adopted a lenient approach toward offenders. Because prisons
are expensive and don't reform their residents, fewer offenders are
incarcerated. Those who are get sharply reduced sentences, and serve
just half of these. Still, with crime rates rising, prisons are
overcrowded and additional jail space will not be available anytime
soon. The public learned in April that among convicts released early
to ease overcrowding were violent or sex offenders serving mandatory
life sentences who were freed after as little as 15 months.

The government's duty to protect the public has been compromised by
other economies. Police forces are smaller than those of America and
Europe and have been consolidated, leaving 70% of English villages
without a police presence. Police are so hard-pressed that the
Humberside force announced in March they no longer investigate less
serious crimes unless they are racist or homophobic. Among crimes
not being investigated: theft, criminal damage, common assault,
harassment and non-domestic burglary.

As for more serious crime, the unarmed police are wary of responding
to an emergency where the offender is armed. The Thames Valley
Police waited nearly seven hours to enter Julia Pemberton's home
after she telephoned from the closet where she was hiding from her
estranged and armed husband. They arrived once the danger to them
had passed, but after those who had pleaded for their help were past
all help.

To be fair, under the Blair government a host of actions have been
initiated to bring about more convictions. At the end of its 2003
session Parliament repealed the 800-year-old guarantee against
double jeopardy. Now anyone acquitted of a serious crime can be
retried if "new and compelling evidence" is brought forward.
Parliament tinkered with the definition of "new" to make that burden
easier to meet. The test for "new" in these criminal cases, Lord
Neill pointed out, will be lower than "is used habitually in civil
cases. In a civil case, one would have to show that the new evidence
was not reasonably available on the previous occasion. There is no
such requirement here."

Parliament was so excited by the benefits of chucking the ancient
prohibition that it extended the repeal of double jeopardy from
murder to cases of rape, manslaughter, kidnapping, drug-trafficking
and some 20 other serious crimes. For good measure it made the new
act retroactive. Henceforth, no one who has been, or will be, tried
and acquitted of a serious crime can feel confident he will not be
tried again, and again.

To make the prosecutor's task still easier, he is now permitted to
use hearsay evidence -- goodbye to confronting witnesses -- to
introduce a defendant's prior record, and the number of jury trials
is to be reduced. Still, the government has helped the homeowner by
sponsoring a law "to prevent homeowners being sued by intruders who
injure themselves while breaking in."

It may be crass to point out that the British people, stripped of
their ability to protect themselves and of other ancient rights and
left to the mercy of criminals, have gotten the worst of both
worlds. Still, as one citizen, referring to the new policy of
letting criminals off with a caution, suggested: "Perhaps it would
be easier and safer for the honest citizens of the U.K. to move into
the prisons and the criminals to be let out."

Ms. Malcolm is professor of history at Bentley College and author
of, inter alia, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" (Harvard
University Press, 2002).

Hmm... really?

Know what the difference between you and people in the UK is?

We in teh UK don't want guns, because we're not convinced that we and our families are about to be robbed and raped at any moment.

There's a word for people like you who are afraid to stand up for themselves, and you won't like it very much.

Of course, when I'm naked, I'm always packing heat. My concealed weapon is indeed dangerous, at least as far as the pretty ladies need be concerned. How you doin'?

[..]Besides, its not the muggings and rapes that scare us, it is our own government. [..]

Sure, I see your point, but on the whole, America has a lower rate of accidental strangulation by lederhosen than does, say, Switzerland. Should the Swiss ban lederhosen?

So basically you need weapons to protect yourself from people you did vote for mostly because they allow you to carry guns?

Interesting... :lol:

- Daniel

Besides, its not the muggings and rapes that scare us, it is our own government. Guess what happens in countries where the populace can't defend themselves? Think Mugabe, or Hussein.

Maybe you should be scared. Check the knife attack statistics in your precious UK. You got a problem that guns would solve...

Do you honestly think citizens could effectively fight the US military? The whole "guns protect us from the government" argument is about 100 years out of date.

Unarmed citizens are much easier to control than armed ones. An armed citizenry strongly discourages any kind of overthrow.

Considering a coup of this country seems absurd, but I'd bet the people in 1930s Germany felt the same way.

our chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police.

Know what the difference between you and people in the UK is?

We in teh UK don't want guns, because we're not convinced that we and our families are about to be robbed and raped at any moment.

There's a word for people like you who are afraid to stand up for themselves, and you won't like it very much.

ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS

By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D., author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for “heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.

Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
_________________

ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS

By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D., author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for “heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.

Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
_________________

Considering a coup of this country seems absurd, but I'd bet the people in 1930s Germany felt the same way.

The insurgents in Iraq use them against our government and they seem to be holding tough. Military victory isn't about armour and bullets, its about leadership.

When I'm naked, it isn't possible to conceal my "weapon." So I guess I'm doin' better than you. :P :lol:

interesting read Ed. I've never, ever felt the need to pack a weapon. I've lived in the city, rural areas and i've always felt secure. I do lock my doors at night (never during the day), i've got a big husky/german shepherd dog that does most security.........scared off many jw's. But, i've never felt out of control or lived in fear.

I've lived with guns, but they were hunting rifles never for protection. My dad taught us gun safety and never was a gun loaded in the house.

Doesn't make me feel anymore scure that i could carry a gun.

Would i want teachers packing heat..........no thanks

s--- happens, i'll take my chances.

sorry you live in fear

i'm surprised you even leave the house

Marge, do you carry a prusik or 2 for emergencies? Practice self-rescue? Have a fire extiniguisher in your car/kitchen? Do you live in constant fear because you are prepared to face the emergencies that might arise?

If anything, being prepared reduces fear in the face of an emergency (of any sort)...

Paranoid? Why should I be paranoid? I'm the one with the gun! :wink: :lol:

-F

I have no doubt that us citizens would be able to annoy Washington if we put our minds to it, but do you really think we'd stand a chance of overthrowing the government?

...sorry you live in fear

i'm surprised you even leave the house

never said anything about paranoia...........just living in fear. of course i do all the above mentioned safety precautions. I've just never found any need to carry a handgun and i live my life feeling safe without the need for one.

maybe i'm naive, or maybe it's just where i live, but things are pretty damn safe without needing a handgun.

feel free to carry yours.

Our problem is that people are committing crimes with knives.

I fail to see how allowing the same people access to guns would help.

Perhaps you think that the victims would be able to defend themselves if they had guns? Well they don't seem able to defend themselves now, and they can buy all the knives they want.

Well, Marge, "living in fear" and "paranoid" are nearly synonymous. That's how I took your comment. And believe me, I'm not advocating that anyone carries a weaon who doesn't feel so inclined. Just don't ask me not to or try to prevent me from doing so.

Ed

I really can't believe you're making this statement. So everyone who desires to own a firearm is living in some sort of irrational fear?

Do you do anything in your daily routine that prepares you for unforseen circumstances?

Do you lock your doors?

Do you avoid places known for high crime rates?

Do you have a plan for what to do if someone breaks into your home?

In my life time there have been few occasions where I felt a need to have a gun -- two of 'em, in fact. Neither time did I have a gun, and both times I ended up a victim of crime.

As has been mentioned, a gun is the great equalizer. You don't think most knife crimes could be stopped with the simple draw of a hand gun? Regardless of who is drawing the gun? Let's say your wife or girlfriend is carrying a knife -- a nice 6" long fixed blade -- and is confronted by a large man weilding a 3" folder. Do you think she would stand a chance if she decided to defend herself with the tools she has available? Yeah, she has a bigger knife, but does she know how to use it? Could she over come the difference is physical stature between her self and her attacker?

Now assume the same scenario, except the lady is packing a gun she knows how to use. BANG! End of attack. End of story. Even the frailest of lil old ladies can defend themselves from the largest of attackers if they have the right tool in their hands to equal the playing field.

You never know when your path may cross that of people who are planning to do evil.

It may just be a case of bad timing -- you were in the bank the day and time the thieves planned their robbery.

You just happened to be at school when an expelled student came back to even the score.

You happen to be sitting in a religous service when some anti-whatever fanatic comes in shooting.

If you live in a country where you aren't allowed to prepare to defend yourself with a gun, then there's not much you can do.

We are also the ones who you will turn to when the shit hits the fan. When the bad guy starts shooting and all you have is a table to duck under and a ham sandwich to defend yourself with, you're the ones who start looking around for people like me. I'm the last person who hopes I get to use one of my guns in self defense, but I am fully prepared to do so.

Don't you ever think about how the masacre at Columbine High School might have ended much sooner if just one teacher, or Principal, or the librarian would have been packing?

...you don't realise just how much you go on about how "evil" people are planning to do you harm and how "warriors" must protect the "innocent" but you do...Real fighting - with "deadly force" (lovely term, very faux-military) - is muddled, brutal and never has a clean, safe outcome...cobbled together from hollywood films and self-congratulatory bravado...your imaginary world is fairly hopping with "evil" men who need to be killed by heroic "warriors"...the LAST person I would want anywhere near me would be a trigger-happy paranoiac like you. The first priority in an emergency is not brassing up the baddies like rambo on viagra...

My first action is to find some cover, then I look for accomplices, not seeing any I draw my weapon and wait for a shot. (doing some movie BS about covering it with a news paper isn't a bad idea)

if a VCA is the second type, they tend to be more intelligent. That type is more likely to consider who's in the store before they start the event. As likely as it is in TX for a man to be carrying concealed (looking for referencable stats on that too) a VCA of this type will not want us around when his event starts. Concealed weapon carriers are a deterrent.

If a criminal walks into the same store, walks up to the office and shoots the guy behind the desk, jumps over the counter and starts taking the money, then he's a murder and will likely kill the next person he feels he needs to to impress his sense of urgency on the rest of us.

If a criminal walks into the same store, walks up to the office and shoots the guy behind the desk, jumps over the counter and starts taking the money, then he's a murder and will likely kill the next person he feels he needs to to impress his sense of urgency on the rest of us. My first action is to find some cover, then I look for accomplices, not seeing any I draw my weapon and wait for a shot. (doing some movie BS about covering it with a news paper isn't a bad idea)

In this thread, it seems like a number of people most of whom don't live in the US, have a very distorted view of the "gun culture" in this country. A common response to posts explaining the gun owner/carrier POV is to look for ways to misunderstand what people are trying to say and mock them.

how often does this happen?

However, in the second case, why "wait for a shot"? What do you accomplish by killing someone stealing money? Is it even legal to kill someone who's not threatening anyone?

I'm interested - it seems to me that you'd be better off staying alive to give evidence to the police than risking your neck to be judge and jury, no?

sorry you live in fear
i'm surprised you even leave the house

Like it's been pointed out. You're ignoring the part of my post where I point out that this VCA is a murderer and will kill again if it suits him. He is threatening everyone in the store to get what he needs. And in Texas and many other states who's gun-laws I've researched, it is legal to kill the VCA in this case.

in Texas and many other states who's gun-laws I've researched, it is legal to kill the VCA in this case.[/

The giveaway is in the last paragraph:

You've actually researched who you can legally kill. That's not the action of someone who's only looking to defend himself.

What I am allowed to do and how I am allowed to prepare myself in a variety of situations changes from area to area (something as simple as seat-belt laws or as complex as concealed carry) so it just makes sense to know what the rules of the game are in the area you will be playing. I also make it a point to read a local paper a couple of days before a trip so I know what's up in the area... does that make me insane?

You read the paper to recce the area before you go anywhere?

Yes, you're probably insane.

:lol:

And no, it's not a game and there aren't any rules. I guess in your macho fantasy you'll have time to think about whether the law stipulates that you can or can't kill someone. In reality however... well you're clearly not too familiar with reality really.

Oh, I'm not cherry-picking here, I'm simply asking a practical question.

You say he's threatening everyone to get what he needs.

So why not just give him what he needs?

Or just stay out of his way so he has no reason to shoot you?

Again, we have an imaginary character - a mass murderer who will kill anyone and everyone just to rob a store. Again, this non-existent person behaves in a way which makes no sense. And he does it to justify a person who's afraid of him - and just about everything else - carrying a gun.

The giveaway is in the last paragraph:

You've actually researched who you can legally kill. That's not the action of someone who's only looking to defend himself.

In fact, it seems obvious that you're actively looking for an excuse to use your gun to kill someone when many other avenues exist which would have a better result but not involve you waving your gun around and playing the hero.

:?

Well then it looks like I've been threatened with firearms a lot more often than you have Ed. And I'd bet that I've been on the wrong end of a knife, a bat and a claw hammer more often too.

Want to know what I know about self-defense?

1. I was in those situations because I put myself there, usually using my mouth.

2. The idea of getting a clean shot off, or a straight knock-out punch, is a fantasy. Real fighting - with "deadly force" (lovely term, very faux-military) - is muddled, brutal and never has a clean, safe outcome.

Case in point:


This is a child's fantasy version of a violent encounter, cobbled together from hollywood films and self-congratulatory bravado. Someone who's pointing a gun at you's not going to let you pull one of your own.

Killing is not the only way out of a tense situation. To paraphrase, if your only tool is a hammer and you live in terror of unknown imaginary "evil men", you'll see nails everywhere you go.

There's that paranoia again.


And again.


And again.


And again.

Wow, your imaginary world is fairly hopping with "evil" men who need to be killed by heroic "warriors" like you, huh?

There it is again - you feel helpless without a gun. Me? Well, I'm still alive so I guess I'm not that helpless.

You really do have yourself down as a hero in waiting, don't you?

If the s--- hits the proverbial, the LAST person I would want anywhere near me would be a trigger-happy paranoiac like you. The first priority in an emergency is not brassing up the baddies like rambo on viagra.

Again, you are not going to make a double-tap one handed while jumping across a table. Firing a gun at people who also have guns is the one ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED way to get them shooting too, probably at you but probably not without hitting other people too.

Please please please, if any such thing ever happens and I'm around - stay the f--- away from me, man. I'll take care of myself and anyone else I safely can. You can live out the horrible reality of your commando fantasy as far away from me as possible.

No, but I often think how it might not have happened in the first place if your society wasn't saturated and obssessed with guns.

It seems to me that America must be an extremely violent place, only American's are defending guns. This desire/need to play the self defence hero with a gun aparently does not exist in any other countries why is that? Could the NRA's lobbying power and influence have something to do with this?

It seems to me that America must be an extremely violent place, only American's are defending guns. This desire/need to play the self defence hero with a gun aparently does not exist in any other countries why is that? Could the NRA's lobbying power and influence have something to do with this?

how often does this happen?

so far none. so far


I'd rather carry 3lbs of metal on my belt and never need it, than need it and not have it.

Do you read the news? Or do you just ignore the scary stuff? Do I really need to do a basic Google search to find enough stories for you to make it real? How many stories do I need to find for you to reach your threshold for understanding that crime happens in every city every day? There's no need for you to run out and buy a gun if you don't feel like it, but let's not pretend that "bad guy" scenarios like this don't occur every day.

Ed

I didn't mean how often does it happen to you, I meant how often does it happen, period.

Browsing the CDC it looks like there are 0.04 gunshot homicides per capita in the US per year. Compare that to 2.24 deaths/capita for heart disease and 2.0 for cancer.

This is why people are calling you guys paranoid....it's incredibly unlikely for you to be involved in a situation where your gun would be needed.

Is anybody's mind going to change here?

I got thrown out of a movie theater because they noticed I was packing three bananna cream pies. Some damn commie "no food from outside" policy. I don't know about you people but I never leave the house without my pies. What if I walk into a store and some clowns want to start a pie fight? I could show you many many instances of innocent people getting creamed just because they were too unprepared to defend themselves. I for one won't be cowed into giving up my constitutional right to defend myself and I'm willing to fight for it. Make pies illegal and only clowns will have pies. Where will we be then? I don't know where but we'll probably be forced to wear big floppy shoes.