CCW holder shoots carjacker

[Atypical Liberal]

Found via reddit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CInmIKVzkoM&feature=related

CCW permit holder carried for years but never had reason to draw his firearm.

I guess he's just one of those irrational 6% of the population.

[bowens43]

1. Child Killed in Gun Accident

A 2-year old boy is dead, after shooting himself in the head yesterday. Lake Ozark Police Chief Mark Maples says the toddler got a chair and used it reach into his parents bedroom closet where they kept a handgun.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/lake-ozark-mo/TT4SBLPR89MHF2HBO

Just another of the irrational 6% I guess.....

[Remmah2]

2. Is that a valid counter argument? nt

nt

[Atypical Liberal]

4. How is this related to concealed carry?

No one is attempting to say that there are no firearm accidents.

How is what you posted related to what I posted?

[DWC]

6. Gross attempt to change the subject.

I am sad for the child - as you should be.

I am glad for the successful defense - as you should be.

I am sad that the car jacker created a situation leading to death (his own) - as you should be.

Semper Fi,

[ileus]

10. always have your weapon on your hip or in a safe...nothing to worry about.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

13. Has nothing to do with...

...concealed carry, far more than 6% of the population keeps a firearm in the home, and the kid would have done something stupid even if there were no guns in the house.

Chalk that up to the <1000 accidental firearms deaths per year in a nation of 300+ million - in other words, a statistical fart not worthy of acknowledgement except to those directly affected.

[Hoopla Phil]

3. I hope potential carjackers learn that a car is not worth their life.

It really is that simple.

[spin]

5. Some here might mention that he was afraid to leave his home without a gun ...

if so, in this case, it was a good thing. The individual says his concealed weapon is like a Master Card, he never leaves home without it. If you have a carry permit, it makes little sense to leave your firearm behind in your gun safe. You can never predict when you will find you have a need to use your firearm to save your life or health.

At this point it does sound like legitimate self defense. The video mentions that the 19 year old car jacker had a gun.

It is also interesting to note the individual with the carry permit says he is still having problems coming to grips with what he did. As he says, "I would never want to take anyone's life." I feel very few of the people who actually have carry permits ever want to kill another person. I also realize that if a person does, there is a high chance, even if the shooting is justified, that he will face psychological problems that will haunt him possibly for the rest of his life.

But at least he has a life.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. Meh, he's just one of those "irrational 6%". n/t

[Starboard Tack]

11. I think your pepper spray would have done the job without loss of life

I find it hard to justify killing someone over a vehicle. But, like he said, he's having a hard time dealing with it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

14. I dont.

You have no idea how much he may have needed that vehicle. It is no different than stealing a man's horse 100 years ago. The loss of a car for many can mean the loss of their livelihood.

[Starboard Tack]

22. His horse ain't doin' too good. Guess he'll have to shoot it now.

Some of us live in the 21st century.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

25. I see you missed the point entirely.

Go back and re-read what I wrote.

[Starboard Tack]

82. Oh, I read it just fine. I got it. We all got it. Thank you.

You don't have a problem with shooting another human over a horse or car or some other material thing important to your ability to make a living.
We know where your priorities lie.

[NewMoonTherian]

87. Maybe I'm reading too much into your words.

We know where your priorities lie.

You seem to mean that his priorities, as you perceive them, reflect poorly on his character.

[Starboard Tack]

89. How amazingly perceptive of you

Do you share his priorities - horses and cars above humans? I can possibly understand horses, but cars. Really!

[RSillsbee]

279. If I lost my car today

I would have no way to replace it. There is no bus service to where I work , at least not during my work hours, so I would likely lose my job. In this economy finding another job is not guaranteed so yes I would defend my car w/ lethal force

[iverglas]

284. oh, give me a break

No way to replace it? No used car dealers with easy terms? You have a job, you can get a vehicle.

If you are actually worried about your car being stolen, get today's equivalent of what a 1996 Dodge Neon was in 2001:

http://www.auto-theft.info/Statistics.htm

100th in the rankings of most often stolen vehicles.

Toting a gun around will not guarantee that your car will not get stolen. Driving a Neon equivalent pretty much will. If you are actually worried about your car being stolen.

[RSillsbee]

288. I own a 14 YO ford Taurus so I think I'm pretty safe.

No way to replace it? No used car dealers with easy terms? You have a job, you can get a vehicle.

Sorry dear, (not that it's any of your business)but DW is unemployed and your's truly is maxed out on student loans.

Losing my car would be a major threat to my economic health I would defend it w/ lethal force

[We_Have_A_Problem]

106. Nope i sure dont...

That property represents a part of my life which the criminal is attempting to take from me.

My intent is not to kill him of course, but to stop him. If he ends up dead, that's his problem. He should have kept his grubby paws off my stuff. Simple as that.

I take it you're fine with criminals taking your property regardless of the damage it may cause you?

[iverglas]

112. I actually agree

that "property crime" is sometimes not insignificant -- even where it looks that way to the "objective" eye.

I have very few objects from my grandparents, and nothing from their parents or earlier. One thing I had was a little cameo ring that had been my mother's mother's when she was a child, that she gave to me when I was a child. It was among the things stolen when my house was broken into. Would the $50 my insurance policy might have given me for it have compensated me for that loss? Nothing would have compensated me for that loss. My life, as you say, is diminished by it.

Several years ago I went out to my car just before noon to get going on my election day duties -- pulling the vote in a poll a couple of miles from my home. I needed the car to get there, and to move around effectively within the several blocks the poll covered as I spent the next few hours banging on doors and getting our supporters out to vote. Someone had broken into my car (probably got a handful of change) -- and left the car door open. I'd failed to close the door properly myself a couple of times, and suffered the consequence: a dead battery from the overhead light staying on. Luckily, this break-in seemed to have happened in broad morning daylight, and the battery was still okay; an hour later and it might not have been. This tiny act of utter disrespect, not even closing the car door after the theft, outraged me. Had it been dead, and had it been one of the days locally when the CAA was overloaded with call-outs because of weather, this minor property crime could have interfered in the democratic process, quite seriously.

But killing someone to prevent the loss of my grandmother's keepsake would not have enhanced my life, and killing someone to prevent my car from being broken into (and how would I have known the intent was not to steal it?) would not have enhanced the democratic process.

In both instances, the use of physical force of such a nature as to injure or kill, and permitting the use of such force, would have diminished me and my society. It would have made me a barbarian, and my society barbaric.

Stealing other people's property isn't civilized, no argument. But it is not the kind of barbarism that injuring and killing other people over property, let alone with impunity, demonstrates and exacerbates.

Modern civilized societies have made a choice, and it is very clear. The individual's inherent, inalienable right to life and security of the person takes precedence over property interests. We do not injure and kill each other in disputes over property, and we do not permit the injuring and killing of other people in disputes over property. Period.

And nobody's negative opinion about that fact (and no backwater jurisdiction's failure to adhere to that choice) really matters a whit.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

117. You appear to see some of where I'm coming from...

..but where we diverge is you see a lack of the use of force as a good thing, and I see the use of force when justified as a good thing.

I do not consider society diminished in any way by forcibly stopping a criminal from plying his trade. I actually consider society bettered by stopping him from committing a crime - and if he dies in the process, society has gained that much more.

Nobody is arguing in favor of killing with impunity, however, to believe that criminals have some right to not get a few extra holes in them, in my opinion, turns the idea of a civil society on its head. When a person is acting in a manner which demonstrates he has no interest in being a part of civil society, removing him from that society is best for all concerned.

[iverglas]

120. please don't rewrite reality

but where we diverge is you see a lack of the use of force as a good thing, and I see the use of force when justified as a good thing.

I see neither as neither.

I see the use of force when justified as, well, justified, eh? The thing is, you can't just slip that "when justified" in as if it means anything you decide it does.

Justification is part and parcel of the whole thing. If you don't address the issue of justification, you are just begging the question. Your assumption that what you decide is justified is then justified doesn't work.

The use of force such as will injure or kill, in a dispute over property, is in most cases not justified -- and I am not citing my own opinion (although that is my opinion), I am citing the consensus of collective human opinion that has existed for some time now.

I've said in the past that it was not unreasonable at one time to tolerate people using such force to prevent livestock thefts, for example. In isolated situations in the North American climate, some property crimes could indeed have threatened life and security of the person. That simply is not the case today. Nobody's loss of a Yukon Denali is going to leave them starving in a snowstorm. But hey, if somebody does use force against a carjacking attempt that would leave them stranded in a blizzard with no hope of shelter or rescue, I'll consider the scenario with an open mind. Even if it involves a 1972 Pinto.


I do not consider society diminished in any way by forcibly stopping a criminal from plying his trade.

How about if I try the same trick on you? -- I do not consider society diminished in any way by removing one Yukon Denali from the planet.

We can all define the actual issue out of existence if we want to play that game. Playing it diminishes the player: you.


I actually consider society bettered by stopping him from committing a crime - and if he dies in the process, society has gained that much more.

Have I asked you lately? Do you take that position from your adherence to a liberal, progressive, democratic or Democratic philosophy/platform? What distinguishes you, on this point, from the worst of modern right-wing thought/policy / feudal thought/policy? Is that position consistent even with the most barbaric passages of the Old Testament?

Who shares your opinion whom anyone here should respect an iota for an instant? Who shares your opinion who is not a total dirtbag?

(Hey, anybody who wants to is free to jump in here and say "I do! I do!" Your choice. I'm looking for someone whose opinions are verifiable and public, however.)

to believe that criminals have some right to not get a few extra holes in them, in my opinion, turns the idea of a civil society on its head.

No, it is the fundamental value of a civilized society.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

... Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

I seem to remember that someone named Roosevelt had a big hand in that one. Eleanor, I think it was. She of the sidearm.

http://www.udhr.org/history/Biographies/bioer.htm

Eleanor Roosevelt regarded the Universal Declaration as her greatest accomplishment.

... Unlike most other members of the Commission, Mrs. Roosevelt was neither a scholar nor an expert on international law. Her enthusiasm for her work at the United Nations was rooted in her humanitarian convictions and her steady faith in human dignity and worth.

I'm on the side of Eleanor Roosevelt. It seems you are not.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

124. Oh for pete's sake...

I was agreeing with you and trying not to start a conflict. Do you have to look for disagreement in EVERYTHING?

[iverglas]

136. no, you were not agreeing with me

You misrepresented what I said and what I think.

You may have thought it helped your case to make it look like *I* was agreeing with *you*, but it didn't.

Just be more careful, and there won't be a problem.

[Starboard Tack]

135. Sounds like you're another "property over life" toter to come out.

"If he ends up dead, that's his problem" - I'm assuming you haven't actually killed anyone for trying to take your property. Otherwise, I doubt you would be so glib.
Why would I be fine with criminals taking my property? Of course I wouldn't, but property is replaceable, lives aren't. It's really not complicated. I can't imagine carrying anything worth protecting with a gun, except maybe my own gun, if I carried one. Violence begets violence as madness begets madness.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

139. Let me clarify that for you...

My property is far more valuable than the life of the oxygen thief who may wish to take it.

Have I killed anyone for it? Nope. Have I pulled a gun on someone attempting to take my property? Yes I have. Will I do it again? Without hesitation.

Whether replaceable or not, it ultimately does not matter. The time I spent to acquire that property and the time I will spend to replace it are not replaceable. Further, some things cannot be replaced. Last but not least, the one betting his life is the thief - he should be aware he may lose that bet one day.

Would I sleep well at night knowing I had ended some punk's life over "mere" property? Probably not for a few days, but I'd get over it.

[Starboard Tack]

156. And yet another one declares his priorities.

It's getting to be a familiar thing around here.
Property trumps life. The thief wants to risk his life to steal your junk and you are prepared to risk yours and take his to protect it. What a wonderful world we live in.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

159. In the context of...

...keeping my property from the hands of thieves, yes, my property trumps the life of a thief. I make no apologies for it.

[iverglas]

161. I'm interested in opinions

"In the context of keeping my property from the hands of thieves, yes, my property trumps the life of a thief. I make no apologies for it."


Okay, so the question is this.

Why am I reading this at Democratic Underground?


Possible answers are:

(a) because this opinion/sentiment is consistent with liberal principles and philosophy

(b) because this opinion/sentiment is consistent with progressive principles and philosophy

(c) because this opinion/sentiment is consistent with democratic principles and philosophy

(d) because this opinion/sentiment is consistent with Democratic Party principles and platform

(e) all of the above

(f) some combination of the above (please specify)

(g) none of the above (please explain)

[Starboard Tack]

165. Thanks. I think we all got the message.

[Fred Engels]

205. It absolutely astounds me that some people think the rights of criminals supercede

those of victims. What sort of sick mind operates that way?...I don't get it.

[iverglas]

212. it absolutely astounds me that some people think their property

is worth more than someone's life.

What sort of sick mind operates that way? I don't get it.

I mean, really, I do. It's generally pretty obvious exactly what kind of sick mind is in play. I guess I just don't get how people get that sick, and why they want to parade their sickness around in public.

And hey, assembled masses.

Our new friend here has just

(a) misrepresented what anyone in this forum has ever said
and
(b) called other people in this forum sick

no matter how clever said new friend thinks they have been.

So before you pull that alert trigger, make sure you've aimed it properly.

Me, I'm just playing turnaround.

[Fred Engels]

? So...nobody said it, but I called "them" names anyway?

Can I get some of whatever you're smoking?

[iverglas]

243. I get it!

It was a random thought -- you had one, and you thought the Guns forum at Democratic Underground looked like a good place to type it.

Okey dokey. As long as we know what's going on, so we can give you a wide berth when we see you coming. It isn't always wise to get within range of a random thought and its thinker.

[Fred Engels]

247. Well, as long as you understand you will never separate me from my constitutionally protected arms

and that I really don't give a ratz what you think, we should get along fine. Does your "we" include a turd in your pocket?

[gravity556]

170. You know, the ones deciding that property trumps life are the criminals

who engage in armed robberies, home invasions and carjackings, right? Were it not for those individuals engaging in those acts, those mean old CCW holders would never have cause to shoot them. I'm just curious as to why some folks are so hot to blame the victim of the crime when his assailant ends up an organ donor.

Any rational explanation? Why are you so willing to bet your life (and if you get your way on gun laws, willing to bet my wife's and my lives as well) on the rationality and goodwill of an armed criminal? I don't know about you, but I'm seldom trusting of someone whose first words to me are something to the effect of "Give me your fucking wallet or I'm gonna fucking blow your head off". For some reason, I doubt the human decency of that individual.

Again, keep in mind that there are folks out there who have no qualms about opening fire on a bus load of people just because one of their friends felt "disrespected".

The shooting starts about 46 seconds in. http://youtu.be/U2NEzu8cQgs And I'll bet you 50 bucks that not one of those individuals pulling AK47s out of their pants and opening up on a fucking bus full of people has a CCW. Keep in mind, this isn't in Texas or AZ or Alaska or Vermont-this is in Philladelphia. The City of Brotherly Love.

I'll continue carrying, thank you very much, and I am particularly pleased that your "wants" have no effect on my rights. :)

[Starboard Tack]

174. "the ones deciding that property trumps life are the criminals"

Of course. I don't think anyone is denying that, except maybe the odd criminal. Why would you call CCW holders mean? I can understand anyone getting a CC permit for those occasions when he/her is venturing on a mission into dangerous bad guy territory. You know, just to have one in case.
Your logic is completely backward. Does your average armed criminal stick a gun in your face and say "Give me your fucking money!" and then wait politely while you unvelcro your fashionista fanny pack to extract your super mini canon to blow his head off. So, if you're really afraid of things that go bump in the night, hang that pearly handled thang on your belt and show the "mother" who he's dealing with. Don't be embarrassed. Let him see it. He's showing you his, isn't he?
Also, remember, if you OC, you'll be saving other lives, because all the bad guys will be looking, pointing and shooting at you, while the rest of us leave the room.
Is the video meant to impress the importance of standing up and having a shootout with guys carrying AK47s. I can just see Mighty Mouse being the hero in that scenario, thumping his chest, and a bus full of dead people. Hey you want to carry. Be my guest.

[Name removed]

297. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

34. .

:rofl:

[Atypical Liberal]

17. It wasn't just a vehicle.

As the victim said, the criminal reached for a weapon (and a gun was found on him), and the victim feared for his life.

I don't have a problem with pepper spray, or people who feel that is the right self-defense choice for them.

But if I felt I needed self-defense, I'd choose a pistol over pepper spray any day. Pepper spray gives you one shot, and usually well within the Tueller Drill distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

If you miss your attacker's face, you are going to have one seriously angry attacker on your hands, and no tool left to defend yourself with.

At least with a gun, even if you miss the sound of being shot at tends to put a damper on the criminal's enthusiasm.

[Starboard Tack]

24. The kid was about to drive away. Why shoot him? For a car?

What's wrong with dialing 911, or shooting out a tire? Now he's got nightmares over killing a kid and no vehicle.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

26. What's wrong with dialing 911?

Hm, lets see...

Perhaps his cell phone was in the car and he couldn't?

Shooting out a tire? Sorry - that only works in the movies. Try it in real life sometime. Virtually impossible. We'll just ignore the fact that it puts anyone downrange at risk....

Here are some things for you to think about:

1) The man needs his car because he has to get to work to pay his bills.
2) The man needs his car to get home and take care of his sick wife
3) The man needs his car to live his life and cannot afford to replace it.

Just some quick examples off the top of my head.

Not everyone has the ability to just go throw away 20K on a new car tomorrow - especially these days.

[iverglas]

35. it was a Yukon Denali

1) The man needs his car because he has to get to work to pay his bills.
2) The man needs his car to get home and take care of his sick wife
3) The man needs his car to live his life and cannot afford to replace it.

The insurance money will let him

(1) get a new one, or
(2) hire someone to look after his wife for a year, or
(3) buy three new normal vehicles, or buy one, hire someone to look after his wife for 6 months, and pay all his bills


http://www.gmc.com/yukon/denali.html
MSRP Starting at: $53,650


Not everyone has the ability to just go throw away 20K on a new car tomorrow - especially these days.

But nice try!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

37. Doesnt mean he bought it new

And it doesnt mean he can afford to replace it NOW.

A man's rights do not simply go away because he has something nicer than you do.

I don't give a shit if it was one of a dozen Maybach's the guy owned. The car jacker had no right to try to take it and the owner had every right in the world to stop him.

[iverglas]

41. the thought processes around here continue to flummox me

A man's rights do not simply go away because he has something nicer than you do.

What's that got to do with what you said, that I replied to?

How do you know (not) what I have?

What's nice about a Yukon Denali?

The car jacker had no right to try to take it and the owner had every right in the world to stop him.

Right right right you are!

Stupid as all get out that doing so might have been, and ugly as all get out as it may be to kill someone over a piece of property.

And oh dear ... he DIDN'T STOP HIM.

It seems it might have been the car crash that killed him. So I guess, hey, maybe the gun guy was just trying to give him a little booboo that would have convinced him to get out of the car.

[Atypical Liberal]

45. Doesn't mean he should not have tried.

Stupid as all get out that doing so might have been, and ugly as all get out as it may be to kill someone over a piece of property.

And oh dear ... he DIDN'T STOP HIM.

Doesn't mean he shouldn't have tried to stop him.

But anyway this wasn't about a car. The perp pulled a weapon.

[iverglas]

46. and once again ...

Doesn't mean he shouldn't have tried to stop him.

Who said he shouldn't have? I say he was lucky that when he did he survived uninjured, and maybe stupid to do so.

But anyway this wasn't about a car. The perp pulled a weapon.

Now that's a much trickier thought process. Yes, there really are some who read this who are simple enough to look at that and think: yeah ...

I'm sure.

There are all kinds of things that people are justified in doing.

That doesn't mean that it was necessary or decent to do any one of them in particular.

It is not necessary or decent to kill someone when relinquishing property avoids that outcome.

The individual here did not know that the would-be thief would pull a firearm on him if he ordered him to leave his car. But for fuck's sake, this was the USofA -- what did he think would happen??

He drew and fired his gun before the would-be thief did. This gave him every opportunity to exercise his alternative option: get the hell out of the way. The individual wanted the car. Giving it to him, at some point in this tale, would have avoided the injury or death of either person -- of the owner as well, who could relaly just as easily ended up shot dead, and who if he had not had a gun would undoubtedly have exercised his option of getting the hell out of the way. Unless he chose to exercise the fist to the head option, which might very well have worked and not resulted in anyone's death.

[Atypical Liberal]

52. You did.

Who said he shouldn't have? I say he was lucky that when he did he survived uninjured, and maybe stupid to do so.

You insinuated it. Hell, you're bitching because the guy had the audacity to tell the criminal to get out of his car!.

Now that's a much trickier thought process. Yes, there really are some who read this who are simple enough to look at that and think: yeah ...

I'm sure.

There are all kinds of things that people are justified in doing.

That doesn't mean that it was necessary or decent to do any one of them in particular.

It is not necessary or decent to kill someone when relinquishing property avoids that outcome.

Bullshit. It is completely necessary and decent to kill someone over property. Especially a fifty-thousand-dollar automobile.

The individual here did not know that the would-be thief would pull a firearm on him if he ordered him to leave his car. But for fuck's sake, this was the USofA -- what did he think would happen??

I would expect him to, you know, get out of my fucking car.

He drew and fired his gun before the would-be thief did. This gave him every opportunity to exercise his alternative option: get the hell out of the way. The individual wanted the car. Giving it to him, at some point in this tale, would have avoided the injury or death of either person -- of the owner as well, who could relaly just as easily ended up shot dead, and who if he had not had a gun would undoubtedly have exercised his option of getting the hell out of the way. Unless he chose to exercise the fist to the head option, which might very well have worked and not resulted in anyone's death.

But instead of taking the coward's way out, the man stood his ground and killed a violent criminal.

[iverglas]

60. wot a fantasist

You just make up what you want to see, don't you?

Hell, you're bitching because the guy had the audacity to tell the criminal to get out of his car!.

I'm saying that if I lived in a place where criminals routinely carry firearms, and carjackers certainly do, I'd think twice before confronting somebody trying to steal my car.

Of course, I wouldn't be carrying something that made me feel all-powerful.

Bullshit. It is completely necessary and decent to kill someone over property. Especially a fifty-thousand-dollar automobile.

I ask again, and I would like an answer.

Are these the words of a liberal, a progressive, a democrat or a Democrat?

And can you point me to which part of the relevant philosophy / platform contains what you have said?

But instead of taking the coward's way out, the man stood his ground and killed a violent criminal.

Man, and they say gun-toters don't have ego/sexuality problems. May I quote you next time they say that?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

72. sniff ... what's that I smell?

I've given all the answer a coward deserves.

Is it a bridge on fire?

Or just pants ...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

181. I was thinking...

...you're probably starting to smell the manure you keep spreading....

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starboard Tack]

84. He was in a gas station. They have a phone.

Shooting a tire is as easy as shooting a human. Shooting someone for stealing a horse is in the movies.
Here is something you need to think about. A car doesn't drive too well on it's roof with a dead guy in it. Even if it hadn't flipped, it would have been impounded, along with his gun (notice that?) both needed as evidence in a crime. So, using a phone and dialing 911 would have covered everything very nicely. I'm sure anyone with a $20,000 car would have insurance too.
Sorry, the guy was a dumb ass for using a gun. Not a good problem solving tool. He may still get charged with manslaughter.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

107. I take it you've never...

...actually tried to shoot a tire on a moving vehicle when under stress...

Shooting a tire only works in the same circumstances as shooting a feeling criminal in the leg, or shooting the gun out of someone's hand - in other words, only in the movies.

The guy wont get charged simply because there isn't a jury in the country which would convict him.

[Atypical Liberal]

36. No, the kid was pulling a weapon.

The kid was about to drive away. Why shoot him? For a car? What's wrong with dialing 911, or shooting out a tire? Now he's got nightmares over killing a kid and no vehicle.

First of all, the kid was reaching for a weapon, which was found on him by the police.

Second of all, I have no problem shooting someone for a car, though it is probably illegal to do so. If my kid was in my car, though, and someone tried to steal it, I'd shoot them without hesitation.

If someone values their life less than the value of my car, who am I to argue with them?

[iverglas]

42. no, you don't get to rewrite history

The kid got into the car.

The owner ordered him to get out.

The kid (according to the owner) reached for something in his pants.

The owner shot him.

So no, not:

First of all, the kid was reaching for a weapon, which was found on him by the police.

First of all, the kid got into the car and would have driven it off without any weapon coming into play.

(I like it where I am. Carjackings are so much less likely to happen, and if they do everybody is so much less likely to get hurt, because NOBODY CARRIES GUNS AROUND, including would-be carjackers.)

Second of all, I have no problem shooting someone for a car, though it is probably illegal to do so.

And what you do or don't have a problem with just matters so much. Especially when it is "probably illegal", not to mention contrary to the universal consensus of decent humanity.

If someone values their life less than the value of my car, who am I to argue with them?

If somenone has no hesitation saying such ugly dishonest things, why would any decent intelligent person want anything to do with them?

[Atypical Liberal]

50. I didn't rewrite anything.

The kid got into the car.

The owner ordered him to get out.

The kid (according to the owner) reached for something in his pants.

The owner shot him.

Exactly right. The kid pulled a gun with no more provocation than the victim having the audacity to tell him to get out of his car.

First of all, the kid got into the car and would have driven it off without any weapon coming into play.

Yeah, until the owner TOLD THE GUY TO GET OUT OF HIS CAR.

Who the fuck would see someone get in their car and not tell them to get out of it?

Who the fuck would even expect someone not to?

(I like it where I am. Carjackings are so much less likely to happen, and if they do everybody is so much less likely to get hurt, because NOBODY CARRIES GUNS AROUND, including would-be carjackers.)

But when they do happen, I guess you just wave goodby and wish the good fellow happy travels, from the sounds of things.

And what you do or don't have a problem with just matters so much. Especially when it is "probably illegal", not to mention contrary to the universal consensus of decent humanity.

To me, the only indecent part of this situation was someone trying to steal a car.

To me, it's quite decent to shoot someone stealing a car.

Yes, I realize my opinion on this doesn't matter so much.

If somenone has no hesitation saying such ugly dishonest things, why would any decent intelligent person want anything to do with them?

Maybe because it wasn't dishonest? The perp decided to steal a car at gunpoint. If he didn't take into account that he might die in this endeavor he should have. And so again, if he decided that the car he chose to steal was worth risking his life for, hey, who am I to argue with him?

[iverglas]

57. interesting you should ask

(I like it where I am. Carjackings are so much less likely to happen, and if they do everybody is so much less likely to get hurt, because NOBODY CARRIES GUNS AROUND, including would-be carjackers.)
But when they do happen, I guess you just wave goodby and wish the good fellow happy travels, from the sounds of things.

And exactly why not -- if that seems the sensible thing to do in the circumstances? Do I look like I have a death wish?

When they do happen ... not easy to find examples of that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/04/14/ott-arrest-carjacking.html

A 45-year-old man faces 10 charges after he allegedly carjacked an SUV in Orleans on Monday and led police on a chase into the city.

... Monday's incident began when police stopped a man at about 7:30 p.m. during a traffic stop on Highway 174 near Tenth Line Road.

The man fled on foot and ran to a Chevy Trailblazer near Jeanne D’Arc and Tenth Line Road, where he got the occupants out of the vehicle and drove off, police said.

... He has also been charged with two counts of abduction of persons under the age of 14. There were two children already in the vehicle when he took possession of it. Witnesses said he forced the children out of the car before he fled with it.

Not yer typical car-jacking, you have to admit. No weapon reported. People got out of their car, nobody's injured or dead. The guy turned himself in next day. Oh, Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/06/georgetown-chase-charge329.html

A 20-year-old faces a long list of charges after pulling a knife on his parents and then leading police on a number of chases in southern Ontario.

Halton police said it started Tuesday night in Georgetown, Ont., when there was an altercation between the man and his parents.

The father suffered superficial lacerations after the son pulled out a small pocket knife.

When the vehicle stopped, the son jumped into the driver's seat and fled, hitting several vehicles.

The vehicle soon crashed and the man then allegedly stole a car from a woman and sped off.

Not too typical either ...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/05/25/bc-maple-ridge-carjack.html

A man and and woman were forced from their car by two men in Maple Ridge, B.C., Tuesday afternoon and the robbers then made off with the vehicle, police say.

The robbery occurred in the the 12900 block of 232 Street just before 4:30 p.m. PT.

The couple were badly shaken, but not seriously injured, said RCMP Cpl. Alanna Dunlop.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/05/07/bc-vancouver-carjacking.html

One man is in hospital and police are hunting for a suspect following a violent carjacking in East Vancouver.

The incident happened Friday night near the intersection of 10th Avenue and Fraser Street.

Police say the suspect climbed into the victim's car through the passenger door and suddenly began slashing him with a knife. The victim was able to run away and the suspect drove off in the car.

The victim, a 22-year-old Vancouver man, jumped out of the car and ran to a nearby home for help, where David Ngo answered the door.

The only other one I'm finding for 2011 did actually involve a firearm:

http://www.canada.com/life/Police+probe+aborted+gunpoint+abduction+carjacking+Richmond+Hill/5192740/story.html

RICHMOND HILL, Ont. - York Region police are investigating an aborted carjacking and abduction in Richmond Hill.

Police say the incident started just after 5:30 p.m. Monday outside the Sheraton Hotel on Highway 7. Investigators say a man was abducted in his car by three men and police say at least one of them had a gun. The suspects took off in the car with the victim inside, but they decided to abandon the whole thing not long after and took off on foot. They left the victim who then went to get help.

Police have not said why they think the victim may have been targeted.

But ... why the victim may have been targeted ... hmm, eh?

No, wait, here's another one:

http://ca.rss.news.yahoo.com/s/25062011/71/central-police-seek-trio-accused-attempted-carjacking.html

Police are searching for three men who stole two cellphones and a wallet early Saturday after hitting a man in the head with a pistol and trying to steal the car he had been sitting in.

Police said two people were sitting in a car in a parking lot near 1500 Merivale Rd. when three men, one armed with a pistol, approached the car. The man armed with the pistol hit the victim in the head with it, then he and his two accomplices tried to drive off in the car. When they were unable to, they stole the cellphones and wallet.

The trio was last seen running east toward Bowhill Drive. The police canine unit tried to track the men, but were unable to locate them.

The victim was treated for a cut to his head by paramedics, but did not require hospital treatment.

Ah, gun crime, Canadian style ... hit the victim in the head with his pistol ... which just possibly wasn't real, of course.

http://ca.topmodel.yahoo.com/s/19052011/71/central-police-look-witnesses-kanata-carjacking.html

OTTAWA — Police are looking for two men who saw a suspect drive away after a woman was carjacked at knifepoint at a bank drive-thru in Kanata.

A man pulled a knife on a 20-year-old woman who was in her car at the bank drive-thru on Eagleson Road on May 9 around 10:15 p.m.

He demanded cash and the car itself, then fled the scene, Ottawa police said. The man got away with several hundred dollars and a red four-door 2010 Mazda 3.

The woman went to a nearby pizza store for help.

I found another gun one:

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110729/police-seek-four-suspects-carjacking-vaughan-110729/20110729/?hub=TorontoNewHome

York Regional Police said they are seeking the public's assistance in locating four suspects in connection with a carjacking in Vaughan on Thursday.

Police said a man was parked in a plaza at Weston Road and Major Mackenzie Drive West just before midnight when he was approached by two men who demanded he get out of his car.

One suspect pointed a handgun at the victim.

The suspects then fled in a brown minivan and the victim's silver Mercedes. The victim was not injured.

And one that isn't in Ottawa, Toronto or Vancouver, finally (and from the dates on most of these, I'm thinking that Canadian winters may be as much of a deterrent to carjacking as Canadian gun control):

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Teen-charged-after-carjacking-114866159.html

A 17-year-old male carjacked an SUV from a 61-year-old woman and rammed into the back of another vehicle before being caught early Saturday morning, police say.

The intoxicated male confronted the woman at a red light in the area of Fermor Avenue and Pebble Beach Road just after midnight. He allegedly opened the unlocked car door and demanded she and her two dogs get out.

The teen left in the vehicle and at about 12:30 ran into the back of another vehicle near Pandora Ave. and Hoka St., police say. No one was injured.

A chase ensued, first with RCMP in the area of the TransCanada Highway and Highway 207, then back inside city limits. Using a spike belt, police arrested the teen trying to flee on foot in the area of Lomond Boulevard at about 1:30 p.m.

... The victimized woman was not injured and no weapon was used. The suspect has had involvement with police in the past, but not car theft.

Then we have one in small-town Ontario where the method was "yanking" (the victim out of the car), one in Edmonton where it was "jumping" (into the car when the driver got out).

I can never get these things to work; here's google's cached version:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nS4ZE-SQiO8J:www.docstoc.com/docs/82202618/Carjacking-in-Canada+carjacking+canada&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&source=www.google.ca

Too many Canadians look at carjacking as a problem mainly afflicting the USA, but guns, drugs and gangs are by no means exclusively American societal ills. Even so, the statistics are sobering. The US Department of Justice estimates that an average of 49,000 carjacking attempts per year were reported in the period 1992 through 1996 inclusive and that the success rate in carjacking attempts is about 50%. While Statistic Canada does not publish specific numbers of carjackings, even a conservative ballpark estimate supposes several hundred carjackings taking place each year in Canada.

By this point you’re probably thinking, ...

Well, what I'm thinking at this point is that if I can find media reports of only a handful of carjackings in Canada in 2011, "several hundred" a year is a very liberal estimate.

Here's one from just outside my sample period: Dec 2010.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/905441--woman-fends-off-carjacker-in-newmarket

Investigators say a 53-year-old woman was nearly carjacked in the parking lot of the Upper Canada Mall. The suspect approached the woman as she was getting into the car. They struggled briefly before the man fled on foot.

The victim received minor injuries.

Const. Rebecca Boyd called the carjacking an “isolated incident.” “There haven’t been any similar carjackings at other malls, but during the Christmas season, people can get very busy and distracted,” she said. “It’s good to be on alert.”

The suspect is described as a white male, 30 to 40 years old, 5’8’’, 150 lbs., unshaven and wearing a black, hooded sweater and dark pants.

That's what happens when NOBODY HAS A GUN. Even when the victim is one of us hapless middle-aged women and the offender is one of those thugs.

[Starboard Tack]

85. The kid was possibly reaching for a weapon after being confronted

He didn't take the car at gun point. Big difference. He was stealing a car with nobody in it. The owner confronted him and killed him. I'm not defending anyone's actions in this. They both made bad decisions.
I don't know what your kid being in your car has to do with this. That's a whole different scenario.
Two fools don't add up to one smart guy.

[GreenStormCloud]

77. Again you ignore that the jacker was reaching for a gun. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

86. Maybe he was, but only after being confronted.

I've lived in Detroit. Someone jumps in my car at a gas station and tries to drive away, odds are he's armed. I get on the phone and let the professionals deal with it. I like to sleep at night.

[Name removed]

296. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

76. You missed the part where the cajacker was reachig for a gun.

The shooting was in self defense.

[Starboard Tack]

80. No, I didn't miss it.

He could've just let the kid drive away rather than confronting him. Stood to reason he might be armed. But he took his chances and raised the ante. One dead kid, one wrecked car, one guy trying to sleep at night. Doesn't sound like a winning situation to me.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

108. He could have...

...but he chose not to. Not all of us make the same choices and frankly, you have no right to tell others what choices they should make.

[Starboard Tack]

131. I don't tell anyone what choices they should make

I just point out foolishness. I've made foolish choices in my life, fortunately that didn't include killing anyone. Not that I wasn't tempted at times.
Point is, he dealt the hand by carrying a gun and now has to live with the consequences. No car, no gun, no sleep. You make those kind of choices, good luck to you.

[Hoyt]

8. Sounds to me like CCWer should have showered him with gas -- rather than placing public at risk.

I think the carjacker would have just driven off if our cowboy hadn't decided to shoot him, allowing him to take off and possibly kill pedestrians. Another case where the carrier saved his life (maybe), but endangered others.

Another case that could have been handled differently, but the gun obsessed can't get beyond drawing and blasting. After all, the practice over and over, pose in front of mirrors, and do god knows what else with their loving guns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Again with the bad fiction...

Showered him with gas? How is that done and why would it be safer that a firearm?

[ileus]

18. Doesn't seem very earth friendly huh?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

15. Are you kidding me?

Do you even realize for a nanosecond how incredibly stupid that suggestion is?

[Hoyt]

16. Yes, I realize how stupid it sounds to someone who actually straps a gun or two to their body before

venturing out to a public park, restaurant, church, Chuck E Cheeze, etc. Now that really sounds "stupid" to me, since you asked.

[ileus]

20. to the person in the story it wasn't stupid....wise decision it seems.

stupid was attempting to steal a car...

[Starboard Tack]

216. 1 stupid + 1 stupid = 2 stupids

[NewMoonTherian]

277. I'm just not getting it.

You may have to break it down even farther than it has been already, so that I can digest the complexity of the idea. Where is the "stupid" in the CCW holder? It appears to me the person was quite prudent, and the decision to carry prevented a potential tragedy.

[Starboard Tack]

278. "It appears to me the person was quite prudent,

and the decision to carry prevented a potential tragedy"

You think killing someone is preventing a potential tragedy? What tragedy would that have been? Not shooting the kid? Letting him drive off in his piece of shit, gas guzzling Denali?

OK we know the kid was stupid for trying to steal the piece of shit SUV. Really stupid because it cost him his life.

Now, let me point out how the shooter was stupid.
1. He left his keys in the ignition, at a gas station in Detroit, the carjacking capital of this great nation of ours. Real stupid.
2. He approached the carjacker and told him to get out of the vehicle. Even more stupid.
3. He sees the carjacker reach for what he thinks may be a gun and instead of taking evasive action he pulls his own gun and shoots the kid as he is driving away. Super stupid.

Shooter is left with psychological trauma and no vehicle. So, what, you think he was smart?
That's what you call "prudent"?

The decision to carry turned an attempted carjacking into a fucking tragedy.

[iverglas]

285. your list is better than mine would have been

... because I'd managed to miss that this was in Detroit.

Y'now, if one had an evil mind, one would think this was a great way to set up targets. Go from gas station to gas station in Detroit in your Yukon Denali (you wouldn't have to drive long or far in between, in a Yukon Denali), pull up, leave the keys in the ignition, get out ... and wait.

I mean really, could you stage it better if you tried?

:rofl:

ps -- I'd like to hear just one of our friends here advise that course of action to anybody.

[NewMoonTherian]

289. Okay, I got a chuckle out of this one.

I got this mental image, and it reminded me of a horror flick version of "Bait Car."

But on a serious note, do you really think that those of us on the liberal side of the gun rights spectrum would recommend luring carjackers in order to stage a shooting, or were you still speaking tongue-in-cheek?

[iverglas]

291. I truly hesitate to think

that anyone rational would intentionally set themself up to be in danger, no matter how much they were itching to off somebody.

Pure fantasy, it was, just the sort of thing that pops into one's head all unbidden ...


And of course those of us on the progressive side of the firearms control issue would never recommend exposing one's self to danger for no reason.

Which would be kind of why we find it a little odd for somebody to strap on a gun, obviously because they are afraid of some danger arising, and then pull up to a gas station in Detroit in a Yukon Denali and get out and leave the keys in the ignition. But I guess everybody can get distracted. Always best to have a gun handy when that happens.

[NewMoonTherian]

293. Personal safety comprises a lot of considerations.

One of which would be not to live anywhere near Detroit. Some people really don't have much of an option to pick up and leave, but if the victim here was able to sustain a luxury SUV(and I admit this is presumptive - none of us knows his circumstances), it seems he'd have had the means to move someplace safer. On the other hand, some people take the position that we shouldn't simply abandon certain areas of the world to the rule of criminals, unless we were to wall them up inside. Not being in one of those areas, I won't make any judgment calls regarding that position.

As for leaving the keys in the ignition, I don't think this was a situation where the victim walked away from the vehicle, went inside to pay and came out to someone making off with his ride. The video isn't clear, but it sounds as if he was still right there next to the car, maybe getting ready to fuel up. To me, it doesn't seem unreasonable to leave the keys when you're three feet from the door. Again, never having been to Detroit or anywhere equivalently dangerous, I can't make judgments.

I still have to take issue with describing gun carriers as "itching to off somebody". There are individual posts you might point to - maybe on this very forum - to support that notion, but the vast majority of pro-gun posters here have made it clear, at least to my satisfaction, that they don't want to be in this situation, ever. They certainly wouldn't mourn the loss of a carjacker or other criminal, but they would never go out looking to dispatch them, even from total safety.

[iverglas]

294. you feel right free ...

I still have to take issue with describing gun carriers as "itching to off somebody".

... to take whatever issue you like with anyone who did that.

Me, I said:

I truly hesitate to think that anyone rational would intentionally set themself up to be in danger, no matter how much they were itching to off somebody.

NOTHING whatsoever about "gun carriers", and no description of ANYONE as itching to off somebody.

A simple statement. Nothing sinister or subterranean about it. I do indeed hesitate to think that anyone rational would intentionally set themself up to be in danger, no matter how much they were itching to off somebody.

How could anyone read that as me describing anyone at all, let alone "gun carriers", as itching to off someone?

Try this one.

I truly hesitate to think that anyone rational would eat dirt, no matter how hungry they were.

Is that about gun carriers? Have I said that gun carriers are hungry?

Can you truly not remove those weird spectacles for just a moment and read what is actually on the monitor in front of you?

Why anyone have such a burning urge to take a statement as simple as mine and try to twist it into something so completely different, I will never understand if I live to be 110.


Forgive me if it seems unreasonable to me to leave one's keys in one's car while gasing up at a gas station, which involves several manoeuvres, even assuming that it did not involve leaving the vicinity of the car to pay: the credit/debit card operation, opening the gas tank thingy, taking down the pump, inserting it, holding it while the tank fills -- all of which involve moving around and having one's hands occupied, at at least some steps from the driver's seat and keys. Leaving one's keys in the ignition while one does those things is simply a very strange thing for a person so wary of being a crime victim that they carry a gun to do.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

21. A gun...

...is an inert object which is not inherently dangerous and designed to be carried safely.

Gasoline, on the other hand, is a flammable liquid which is dangerous and utterly indiscriminate in terms of damage and unsafe under most circumstances.

Hoyt, I realize you have some major problem with firearms based in nothing but your own unfounded and fact-free fears, but for pete's sake, suggesting that one should spray fuel all over the place in an attempt to defend oneself is absolutely retarded.

[Hoyt]

23. God, you are obtuse. "Showering with gas" was just a figure of speech indicating the guy could have

done something else other than shooting him and letting him drive off to kill whomever. Did you see the wreck he had?

In fact our guy could have just said -- fuck you take it and let him drive off. Instead, he pulls his gun, shoots him in side and watches him drive off any friggin way and total his car. SO WHAT THE FUCK DID OUR GUNNER GAIN? NOTHING.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

27. Figure of speech?

I don't know where you live, but where I live that is hardly a figure of speech...

"Yeah Bob, this guy was trying to jack me at the ATM so I showered him with gas..."

Nah - just doesn't work. Sorry. Maybe on whatever planet you're from, but here on earth? Not so much.

You have to consider the moment. At the time, the man knew he was at risk. The carjacker reached for a weapon. Here on planet earth, that's a totally justifiable reason to ventilate said carjacker.

End of discussion.

I'm really sorry you have such a problem with people defending themselves, but you're just going to have to get over it.

[Hoyt]

28. Except our cowboy made it worse and endangered others. But, he got to shoot someone, so I guess

that's all that matters.

[spin]

33. If he hadn't there is a damn good chance he would have shot ...

It's called legitimate self defense for a reason.

It is truly a shame that the car jacker ended up dead.

BTW, I take my keys out of the car when I am pumping gas. No fool is not going to jump in my car and drive away. Plus I have a six speed stick shift. Very few people today can even drive one. A manual transmission makes it less likely that my vehicle will be stolen.

At the distance the incident occurred and the fact that the car jacker was inside the car makes it unlikely that any bystanders were in danger.

[Hoyt]

38. If our gun toter hadn't had a gun -- he wouldn't have approached the car.

then, thief would have driven off without endangering anyone, would not have totaled car, etc. But, again, then our guy wouldn't have shot the thief, been applauded here for his "brave" action, etc.

Glad you have the sense to take keys out and carry pepper spray.

You don't think bystanders were in danger when a man with a bullet in him took off down the road? Did you see the photos of the wreck our thief caused? Still would have ended better if thief had just driven off -- I know, none of the gunners here would have gotten off on that, but thems the facts.

[spin]

88. Criminals will always have guns ...

Laws to disarm honest people or prevent them from carrying them will never effect the criminals who do not, by definition, obey the law.

You keep ignoring the fact that it is quite possible that the carjacker was going for his firearm. Would it have been better if the car owner would have been shot and seriously injured or died?

Assuming that the investigation does indeed conclude that the shooter used his firearm in legitimate self defense, it does show that this individual who treats his firearm like a Master Card and never leaves home without it made a wise decision.

Had he followed your advise and left his concealed weapon behind, he might well have been in a hospital today or ended up six feet under.

[iverglas]

95. the poor will always be with us ...

What was it that Robert Kennedy (cribbing from George Bernard Shaw, I believe) said?

[spin]

99. That is unfortunately a true statement ...

No matter who said it. It may actually be Biblical in origin.

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
Matthew 26:11

I could point out that not all armed criminals are poor. Because of the failed War on Drugs we have created a class of very wealthy and well armed criminals.

We did the same in the United States during the 1920s when we unwisely decided to prohibit alcohol. Fortunately we had enough sense to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment in 1933.

[iverglas]

113. my point was

that simply saying something will always be as it is now does not make that true.

The RFK quotation I referred to was along the lines of:

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why...
I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

Then there was that MLK one ... and the old saying about the journey of a thousand miles.

Things will always be as they are now if nobody does anything to change them.


If you could resist the urge to spout irrelevancies about alcohol prohibition every time something is said about regulating firearms transfers, your contributions might be more useful.

[Starboard Tack]

220. But these wealthy armed criminals are not carjacking

they are just protecting their business interests. So what you are inferring is, if we do away with prohibition and poverty we can do away with carrying guns. Or do we still need them to fight the king?

[gravity556]

123. Man, you really are serious about your pro-criminal safety views!

Personally, I view it as the carjacker committing suicide. His choice to try and take something from someone else by force was a bad decision that kicked the whole thing off, then his refusal to get out of the car he so desperately wanted to steal to hawk to his buddies for 500 bucks when asked AT GUNPOINT by the lawful owner of said vehicle was another stupid choice that he made, using his own free will. Then to try and draw a weapon against the owner of the car who already had him at gunpoint was strike 3.

There are only so many times that you can kick Uncle Chuck in the balls before he bitch slaps you, draws a cartoon dick on your face and stuffs your head in the toilet for a massive swirlie.

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for the aggressive criminal (no, hoyt, the victim of the crime is the guy who got carjacked, the carjacker is the criminal) who made a string of choices that lead to his demise. I am, however, sympathetic to the victim of the crime, whose vehicle, and possibly only way to get to where he makes his livelihood is trashed.

Apparently, nobody understands the simple rule of "treat people how you would like to be treated". I don't assault people because I don't want to be assaulted. I don't steal or vandalize or even cut in line at the grocery store. I go out of my way to look after my friends and loved ones, and I will be dipped in shit before I let some asshole with an entitlement complex and a chip on his shoulder take from me what I have worked for.

If *you* are so zen about simply losing material items, then perhaps you could drive around with the police blotter, find the areas with the highest levels of car theft and carjackings and cruise around with your windows down, letting the locals know that you won't put up any resistance if they should feel so inclined as to engage in a bit of crime. Think about it-you could keep the "unenlightened" from becoming angry when their stuff is stolen, plus you may just save a life. Particularly if said criminals sate their desire for pillage with your car, causing them to bypass trying to carjack someone like me.

Come on, I'll bet you could get thousands of volunteers! You could have a "Pro-Criminal Safety Bazaar and Convention". Pass out slim jims so that the car thieves don't have to chance cutting themselves on broken glass, have classes on how to identify clothing commonly worn by those evil folks who dare to carry a concealed weapon to defend themselves with, rather than cowering and complying like they're supposed to.

You want to know why people are attached to their material possessions? It's because they represent TIME. It took a couple of years worth of the sweat of my brow to purchase my vehicle. Years that will NOT be replaced by an insurance policy.

Another thing to contemplate-this particular ex-thug (the one who shuffled off the mortal coil in such a spectacular fashion) had probably done something like this before. And would likely do it again. And again. Until caught or killed by a rival criminal group. Maybe next time, Johnny Goodfornothing would have decided to get a little extra credit and kill the owner of the car-or worse.

Again, you can throw yourself upon the mercy of wolves as many times as you want (or survive), but I, and millions more like me, REFUSE to submit to criminal anarchy. If some POS criminal wants nice things, he can do the same thing the rest of society does and fucking WORK FOR THEM. And as the economy gets worse, don't be surprised if more and more upright citizens begin looking after their own safety-with little to no concern about the adverse effects on the criminals safety and longevity.

[iverglas]

138. can somebody explain to me ...

how the crowd in this forum who are forever bleating about how we need to tackle those "root causes" of crime -- poverty, unemployment, blah blah -- (and never the availability of the "tools" without which many crimes can't/won't be committed) can co-exist with this garbage:

If some POS criminal wants nice things, he can do the same thing the rest of society does and fucking WORK FOR THEM. And as the economy gets worse, don't be surprised if more and more upright citizens begin looking after their own safety-with little to no concern about the adverse effects on the criminals safety and longevity.

?

I'm really not easily confused, but I've never been able to sort that one out.

There are "root causes" of crime ... but somehow, those causes have no effects ... crime is just a personal choice by a lazy immoral person ... and the person who has the stuff that lazy immoral person doesn't have and wants, that person achieved it all by the sweat of their brow and no thanks to any comparative advantages they enjoyed at all.

:headscratch:



typo fixed

[gravity556]

148. Now I'm confused.

Are you, in some manner trying to say that the victim of the crime (again, the individual whose vehicle was stolen and who had a criminal attempt to draw a weapon on him) somehow instigated the crime? That by the very act of him owning something nice justified some hoodlum's urge to steal? I might have sympathy for someone stealing food for his family, might even buy that individual some groceries, but you seem to be attempting to equate a desperate attempt to attain true necessities to trying to rip off a car.

And what, pray tell, do you mean by this bit: "There are "root causes" of crime ... but somehow, those causes have no effects ... crime is just a personal choice by a lazy immoral person ... and the person who has the stuff that lazy immoral person doesn't have and wants, that person achieved it all by the sweat of their brow and no thanks to any comparative advantages they enjoyed at all."

Is there any way you can expound on that statement? Are you saying that the thief had no other choice in life, that he was pre-destined to be a criminal? What are these "comparative advantages" you speak of?

And since crime is, by definition (particularly crimes against people and property-those are malum in se-bad in and of themselves) illegal, I suppose that immoral might be a fitting descriptor. And while I'm sure it takes some modicum of effort to commit crimes and evade law enforcement and justice, I'm not sure I would call it a viable work ethic. So lazy is probably valid as well-after all, a thief primarily wants to acquire salable goods with minimal effort-so getting a job, working hard and saving money are out of the question.

So again, please clarify what your point is. Why should I or anyone else feel sympathy for an individual who has no qualms about stealing what is not his, and isn't shy about using violence to aid him in that task?

Had the deceased felon complied with the demand being made by the owner of the car he was attempting to steal instead of making a furtive movement while at gunpoint, he would not have been killed-either by the accident or the gunshot. No person who carries concealed *wants* to ever have to take a life, but they have decided that they want to be a victim even less. And since simply complying with the violent sociopath who is demanding your wallet/keys/valuables/a blowjob or a bit of recreational rape is no guarantee that you'll walk away unharmed, the only option left to those citizens who refuse to be victims is to respond to force with force.

I don't know how to alter the root causes of crime-I don't think anyone truly does. But I do know that criminals look for easy prey, just like any predatory animal. The sick, the lame, the isolated, the weak-all are viewed as prey. The more often that the predators are surprised by armed and determined individuals that happen to *look* like prey, the more cautious they will become.

So, how would you winnow out the root causes of crime? Simply casting a magic spell to make all the guns vanish won't do it-a group of thugs with baseball bats are just as dangerous as a thug with a gun, particularly if the victim has no chance of being armed. And what are these "comparative advantages"? Please, you've piqued my curiosity...

[iverglas]

149. maybe if you just try reading my post

and, if you like, replying to it, rather than making shit up and playing the twit, you'd have better luck.

Are you, in some manner trying to say that the victim of the crime (again, the individual whose vehicle was stolen and who had a criminal attempt to draw a weapon on him) somehow instigated the crime?

Why would you ask that question? Since you have no reason whatsoever to ask it, you are just trying to derail the discussion, and I have no obligation to play along.

That by the very act of him owning something nice justified some hoodlum's urge to steal?

See above.

I might have sympathy for someone stealing food for his family, might even buy that individual some groceries, but you seem to be attempting to equate a desperate attempt to attain true necessities to trying to rip off a car.

If I were interested in whom you have sympathy for, I would have asked you. I said nothing about any sympathy felt by anyone for anyone.

And what, pray tell, do you mean by this bit: "There are "root causes" of crime ... but somehow, those causes have no effects ... crime is just a personal choice by a lazy immoral person ... and the person who has the stuff that lazy immoral person doesn't have and wants, that person achieved it all by the sweat of their brow and no thanks to any comparative advantages they enjoyed at all."

Perhaps if you didn't pretend to be unaware of what preceded that, it would help.

... the crowd in this forum who are forever bleating about how we need to tackle those "root causes" of crime ...

I was addressing something specific. If you care to address the actual subject I was addressing, feel free. If you prefer to let someone who engages in the bleating in question answer the question, i.e. if you are not one who says that the "root causes" of crime must be tackled, feel free to disregard the entire post.

Is there any way you can expound on that statement? Are you saying that the thief had no other choice in life, that he was pre-destined to be a criminal? What are these "comparative advantages" you speak of?

As I said: if you do not say there are "root causes" of crime that must be tackled, and that such causes include unemployment, illiteracy, etc. etc., feel free to disregard my post. If you are, integrity would demand that you just answer my questions.

So again, please clarify what your point is. Why should I or anyone else feel sympathy for an individual who has no qualms about stealing what is not his, and isn't shy about using violence to aid him in that task?

I give up. Why don't you go find somebody who said you should feel sympathy, and ask them?

I don't know how to alter the root causes of crime-I don't think anyone truly does. But I do know that criminals look for easy prey, just like any predatory animal. The sick, the lame, the isolated, the weak-all are viewed as prey. The more often that the predators are surprised by armed and determined individuals that happen to *look* like prey, the more cautious they will become.

Mm hmm. That guy in the video surely did look like easy prey, didn't he just? And of course nobody who decides to try to steal a Yukon Denali might wonder whether the owner was toting a gun. Men who drive Yukon Denalis never tote guns.

But hey, you got to recite the script in which people who commit crimes are subhuman, so even if overall you came off looking kind of silly, I guess there was some success there.

So, how would you winnow out the root causes of crime? Simply casting a magic spell to make all the guns vanish won't do it-a group of thugs with baseball bats are just as dangerous as a thug with a gun, particularly if the victim has no chance of being armed. And what are these "comparative advantages"? Please, you've piqued my curiosity...

Then I suggest you keep an eye out for someone who has actually said what I referred to, which I did not say myself, so once again, your trickiness just didn't work. Let me try to help you one more time; I said:

can somebody explain to me ...
how the crowd in this forum who are forever bleating about how we need to tackle those "root causes" of crime -- poverty, unemployment, blah blah -- (and never the availability of the "tools" without which many crimes can't/won't be committed) can co-exist with this garbage:
<followed by your truly ghastly bilge, which need not be repeated?>

There ya go. I was the one asking the question, to the people who say what I referred to. I hope that clears things up for you a bit.

(I also studied Latin for several years and have a philosophy degree and a law degree, was called to the bar, taught law, practised law, and currently work in a field associated with legal research, so you don't need to explain things like malum in se to me, even if I don't really go along with that kinda crude and archaic bit of legal theory/philosophy.)

[Starboard Tack]

222. Sliced and diced them tomatoes

:applause:

[Atypical Liberal]

157. That is exactly what some people here are saying.

Are you, in some manner trying to say that the victim of the crime (again, the individual whose vehicle was stolen and who had a criminal attempt to draw a weapon on him) somehow instigated the crime?

This is precisely what at least two people in this thread have said.

That if you so much as speak to the criminal you might provoke an armed response, and so instead you should remain silent and just let the criminal proceed with his crime unmolested, out of fear he might attack you.

It is a completely absurd position to take.

If you see someone committing a crime, the least you could do is tell them to stop.

And if the criminal chooses to escalate the situation when being confronted about breaking the law, well, they get what's coming to them.

[Starboard Tack]

218. Isn't it amazing how simple it could have been?

You are the only one to point out the key thing. Fucking brilliant! The guy was probably too concerned about fiddling with his gun to remember the key. Ah well.

[iverglas]

240. oh, there you go ...

Blaming the victim. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. I mean, you did say it was the victim's fault somebody tried to steal his car, because he left the keys in it, didn't you??

I've never left my keys in my car in my life (for the years I drove, which I don't do these days). Never. Oh, well, alright, once in a while I have done that when I left the co-vivant in the passenger seat while I went into the bank or something, so he could listen to the radio. It's illegal to leave a car running while filling the gas tank where I am, but of course I can't speak for anywhere south of the border, with the strange kinds of laws they have. But turn the thing off and get out and leave the keys in? That would take some conscious effort. Leave it running and get out? That would take some major stupids of more than one kind.

And gosh darn it, if I had a Yukon Denali (like, when hell had frozen over), would I ever ever ever leave the keys in? Even if I weren't the kind of person who saw so much danger lurking behind every bush that I didn't leave home without my bleeding gun - ?

That's the thing, isn't it? Somebody is so prepared for every eventuality ... and surely to goodness somebody trying to steal his Yukon Denali is a great big such eventuality ... that he wears a gun while gasing up and leaves his keys in the ignition. I dunno, the gas thingy seems to be on the driver side ... how much awareness of his surroundings was he practising?

Toting a gun means never having to take the keys out of the ignition and spending your time staring at the sky?

Is it his fault that somebody tried to steal it?

Nah. But it's one of those situations where the old saw "nobody to blame but myself" is what I'd be saying to myself if I were him, I think.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

39. Yeah because...

spraying fuel all over the place or trying to shoot out a tire and missing are just such safe alternatives.

[Hoyt]

29. And yes, I have a problem with some idiot defending themselves and endangering others, when

he could have just let the guy drive off without a bullet in him. Instead, he shot him and them let the fucker drive off -- how stupid is that. Our guy obviously needs more training, as do most of you.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

126. He didnt...

...let him drive off. Are you really so blinded by your hatred of an inanimate object that you cannot consider actual facts in your argument?

[Name removed]

280. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

173. Not true.

He saved the Police quite a bit of searching for the suspect and the vehicle.

[Glassunion]

31. Ahhh. The Chuck-E-Cheese defense.

The only crime free zone left on the planet.

http://www.wibc.com/news/Story.aspx?id=1303852
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/suspect-killed-over-chuck-e-cheeses-parking-space.html
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18564471
http://www.caller.com/news/2011/aug/03/man-beaten-robbed-in-craigslist-deal-gone-wrong/


Not to mention their mascot is an ass
http://thestir.cafemom.com/toddler/123655/chuck_e_cheese_gives_kid

[Hoopla Phil]

199. Odd that you post about a Craigslist transaction.

Just last week I bought a Technics sl-1301 through Craigslist. I told the person that I and my mother would be in San Anton to do some shopping and we met in the CostCo parking lot. No muss, no fuss. I do not know if the seller was packing (late 50's early 60's) but my mother and I were - legally of course.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. Oh sure, it would be MUCH safer to add FIRE to the mix.

Sounds to me like CCWer should have showered him with gas -- rather than placing public at risk.

Oh, sure, because it would have been much safer to have an SUV on fire crashing down the street.

Not to mention the fact that the criminal was armed, which would make it pretty difficult to spray down your attacker with gasoline.

I think the carjacker would have just driven off if our cowboy hadn't decided to shoot him, allowing him to take off and possibly kill pedestrians. Another case where the carrier saved his life (maybe), but endangered others.

No one has the right to "just drive off" with my vehicle. Hell, while we are speculating, what if the guy had his child strapped in the back seat?, as I often do?

Another case that could have been handled differently, but the gun obsessed can't get beyond drawing and blasting. After all, the practice over and over, pose in front of mirrors, and do god knows what else with their loving guns.

All cases can always be handled differently.

This one, however, was handled just fine, and demonstrates how being prepared with a firearm can save your life, and the CCW permit holder, though he had carried for years without ever having to use his firearm, was not irrational in any way.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kennah]

55. So guns kill people, but incendiary devices don't?

[ileus]

9. Safety first, Victim later....

[iverglas]

32. "a clear case of self defence" ... yeah

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/accused-carjacker-dies-after-being-shot-in-detroit-20110809-wpms

"He jumped in the driver's seat and I asked him to get out of my vehicle," he told FOX 2's Alexis Wiley.

... "He reached in his pants pocket or in between his (legs) like he was about to pull out a weapon," he explained. "I fired one time."

The bullet hit the 19-year-old in the side. He took off in Standberry's SUV, then crashed about a block away. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The accused carjacker did have a gun on him. Police took Standberry into custody, but released him about an hour later. He told us he is still having trouble coming to grips with what he did.

"I never wanted to take anyone's life," said Standberry.

Now, assume that our hero was not carrying a firearm.

Somebody gets into the driver's seat of his car. Does he order him out, or back off?

Say he orders the would-be car thief out, and he looks like he's reaching for a gun. Does our hero engage in a battle, or back off?

Looks to me like somebody escalating a situation because he was carrying a firearm.

He was the victim, in the first instance, of a property crime: (attempted) theft. As far as I could tell from what he said in the video, there was no force or threat of force used in the attempt to take the vehicle.

He would have been perfectly safe if he had backed off, I can see little doubt.

He put himself in a situation where someone could have pulled a firearm on him. How intelligent is that? Did he think that carjackers don't carry guns?

How lucky is he that the would-be car thief didn't get off the first shot?

By the way, the shooting victim was allegedly reaching into his pants -- he was NOT pointing or shooting a firearm when he was shot. Our hero did not know until later that he had a gun.

There are multiple ways this story could have ended without anybody being dead.


Don't want to take someone's life?

DON'T CARRY A FUCKING GUN AROUND.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

40. The escalation of the situation...

...was purely the thief's fault. In fact, the entire situation was the thief's fault.

The best thing that could have happened is the dead guy (he isn't a victim - he was the assailant and now he's a corpse) decided to get a job and not steal shit for a living.

Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take other people's stuff. Pretty simple process.

[iverglas]

43. now, did you say you were ...

The best thing that could have happened is the dead guy ... decided to get a job and not steal shit for a living.

... a liberal, progressive, democrat and/or Democrat?

Which one(s) of the above say(s) things like that? I keep asking, because I'd like to know which one(s) to avoid, and I haven't managed to figure it out for myself from reading this forum. People who say things like that meet neither my standards of integrity nor my standards of intelligence for people I choose to associate with, I fear.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

109. All kinds of people say things like that.

Supporting the criminal class is not a Democratic or progressive value. Frankly I'm offended at your insinuation.

[iverglas]

114. "Frankly I'm offended at your insinuation."

Me, I asked a very simple and straightforward question, offering lots of choices.

You chose not to answer it. How odd.

You're the one making the ugly and unfounded and false allegation.

Colour me surprised.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

118. It was answered...

just not in a way you expected.

[iverglas]

116. double posted, deleted

.

[Starboard Tack]

223. "Supporting the criminal class is not a Democratic or progressive value."

Would you care to define what you mean by "criminal class"?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

228. Those who make their living committing crime?

Its pretty self explanatory.

[iverglas]

242. now all we need to know

is why said poster said it to me.

It sure didn't answer my question ... and didn't go an inch toward establishing that I or anyone else supports the "criminal class" ...

[Atypical Liberal]

47. I can't see how this would have been preferable.

Now, assume that our hero was not carrying a firearm.

Somebody gets into the driver's seat of his car. Does he order him out, or back off?

If someone got in my car, I'd order them out! Who the hell wouldn't?

Say he orders the would-be car thief out, and he looks like he's reaching for a gun. Does our hero engage in a battle, or back off?

As with all defenseless victims of violent crime, I guess you run if you are fast enough, submit if you are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with your attacker, if you are strong enough.

Looks to me like somebody escalating a situation because he was carrying a firearm.

And he was right to do so. The perp deserved escalating, and he got just what he deserved. I can't believe anyone would fault the victim of a crime for escalating the situation by trying to stop the crime by force. It's stunning that people have such a wussy psyche.

He was the victim, in the first instance, of a property crime: (attempted) theft. As far as I could tell from what he said in the video, there was no force or threat of force used in the attempt to take the vehicle.

Until the victim told the guy to get out of his car, which is a completely reasonable response.

He would have been perfectly safe if he had backed off, I can see little doubt.

Why should a victim of a crime back off?!?!? Again I am stunned at this mentality. Fuck that noise. Grow a spine.

He put himself in a situation where someone could have pulled a firearm on him. How intelligent is that? Did he think that carjackers don't carry guns?

How lucky is he that the would-be car thief didn't get off the first shot?

Christ on a crutch. So every victim of a crime should just submit out of fear of retaliation?!?!?!

No. Fucking. Way.

By the way, the shooting victim was allegedly reaching into his pants -- he was NOT pointing or shooting a firearm when he was shot. Our hero did not know until later that he had a gun.

Yeah, maybe he just had one of those uncomfortable male itches in the midst of committing his crime.

There are multiple ways this story could have ended without anybody being dead.

With the exception of the guy having his car totaled, which will hopefully be covered by insurance, this situation ended just fine.

Don't want to take someone's life?

DON'T CARRY A FUCKING GUN AROUND

Don't want to lose your life?

DON'T COMMIT CRIMES WHERE YOU MIGHT GET SHOT AND KILLED.

[iverglas]

49. what's stunning

And he was right to do so. The perp deserved escalating, and he got just what he deserved. I can't believe anyone would fault the victim of a crime for escalating the situation by trying to stop the crime by force. It's stunning that people have such a wussy psyche.

is that people who have this kind of bloodlust and this kind of disregard for human life would have the gall to call themselves a liberal, progressive, a democrat and/or a Democrat. But I guess one may just call one's self whatever one likes.

Why should a victim of a crime back off?!?!? Again I am stunned at this mentality. Fuck that noise. Grow a spine.

Why WOULD a victim of a crime back off?!?!?!?

Because they are not suicidal, because they have a modicum of intelligence and common sense ...

Christ on a crutch. So every victim of a crime should just submit out of fear of retaliation?!?!?!

Oh, the buzzwords. "Submit", "retreat" ... now who would ever suggest that a real man should do such things?

A normal person acts in such a way as to avoid injury or death. A normal person values life and limb above testosterone rating.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

62. proof that a little learning makes Jack a dull boy

See...the operative term in these situations is "Fight or Flight" not "Submit and Claim Moral Victory".

"Fight or flight" is a hormonal response to danger. Not a code of honour. Just fyi.

Maybe if you grasped that, people could expect something from you that made sense.

The individual in question then chooses one of those responses, based on their analysis of the situation. And as I said: A normal person acts in such a way as to avoid injury or death. A normal person values life and limb above testosterone rating.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

64. I'm a "sob"? wtf?

Don't want to die....
...try not being a criminal.

It's such a damned shame that the death penalty for theft was eliminated, isn't it?

Will you be the one to tell me?

Are yours the words of a liberal, a progressive, a democrat or a Democrat?

You are such a sob here.

:wtf:

There are multiple ways this story could have ended with the owner of the vehicle being killed.

Yes! First, he could have been outdrawn by the would-be thief.

Or ... he could have thrown himself under the wheels of the gigantic behemoth he had been driving ...

Maybe with innocent bystanders being killed or injured by an armed criminal behind the wheel of a stolen vehicle.

It's very true that stolen vehicles are involved in a disproportionate number of crashes and pedestrian deaths.

Didn't prevent that crash, your hero, did he? As has been pointed out, he actually seems to have caused it.

You're assumptions mean nothing in the face of the facts.

You may note that I have not made or stated any assumptions. Or you may choose not to note that. Whatever.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

75. Is the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway burning too???

Drove across that thing in a driving rainstorm at dusk once, with some fool behind me in a monstrous car who refused to put his headlights on. Misguided cultural practice south of my border, I found.

You may note that I have not made or stated any assumptions.

What you said...

Now, assume that our hero was not carrying a firearm.

Liar.

Oh dear me.

I do prefer that people who call me a liar attempt to be minimally coherent, even if what they're saying is false.

Not surprising that you should be so unfamiliar with the the notion of "assuming for the sake of argument", since you're plainly just so unfamiliar with the concept of "argument". And a whole lot of other concepts that regular folks like to apply to life.

[iverglas]

79. oh, no, Paco ...

I look for Blown330 ... I seek him here ... I seek him there ... but I can't find him anywhere.

"sob"

Uh oh ... I found him ...



A moment of silence, please.

[iverglas]

93. what?

No eulogies?

[X_Digger]

94. I didn't see you dropping flowers on your compatriots' graves..

So what's your point?

[iverglas]

96. what you actually didn't see

was me adopting/sharing anybody else's line and that person subsequently being deep sixed. (FYI, in case anybody wants to bring it up, MrBenchley, whom I did meet in real life and whose company I greatly enjoyed hereabouts, was shown the door because of a difference of opinion over two gentlemen named Lamont and Lieberman, quite unrelated to his efforts in this forum.)

I gather a couple of firearms control advocates have left us in the last few months.

You wanna know how many gun militants have done the same in my time?

:rofl:

[X_Digger]

97. Well gee, they sure shared your lines..

.. prohibit possession in one's home of handguns and semi-automatic rifles
.. licensing of all owners
.. registration of all guns

You wanna know how many gun militants have done the same in my time?

Because comparing numbers make your position more correct?

re MrBenchley- I'm sure he'd be TS'd in a heartbeat if he showed the same level of incivility he did back then.

[iverglas]

98. you'll need to name some

I can think of one other who, as far as I know, was escorted out for reasons having nothing to do with this forum.

I can't think of many I've interacted with much who shared my views. I observe various people with views on firearms policy that roughly approximate mine, and various others who you probably put in my camp with whom I actually share little at all. My position is quite considered and nuanced, and most others' aren't, simply because, I imagine, they have other things to do with their time and do not have the interest in the various intersecting subject matters here that I have.

Does the number of tombstoned gun militants here mean that my position is more correct?

Well, indirectly. It means they were right-wing trolls.

If anybody wants to distinguish themselves from the most recent cadaver, this is their opportunity. I'll be happy to do the same in respect of any specimen you'd like to offer. (Hint: I advise against trying Joe Steel.)

re MrBenchley: if your assertion is true, it speaks volumes about many things. None of which is his "incivility".

[X_Digger]

100. I have no idea (nor do really care) whether or not a poster's position on this one issue..

.. is directly responsible for them being tombstoned.

I was commenting on your lack of compassion for those on your side of the debate who are recently departed, in the face of your snark in #93. Bit hypocritical to expect from others what you don't do yourself when the situation is reversed.

Does the number of tombstoned gun militants here mean that my position is more correct?

Well, indirectly. It means they were right-wing trolls.

And I guess, that's indirectly an appeal to numbers.

[DanTex]

44. So apparently the CCWer was not actually in the car with the carjacker at any time.

In other words, he could have just run away. And, as with many (most) DGUs, looks like the outcome here would have been better without the gun.

No loss of life.
Less danger to anyone else around.
No psychological trauma for having taken a life.
The possibility, albeit slim, of recovering the car, rather than having it wrecked.


It's hard to second-guess such a split second decision, of course. But, carrying a gun makes it much more likely that a person will choose a more aggressive, confrontational option, which ultimately creates more risk for everyone involved.

[Atypical Liberal]

48. Here we go again. "just run away".

Man, some of you people need go grow a fucking spine.

[iverglas]

51. conversely

Man, some of you people need go grow a fucking spine.

One might say that some need to just plain grow up; pointless risk-taking is adolescent behaviour and an obsession with saving face is an adolescent characteristic.

Of course, they're both also characteristic of personality disorders ... of the type most commonly seen in the male of the species.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

63. I like to preserve these things for posterity

but it may not work.

One might say that some need to just plain grow up; pointless risk-taking is adolescent behaviour and an obsession with saving face is an adolescent characteristic.
Of course, they're both also characteristic of personality disorders ... of the type most commonly seen in the male of the species.

As the saying goes, all that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.
I realize you don't have it in you to do something in the face of a criminal.
But show some respect for people who do.
Standing up to a violent criminal is not "adolescent behavior". It's righteous behavior. It's admirable behavior.
Only a coward would say otherwise.

Why won't you answer my simple question?

Are yours the words of a liberal, a progressive, a democrat or a Democrat?

[DanTex]

65. I'd rather stay alive and also not kill anybody, but thanks for asking.

This may get deleted, but if there's ever a time where the term "violence fetish" would be appropriate...

I'm mean, you're suggesting that shooting and killing somebody is better than running away and avoiding confrontation -- and then you're implying that I'm spineless for not agreeing with you.

Really?

[Travis_0004]

81. In case you missed the story. . .

First off, according to the story, he was reaching into his pockets as to pull out a gun.(and he had one). Would he have been safe if he ran away, maybe, maybe he would have got shot. Who knows. I wasn't there, you weren't there.

2nd. The CCW holder didn't kill anybody. The guy was probably killed due to the car wreck. Even if the gun shot killed him, honestly, I don't care. If you want a safer occupation, don't be a criminal. The fact is, CCW laws to lower violent crime, they do save lives. Even if this story didn't save the guys life, maybe the story making the news will make a criminal consider a career change.

[DanTex]

83. "Even if the gun shot killed him, honestly, I don't care."

Pretty much says it all.

As for the nonsense that CCW laws lead to lower violent crime, let me guess, you heard that from a guy named John Lott? Or was it an NRA press release.

Apparently another thing you don't care about is the truth...

[Starboard Tack]

225. Sometimes "running away" is way more prudent.

Ask your kids if they'd rather you ran away from someone pointing a gun at you or attend your hero's funeral.

[Starboard Tack]

245. Spine trumps Brain, is that your "upper middle class" philosophy?

[Kennah]

56. Because the 19 year old armed carjacker is far likelier to act reasonably? Oy.

[DanTex]

69. Not sure what you mean.

I'm saying instead of shooting the kid, run away. Nobody dies that way. I expect the carjacker to act unreasonably, that's why I want to be far away from him.

Do you seriously think that killing a 19-year old (and still having your car wrecked) is a better outcome than just getting the hell out of there and letting the car go?

[iverglas]

70. you betcha

"Do you seriously think that killing a 19-year old (and still having your car wrecked) is a better outcome than just getting the hell out of there and letting the car go?"

You missed post 52, but I think you might, er, enjoy it.


me: There are all kinds of things that people are justified in doing.
That doesn't mean that it was necessary or decent to do any one of them in particular.
It is not necessary or decent to kill someone when relinquishing property avoids that outcome.

Atypical Liberal: Bullshit. It is completely necessary and decent to kill someone over property. Especially a fifty-thousand-dollar automobile.

me: The individual here did not know that the would-be thief would pull a firearm on him if he ordered him to leave his car. But for fuck's sake, this was the USofA -- what did he think would happen??

Atypical Liberal: I would expect him to, you know, get out of my fucking car.

me: He drew and fired his gun before the would-be thief did. This gave him every opportunity to exercise his alternative option: get the hell out of the way. The individual wanted the car. Giving it to him, at some point in this tale, would have avoided the injury or death of either person -- of the owner as well, who could relaly just as easily ended up shot dead, and who if he had not had a gun would undoubtedly have exercised his option of getting the hell out of the way. Unless he chose to exercise the fist to the head option, which might very well have worked and not resulted in anyone's death.

Atypical Liberal: But instead of taking the coward's way out, the man stood his ground and killed a violent criminal.


You betcha. Stand that ground.

[DanTex]

92. A lot of strange and disturbing things have been said in this thread...

An illustration that "self-defense", in certain segments of the CCW world, is not so much about actually defending oneself.

[Atypical Liberal]

122. Defense of property is perfectly acceptable.

An illustration that "self-defense", in certain segments of the CCW world, is not so much about actually defending oneself.

In my opinion, defending property is also perfectly acceptable.

Everything I own I owned by expending a part of my lifetime to obtain it. So if someone steals from me, they are, in effect, stealing a portion of my lifetime. My lifetime is precious to me. I have no problem using deadly force to protect it, and the things I use it to obtain.

[DanTex]

130. First of all, that is already pretty disturbing...

Come to thing of it, the idea that taking property is like taking a part of your life is the basis of the libertarian/teabagger slogan "taxation is slavery". Which, absurd as it is, is not as disturbing as the willingness to kill to save some property.

Of course, in this incident, the property wasn't even saved, and yet we're still seeing the killing a 19-year-old small-time criminal referred to as a "job well done". This, of course, has nothing to do with defending life or property.

Not much of a surprise, because a rational evaluation of the evidence generally shows that carrying or keeping a loaded gun generally around creates more risk than it provides protection. But, to me, this thread has laid bare a certain violence-tinged yearning to play out the script in which the good guy shoots down the bad guy and saves the day.

[Atypical Liberal]

134. Stealing is nothing like taxation.

Come to thing of it, the idea that taking property is like taking a part of your life is the basis of the libertarian/teabagger slogan "taxation is slavery".

Sorry, but stealing is nothing like taxing. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a stable, civilized society. I am well aware that the teabaggers think that taxes are stealing, but that is bullshit. The simple fact is that everyone, taxpayer and non-taxpayer alike, benefits from a stable, civilized society. That means government services like roads, schools, courts, libraries, police forces, fire forces, military forces, and more. Everyone in society benefits from these services whether they pay for them directly or not, and whether they use them directly or not.

So it is a poor analogy to liken taxes to stealing. Taxes are much more like membership dues to live in a nice place.

Which, absurd as it is, is not as disturbing as the willingness to kill to save some property.

Well it's legal in many places, as it should be. And as I've said before, if someone values their life as much as a piece of property, that's on the thief.

Of course, in this incident, the property wasn't even saved, and yet we're still seeing the killing a 19-year-old small-time criminal referred to as a "job well done". This, of course, has nothing to do with defending life or property.

First of all, this did have to do with defending a life, as the armed criminal pulled his weapon first, all for the victim having the audacity to tell the criminal to get out of his car.

Secondly, just because someone might fail in the attempt of saving their property from theft does not mean that no one should ever try to save their property from theft.

Not much of a surprise, because a rational evaluation of the evidence generally shows that carrying or keeping a loaded gun generally around creates more risk than it provides protection.

Even if this were true, and it has been debated many times, so what? As Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." I would rather have the tools that allow me to defend myself and my property and deal with the risks associated with having such tools than to find myself needing the tools and not have them. Firearms had existed for many hundreds of years prior to the founding of this nation. No doubt the founders were quite aware of the risks and problems of the people having such weapons could present. Yet they still enumerated the right of the people to keep and bear them in our Constitution.

But, to me, this thread has laid bare a certain violence-tinged yearning to play out the script in which the good guy shoots down the bad guy and saves the day.

Being happy when good triumphs over evil does not mean that people yearn for the chance for it to happen.

[iverglas]

140. you need to familiarize yourself more with your philosophical underpinnings

Quick summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property

Theories of property

... Perhaps one of the most popular, is the natural rights definition of property rights as advanced by John Locke. Locke advanced the theory that when one mixes one’s labor with nature, one gains a relationship with that part of nature with which the labor is mixed, subject to the limitation that there should be "enough, and as good, left in common for others."

The theoretical foundation is applicable to both taxes and theft. No distinction whatsoever.

This is the argument you and others are making -- and as I've said in another post, I agree in some ways. Some property is acquired as Locke descibed. Some property is acquired by someone else's labour, be it ancestor or employee or slave. And some property is serendipity. I might place a higher value on property acquired by serendipity than on other property acquired by my labour -- for example a lucky penny found on the street might be of tremendous value to me. The value of my grandmother's ring to me was the tangible connection it gave me to a deceased person I cherished and her family; I did no work to acquire it, and the objective value was minimal. The value of my car to me on the particular day it was broken into was as a conveyance for contributing to the political process, but since my car wasn't actually stolen, what objective value would running down my car battery after stealing the change inside have?

How could a society possibly assert that I was entitled to injure or kill someone to prevent my car battery being run down -- even if my being unable to pull the vote that day had made the difference in a close election? (It's happened; a candidate I once worked for carried the ward by an average of 1.5 votes per poll, and I can tell you exactly who those two votes were in my poll, and what lengths I went to in a blizzard to get them out to the poll ... before I left my own lights on and killed my battery 15 minutes before the polls closed.)

The point is obvious. Subjective assessments of the value of property do not outweigh the value of a person's health or life -- that value is established by human consensus and is simply NOT subject to individual assessment as the basis for individual action. Nor do objective assessments provide such a basis -- a Yukon Denali is not worth someone's eye, while a Pinto is only worth a fingernail.

We do not live in pre-history. We live in the modern world, and specifically the part of it in which the value of a person's life is not up for discussion. The right to life is the core value of humanity today. The value of someone's life is simply not a matter of personal opinion.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

141. That is your opinion.

Thankfully, the laws in quite a few areas disagree with you.

[iverglas]

142. well, what did I expect

from someone who took less than two minutes to read and reply to that post.

No, that is not my opinion, assuming you are referring to my statements about the core value of modern societies and the universal consensus as to the value of the life of a human being.

Those are facts.

You may not like them, and that would put you in the camp of the barbarians, along with the jurisdictions that act according to your wishes.

The fact that something is so obviously the consensus of humanity does not, of course, mean that every backwater little jurisdiction in existence is going to act accordingly.

Neither the state of Florida nor the ayatollahs' Iran is really of much concern to me when it comes to determining what the consensus of humanity is.

States (the word doesn't refer to components of the USofA) and societies, like individuals, cannot always be counted on to act in accordance either with human consensus or with their own avowed beliefs.

I mean, what is it that the scum who try to interfere in women's reproductive choices while advocating the death penalty and "stand your ground" laws and supporting the mass killing of innocent people in far-off lands call themselves? ... "Right-to-lifers"? Human beings have an almost infinite capacity for both self-delusion and deceit.



typo fixed

[Kennah]

78. A verbal challenge, if at all possible before shooting, but furtive action warrants deadly force.

If you're seeking someone to blame, look no further than Neocons, not the vehicle owner.

[Hoyt]

102. I feel the same way about this incident.

[Kennah]

67. There really shoulda been a law against 19 year olds doing car jackings.

I don't think they are responsible enough until they are at least 25.

:sarcasm:

[ileus]

90. At least we can all agree one less car thief is a good thing.

Hopefully the victim will accept he done the right thing, and gets his vehicle back soon.

[iverglas]

91. okay, every thread?

It's all the same ugly bullshit. Do we have to read it 50 times?

I'll be happy to reply every time, of course.

Ugly and bullshit.

[Union Scribe]

101. Hardly, the blame-the-victim zealots here

don't even SEE the criminal as the problem; it's the law-abiding guy they hate because he made a choice to stay alive.

[Starboard Tack]

235. Which victim do you mean?

The kid who was shot to death, or the shooter who lost a piece of junk?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

265. The only victim in the OP

was the owner of the Denali.

The dead criminal is not a victim except of his own stupidity.

Just because a criminal makes a mistake while plying his trade which gets him killed does not magically make him a victim.

[Starboard Tack]

273. I see 3 victims

1. The shooter who lost a vehicle and a lot of sleep. Victim of theft, assault and poor judgment.
2. The kid who lost his life - victim of his environment, poor judgment and gun violence.
3. Society - victim of violent behavior by 2 out of control individuals.

You may see a winner in this scenario, bu in reality, everyone lost.
Self righteousness and high testosterone are not virtues. You might want to trade them in for a little humility.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

298. The kid who got shot...

...is not a victim. He was the criminal. That he got himself killed does not magically change his status.

Society is also not a victim - it enjoyed a net benefit by having the criminal removed.

[Hoyt]

103. Except gun carriers aren't judge, jury, jesus and executioner. At least they shouldn't be.

Not in a case were the car owner could have just waved bye bye to his car, rather than shooting the guy and endangering others.

[ileus]

104. maybe the thief was drunk or high....and he saved more lives by eliminating the threat.

Maybe he saved a cops life
Maybe he saved a old mans life crossing a street
maybe he saved a van load of kids at a red light
Maybe he saved a mom in a minivan

Maybe just Maybe the car thief was endangering others...

who knows....maybe he saved my family. One thing for sure...we do know he removed the threat without anyone getting hurt.


Thank you kind sir for a job well done.

[DanTex]

111. Actually he took one life and saved zero lives.

The life he took was a 19-year old whose crime was attempted car theft. As far as I can tell, not even the looniest of teabaggers believe that car thieves should face the death penalty.

Personally, I think celebrating the death of a human is a little twisted, even when we're talking about someone like Saddam Hussein. But when the victim is a 19-year old small-time criminal...

And then these same people will argue that it's unfair to portray CCWers as violence-obsessed fetishists.

So which one is it?

[ileus]

115. Cute grows up...

[DanTex]

119. Umm... Death to Smoochy?

[Starboard Tack]

237. Not in this case. Better keep an eye on that jeep.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

129. You have absolutely no way...

...of knowing zero lives were saved. How do you know the next car that thief tried to take wouldn't have ended in a death of an innocent? How do you know if he would have crashed the car while running from the police?

Car-jacking is not "small time" and nobody is celebrating his death. We see it as what it is - the unfortunate side effect of choosing to make your living by stealing from others.

[slackmaster]

133. Actually, taking out that one life may have served a valuable purpose in cleaning up the gene pool

;-)

[iverglas]

143. our slackmaster

used to evince human decency occasionally.

In one of my absences, something seems to have gone awry.

[Atypical Liberal]

152. Gun owners - the chlorine of life.

;-)

[Starboard Tack]

239. Gun toters - the dunces of society.

:dunce:

[Name removed]

238. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

121. maybe somebody should have stranged him when he was 2 months old

Think of all the heartache and misery that would have saved.

[Starboard Tack]

236. "Thank you kind sir for a job well done."

You need to get some serious help, if not for yourself then for the rest of us, please.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

110. You do it your way...

...and others will take care of it their way. Simple as that.

[Atypical Liberal]

125. "just wave bye bye to his car".

Again, this idea that victims of crime should simply submit to it without uttering a word is absurd.

If you discovered someone in your home, would you just silently gaze at them and let them do whatever they wanted, so as not to provoke any violent response from them?

If someone were trying to rape you, would you just silently bend over and submit, so as not to provoke any violent response from them?

It's absurd. If someone got into my car at a gas station, I think the first words out of my mouth would be, "What the are you doing!?!", followed closely by, "Get out of my fucking car!"

To say that I should just "wave bye bye" to my car is absurd. To simply submit to injustice is cowardly.

As the saying goes, "All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

The victim of this crime told an armed criminal to get out of his car. Whereupon the armed criminal decided to pull his weapon. At that point, the victim was well within his rights to shoot and kill the armed criminal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

128. To me...

...there is a huge difference between being a liberal and being a fucking patsy. Apparently we have some who believe the only way one can be a good liberal is to roll over and put up no resistance to whatever a criminal wants, after all, we would be infringing upon his rights by trying to assert our own.

If that is what it means to be a liberal, then maybe its time I started looking more seriously at the conservative or republican side of things. The idea that I should let a criminal have his way with my stuff because defending myself is considered a bad thing is utterly revolting to me as a human being - regardless of political views.

[Atypical Liberal]

132. Being Liberal is about the weak standing up to the strong.

To me, being Liberal is to stand up for the weak in the face of the strong. We stand up to corporate interests to defend the environment. We stand against corporate interests to protect the rights of workers and we encourage them to unite to protect their interests collectively. We stand up for the rights of minorities to protect them from the abuses of the majority.

I think the problem is is that too many "liberals" get so hung up on collectivism that they not only ignore, but they downright distrust and hate powerful actions by individuals.

But to me, the essence of being Liberal or Progressive is empowering the weak to stand up against injustice.

Self-defense, and even the defense of property, is not contrary to that ideal.

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. Well said, and one of your lines bears repeating:

I think the problem is is that too many "liberals" get so hung up on collectivism that they not only ignore, but they downright distrust and hate powerful actions by individuals.

[Atypical Liberal]

147. Thanks!

While it is important for the collective to work to empower the weak, we should never allow the collective to stop the individual from empowering himself.

[iverglas]

144. oh yeah

Some guy with a Yukon Denali and a gun attached to his body is "the weak", and the teenager in the car (forgive me if I assume that he had little education and no job and wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth) is "the strong".

I wonder how the guy with the Yukon Denali votes. Anybody want to call and ask him whether he's actually done his bit for standing up for anything or anybody lately?


But to me, the essence of being Liberal or Progressive is empowering the weak to stand up against injustice.

And hey, if you don't get around to it, and the weak end up uneducated and unemployed and unhoused and unhealthy and try to steal a car because they never fucking had a chance to do anything better, well, shoot them. Maybe next year we'll actually do something about that standing up for business, eh?


I think the problem is is that too many "liberals" get so hung up on collectivism that they not only ignore, but they downright distrust and hate powerful actions by individuals.

What in the fucking fuck does this have to do with any even tangential aspect of this discussion?

Really, really distasteful demagoguery there.

[friendly_iconoclast]

166. So it would have been acceptable if it was a clapped-out Malibu? n/t

Work the class warfare angle a little harder, why dontcha?

[gravity556]

172. So, let's see if I've got this right..

"Some guy with a Yukon Denali and a gun attached to his body is "the weak", and the teenager in the car (forgive me if I assume that he had little education and no job and wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth) is "the strong".

I wonder how the guy with the Yukon Denali votes. Anybody want to call and ask him whether he's actually done his bit for standing up for anything or anybody lately?"

So it's the owner of the Denali's fault for having a nice car? And it's the owner of the Denali's fault that the adult criminal (I know, the Brady's and VPC like to call anyone up to 24 "children" so that they can boost their stats without admitting they're counting gang on gang violence, but 18 is legally an adult) decided that he was going to take someone else's property by force (remember, he had a pistol in his pocket that he was trying to draw when the owner told him to GTFO). And are you saying that some people deserve to have violence wrought against them because of how they vote? Wow, man, you're about 40 years too late to join the KGB or Stasi. And you wonder why gun owners are distrustful of anti-gunners.


"And hey, if you don't get around to it, and the weak end up uneducated and unemployed and unhoused and unhealthy and try to steal a car because they never fucking had a chance to do anything better, well, shoot them. Maybe next year we'll actually do something about that standing up for business, eh?"

So now it's also the Denali owner (you remember, the VICTIM of this crime) who is at fault because Johnny Ne'erdowell failed in school and has problems getting a job (not to cast aspersions because there's not enough data out yet, but what do you think the chances are of a 19 year old who is brazen enough to carjack someone having a prior conviction for some other felony?

Now I've done hiring and firing, and since most jobs deal with the public, I had some basic guidelines to follow. No felons, though if it was a substantial time ago and their record is squeaky clean since, they might get a chance. Say 90 day probation. Also, while tattoos are OK, tattoos visible while wearing a long sleeve shirt were not. Don't want to kill your chances of getting a job? Don't tattoo shit on your neck and face, particularly not gang tattoos. Sorry, but they make my customers nervous. Also, the ability to clearly communicate, both in writing and verbally. If you spell like a third grader with a head injury or use text shorthand on your application, it goes promptly into the round file. Same thing if you sound like a gangster rapper when you speak. Sorry, try somewhere else.

And nobody said "because they never had a chance to do anything better, well, shoot them". The matter at hand here is that a criminal engaged in a criminal act, tried to pull a gun on someone who already had him at gunpoint and got shot for it. The victim was not the one who put the car in drive and floored it, losing control and rolling the vehicle-the criminal did that all on his own.

Really, really distasteful demagoguery there.

I agree, you've been spouting some seriously distasteful fertilizer and attacking anyone who dares disagree with you, doing your best to just skirt the COC in an effort to suck other posters into getting themselves a time-out.

[iverglas]

176. I know I have it right: you have no respect

No respect for the truth, no respect for other people, just a great big ball of self-interest wrapped up in an agenda.

What I responded to was this:

To me, being Liberal is to stand up for the weak in the face of the strong.

It doesn't seem to me that people driving Yukon Denalis and carrying guns need any standing up for.

It does seem to me that unemployed undereducated teenagers who steal cars (maybe mummy and daddy went to Europe and left the cupboard bare?) do need standing up for.

They need schools that teach them, they need an economy that provides jobs for them and their parents, they need housing that is safe and secure and sanitary, they need communities with public services and a functioning private sector and without gunfire and danger on the streets.

And what I see all the "liberals" etc. in this place doing is calling them subhuman, saying they have no rights as human beings, and a whole string of other truly, truly ugly vomitous things.

And I see the same people pretending to be so stupid that they think they can claim a basis for saying rotten shit like:

So it's the owner of the Denali's fault for having a nice car?

That the rhetoric and demogoguery practised by the right wing would accompany the thoughts expressed by the right wing doesn't surprise me at all. I just find it surprising to see them practised and expressed by liberals. Inexplicable, actually. But here they are and here it is, so I guess there is some explanation for it that has just eluded me so far.

[gravity556]

230. I have no respect?!

At this point, iverglas, I know that you're trolling in an effort to get me to step outside the COC and catch a ban. That way, you can chortle to yourself and your cats about how right you were-kind of a masturbatory self congratulations. But I'm not going to play along and attack you. Your ideas, however, are repugnant and should they spread like the slime mold they are, they'll bring only rot and revulsion. Now, let's see if we can find any valid logic in your verbal diarhea, shall we? sNo respect for the truth, no respect for other people, just a great big ball of self-interest wrapped up in an agenda.

The truth, as gleaned from the article posted is that a CCW holder stopped for gas. As he was filling his truck, another individual jumped into the driver's seat. The CCW holder ordered said individual out (not entirely sure if he had already drawn his weapon or not), and the aforementioned individual (criminal now, as trespassing is illegal) made a furtive movement towards what the victim (the CCW holder, as he is now a victim of a crime) percieved as an immediate threat. Maybe the criminal said something to the effect of "I'll blow your head off, but that's speculation. Anyhow, the victim, under the belief that he was going to have no choice, fired one round at the criminal, who then sped off, rolling the truck and expiring in the process.

Please, feel free to point out any departure from the known facts. Or you can admit you had a glass of smug this morning and withdraw your statement insinuating that I am a liar.

Next, It doesn't seem to me that people driving Yukon Denalis and carrying guns need any standing up for.


So he got what was coming to him, is that it? A little "social justice"? I thought you disliked vigilantes. Aren't you an officer of the court? I would think you'd find that sort of barbarism abhorrent That's the kind if mob idiocy that leads to lynch mobs and riots. What about equal protection under the law?

It does seem to me that unemployed undereducated teenagers who steal cars (maybe mummy and daddy went to Europe and left the cupboard bare?) do need standing up for.

They need schools that teach them, they need an economy that provides jobs for them and their parents, they need housing that is safe and secure and sanitary, they need communities with public services and a functioning private sector and without gunfire and danger on the streets.

Yes, because an adult, of legal age to enter into a contract, buy property, join the military and in countries with sensible alcohol laws, buy a pint, shouldn't be held responsible for his actions. There are lots of folks wandering around who had absolutey horrible childhoods. You know what most of them do? Suck it up, realize that life is anything but fair, and continue on a productive adults.

As for danger and gunfire on the streets, did you somehow miss the fact that the dead guy willingly and intentionally engaged in a dangerous activity (carjacking) and that most of the gunfire in carjackings come from the poor disadvantaged youth trying to steal shit and not being shy about using violence to accomplish that goal. Someday (God forbid) if you find yourself in a situation like that, I hope that the criminal exercises restraint and doesn't beat you to death to ensure no witnesses

And as for this little bit, "And I see the same people pretending to be so stupid that they think they can claim a basis for saying rotten shit like:

So it's the owner of the Denali's fault for having a nice car?"

I wasn't being facetious-I was asking if, in your opinion, it was the owner of the Denali who was at fault. After all, you've been indignant that a citizen with a CCW might have the unmitigated gall to protect himself and his property and you've been tying your tongue in knots trying to provide justifications as to why the thief should have been allowed to get away with it, I mean, you've even made presumptions that the thief came from a bad home and was forced to steal cars because "unemployed undereducated teenagers who steal cars (maybe mummy and daddy went to Europe and left the cupboard bare?) do need standing up for."

There are kids who come from good homes where they had all of those things and then got mixed up in gangs and drugs. Unless, of course, you're insinuating that only poor uneducated African-American youths commit crimes. In which case I am appalled. 19 is an adult in the US. You and you alone are responsible for your actions. This ADULT-not child, nor really just a harmless teenager anymore, CHOSE to commit a crime. Chose to continue the attempt even when caught red handed, AND tried to pull a gun to help make good his escape. He decided to gamble with his life, and he LOST.

I can't believe there are people in this thread, granted, only a couple of them, saying rotten shit about the fucking VICTIM of this crime. You'd nominate the carjacker for sainthood and ask for an accellerated beatification if he had managed to murder that nasty man who wanted to keep his car and wasn't happy to be stolen from.

So why are you so supportive of armed robbers?

[iverglas]

258. snork

Me and the cats know I'm right, no need for me to chortle at us.

Did I mention what a guffaw the cat farmer in the household got out of that "bear arms in a coat" thing the other night? He's not much interested in tales from gunland ordinarily, but he found that one uproarious. Then he went off to fill the food bowl and clean the litter box. (I know, I have to get around to telling him he isn't a real man some day.)

I'm afraid the rest of your post just dissolves into a haze of self-righteous indignation and irrelevant sputtering before my eyes.

Your fate here and anywhere else is in your own hands, so you needn't be crediting me with anything.


garbled sentence fixed

[Atypical Liberal]

188. Yup.

And nobody said "because they never had a chance to do anything better, well, shoot them". The matter at hand here is that a criminal engaged in a criminal act, tried to pull a gun on someone who already had him at gunpoint and got shot for it. The victim was not the one who put the car in drive and floored it, losing control and rolling the vehicle-the criminal did that all on his own.

Exactly. But the argument is lost cause. When you are dealing with people who think that the victim caused the whole thing by having the audacity to tell someone to get out of his car who didn't belong there, it's a waste of time talking to them. When you are dealing with people who are so afraid to stand up to bad people that they resent anyone who isn't afraid, because it highlights their own sense of fear and shame, you are wasting your time talking to them.

Then you have people who really believe that the criminal is the victim here. No matter how heinous the crime may be (though armed robbery and grand theft auto don't count), we can't shoot him because of what might have driven him to his criminal action.

By this logic, we should never punish rapists - who knows maybe they just hadn't gotten any in a while. And certainly no victim of rape should utter any voice asking the perp to stop. Don't want to provoke any violent response, donchaknow.

It's easier just to use the ignore function and be done with it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

195. For a bunch of alleged 'progressives', they certainly believe in "lese majeste".

..or "offending the dignity of the sovreign/state". To act the way Standberry (the victim) did means that the state didn't protect
him (he did that himself), and that's a no-no.

So he was the 'problem', not the armed carjacker- He made the state look bad.

[iverglas]

213. rapists! rapists! rapists!

Like cowbell, aren't they?

There just can never be enough, and this thread must have been suffering from a shortage.

Damned thing is, this thread is about a theft. Just like no other thread here in which the rapist ghoul is summoned forth ... by an interminable parade of men ... is ever about anything having to do with sexual violence against women. And kinda like how the whining about the "racist roots of gun control" comes from the white side of the room (and in both cases, the observation comes not just from this place).

Maybe some people just like the sound of the word, I dunno. I don't use it myself. Makes the individual sound like the practitioner of some art. Why don't we have robbists and killists and stealists? And I could just never understand why any woman would say something like "my rapist", and nobody had better ever try saying anything to me about "your rapist". Not mine, thanks.


Then you have people who really believe that the criminal is the victim here. No matter how heinous the crime may be (though armed robbery and grand theft auto don't count), we can't shoot him because of what might have driven him to his criminal action.

Listen up, pal.

You quote ONE SINGLE PERSON who has ever said anything remotely resembling that in this forum, or eat the words and wash your mouth out with lye.

If you're talking about people outside this forum, name and quote them, and maybe tell us why you're yammering about them in this thread.

Here's a clue: do not even attempt to insinuate that I have said anything you could even pretend resembled that, because I will have any attempt to do that deleted as a filthy fraudulent personal attack.




typo fixed
and syntax fixed
... again

[We_Have_A_Problem]

215. My my my...

There was nothing personally directed at you in his entire post, and yet you take it personally. You demand that he quote someone to your satisfaction or present names of people outside this forum and threaten him with reporting his post as a fraudulent personal attack if he does not do so.

Amazing - just absolutely amazing....

This entire board does not revolve around you, not every comment in every post is directed at you, and you haven't the right to demand a damn thing from anyone.

I would recommend you take the chip off your shoulder, un-wad your panties, and realize this is a discussion - nothing more. You can do as you wish of course, but I believe it would be beneficial to your blood pressure and mental stability if you were to do so. YMMV and you have the right to do whatever you want.

[iverglas]

219. how about if you let our friend speak for themself?

You're not the one who made the statement, so I'm actually not interested in your comments.

If I may quote you: This entire board does not revolve around you, blah blah blah.

And frankly, one of the words in the language that rivals "rapist" for pure ick is "panties". Blech.

You can do as you wish of course, but I believe it would be beneficial to your blood pressure and mental stability if you were to do so.

Your words are pure crapola, but allow me: it will be beneficial to your continued presence in these parts if you refrain from making any further comments about anyone's mental status. Seriously.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

224. You may wish to take your own advice...

it will be beneficial to your continued presence in these parts if you refrain from making any further comments about anyone's mental status. Seriously.

Just sayin...

[iverglas]

259. ah, an insinuation

No more, just an insinuation. Nasty and false and the rest, but empty all the same.

Clicking on by.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

263. When you say it...

it is acceptable, but when I copy and paste your words and suggest you follow your own advice, somehow it becomes nasty and false?

Hmm...

[gravity556]

241. er..

He put himself in a situation where someone could have pulled a firearm on him. How intelligent is that? Did he think that carjackers don't carry guns?


And yes, I have a problem with some idiot defending themselves and endangering others, when

he could have just let the guy drive off without a bullet in him


Sorry, there were more, but I really couldn't read through all the stupid again.

[iverglas]

260. so the game is on

In response to this:

Then you have people who really believe that the criminal is the victim here. No matter how heinous the crime may be (though armed robbery and grand theft auto don't count), we can't shoot him because of what might have driven him to his criminal action.

I said:

do not even attempt to insinuate that I have said anything you could even pretend resembled that, because I will have any attempt to do that deleted as a filthy fraudulent personal attack.

You have taken up the challenge by replying to that statement by quoting me (unattributed):

He put himself in a situation where someone could have pulled a firearm on him. How intelligent is that? Did he think that carjackers don't carry guns?

You are claiming that what I said means that I am a person "who really believe(s) that the criminal is the victim here" and that "no matter how heinous the crime may be (though armed robbery and grand theft auto don't count), we can't shoot him because of what might have driven him to his criminal action".

So you have made a 100% false allegation, since my words, quoted by you, do not mean anything remotely similar to the statement you say they resemble. The false allegation portrays me as devoid of morality and stupid to boot.

So I will be doing what I promised.

[Hoyt]

153. Don't need a gun or two strapped to your body to stand up. I guess you feel you do.

Killing someone over a piece of property is pretty sad, but seems to be a trait many carriers have.

[Atypical Liberal]

158. No, you can use your hands and fists, if you like.

Don't need a gun or two strapped to your body to stand up. I guess you feel you do.

Well, I'm not as spry as I once was. Some people might be comfortable engaging in a physical contest of strength with their attacker, but myself, I'd prefer a firearm.

Killing someone over a piece of property is pretty sad, but seems to be a trait many carriers have.

Even some police officers, it seems.

http://www.dailytribune.net/articles/2011/08/16/news/doc4e4a9f62218dc365505876.txt

"“One of the things I love about living in Texas is the Texas Castle Law,” Ingram said.

“I can guarantee you that if someone breaks into my house, I’m going to shoot him,” he said.

“I really mean what I said, if burglars don’t want to get shot, then they need to stop breaking into people’s homes,” said the Sheriff. "

In the end, it will take someone with guts to bring criminals to heel. If you aren't up to the task, it's OK to leave it to those who are. There's no shame in knowing your limitations.

[Hoyt]

167. We are not talking about someone breaking into a house. That's a bit different.

But, if someone does and they don't come where I am or my family -- they can take whatever "property" I have. I'm not going to splatter the walls with their blood over "property", even some prized guitars and mandolins.

[Atypical Liberal]

168. Property is property.

My house my car, my wallet, my stuff is my stuff, and I'll use force to protect it. I will stand against those who would commit crimes against me, or others, if I can.

[Hoyt]

169. Well, good for you. To me it's a good reason to limit guns and have strict laws on using them to

kill someone who wants a relatively worthless article compared to life. Some folks will shoot a teenager over a pink flamingo in the front yard -- not me.

[Atypical Liberal]

171. Who am I to decide the value of someone else's life?

Well, good for you. To me it's a good reason to limit guns and have strict laws on using them to kill someone who wants a relatively worthless article compared to life. Some folks will shoot a teenager over a pink flamingo in the front yard -- not me.

If someone values their life less than a pink flamingo, who am I to argue with them?

[Hoyt]

175. I can tell you a life is worth more than a pink flamingo -- maybe not to some gunners thiough.

A life is worth more than almost all "property." Again, some gunners apparently don't agree.

[Atypical Liberal]

178. But it's not your choice to make for someone else.

I can tell you a life is worth more than a pink flamingo -- maybe not to some gunners thiough.

A life is worth more than almost all "property." Again, some gunners apparently don't agree.

You don't get to decide what someone else's life is worth. If someone decides that their life is worth risking over a pink flamingo, then that is their call to make, not yours.

Some people decide their life is worth risking throwing it out of an airplane. Some people decide it is worth risking bungee jumping. Some people decide it is worth risking climbing mountains. Some people decide it is worth risking driving fast cars. And some people decide it is worth risking for theft.

All of these people realize, or should realize, the risks inherent in the activities they make the choice to do.

[Hoyt]

182. I suggest you look at some of the criminal trials where a gunner shot a teenager for similar things.

If you believe what you just wrote, you are this weeks Poster Gunner for why guns are a problem in this country.

Think about what it's like behind bars, because juries typically convict folks who shoot people over inconsequential things. I also suggest you sell your guns because you are like many gunners I've known who should not even own a gun, much less carry one.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

183. That is going to be very dependent upon the state

Here in Texas, the victim (which is the law abiding person who had to ventilate a criminal) wont even see charges filed, let alone face a trial.

[Hoyt]

184. Go ahead, shoot some teenager in the back over a pink flamingo on front lawn.

You just keep believing that state law BS. Like many gunners, sounds like you "know" your stuff and are ready to shoot someone with your lastest and greatest gun acquisition -- and you don't care whether it's necessary, moral, etc., or not. Another Poster Toter.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

192. It isnt BS

It is simply the law.

Sorry you don't like it.

Texas is very clear on the use of deadly force to not only stop a crime, but also to recover property.

If I deem it necessary, then it is necessary. Morally I have no problem with it.

You can accuse me of not caring all you want, but it is precisely because I do care about my family that I am willing to use deadly force to protect our property. Yes Hoyt, I care about my family far more than I care about the life of a criminal. Always will - and I make no apologies for that. Frankly, I find the idea that it should be any other way to be revolting.

[Atypical Liberal]

185. I suggest you cry about it to someone else.

And stop making excuses for criminals.

[Hoyt]

186. I suggest you quit branding people criminals, who really aren't - unless you want to become one too.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

193. How else would you...

...characterize someone who willingly takes what is not his from someone else?

I don't know about you, but that's a pretty clear-cut definition of a thief and thieves are criminals.

If you've got a different definition, I'd love to hear it.

[Atypical Liberal]

201. I suggest you get a dictionary and look up the word "thief".

Thieves are criminals.

[Hoyt]

203. So, go shoot a pick-pocket, shop-lifter, teenage vandal stealing pink flamingo -- and boast about it

[Atypical Liberal]

206. Go pick a pocket, shop-lift, or steal a pink flamingo - and roll your dice.

Sadly, while it seems that Alabama has a Castle Law with no duty to retreat, it is only when you fear for your own safety or your family.

So you can't legally use deadly force to defend property, though you can use deadly physical force to defend property.

So I can't shoot someone for stealing my pink flamingo, but I can beat them to death with a baseball bat.

Edit:

I'm having a hard time finding current Alabama laws on line, but it seems that you can't even use deadly force to defend property unless they are committing arson.

Wish I could find the full text of Alabama SB 283 - our Castle Doctrine law.

[Hoyt]

208. Judge, Jury, Jesus, Executioner and Tough Guy with a gun or two strapped to his body. LMAO

[Atypical Liberal]

211. Better that than a weakling who lets criminals walk all over them.

[Hoyt]

226. I don't let them walk over me -- but I don't have, or need, to shoot them either.

You need to learn how to deal with stuff without a gun -- if that's possible for you.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

227. For some people it isnt possible...

Can you tell us a method that would level the field between a 110lb 50-year old woman and a 200lb 19-year old man, for example?

What can that woman use to protect herself reliably and effectively against the assailant?

Seriously - if you have a method which will work, I'll happily consider it as an alternative.

[Hoyt]

229. Are you a 110lb, 50 year old women?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

264. Doesn't matter if i am or not

My age, sex and physical condition do not determine whether or not I have the right to protect myself.

I'm waiting for you to present an alternative to firearms which would work even for a 110lb 50 year old woman against a male attacker twice her size and half her age....

[Hoyt]

266. Most 100lb women have more reasons to carry than men, but most don't. You should learn from them.

And if they do carry, the don't obsess over hi cap mags, loads and stopping power, strap a "backup" to their leg, buy multiple weapons to feel even "safer," etc. The few women who do carry guns, aren't nearly as into preparing to kill someone as most male carriers. Nor do they carry to compensate for insecurities.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

268. And you know all this for a fact do you?

You have made all manner of assumptions about the desires of male carriers which are utterly and completely baseless.

Your assumptions about women who carry and their attitudes is even more baseless.

I know a lot of men and women who carry, and not one - male or female - obsesses over magazine size, loads or stopping power. None carries a "backup". Not a single gun owner I have ever known (and I've know many MANY more than you I am certain) has ever bought multiple weapons to feel safer, and no gun owner has ever considered compensating for shit - that is a falsehood you have created in your own mind and projected on everyone else. You are so wrong in that regard it is sad, not laughable. I pity you for believing it, and pity you further for wanting to emasculate those to whom you've assigned that belief.

As far as preparing to kill someone, I hope and pray ANYONE who legally carries a firearm, concealed or open, is prepared to kill someone if they are forced to draw it. Not understanding that you are using deadly force is a VERY BAD THING. If one is carrying a gun and is not prepared to kill what is shot, then one has no business carrying one. Guns are not used to intimidate, threaten or scare.

Ignorance is not something of which to be proud, Hoyt. In your case, it is pure stupidity as many have educated you, yet you insist upon believing the most incredibly false and vicious lies about guns and gun owners your mind can create.

[Hoyt]

276. What do you know, maybe 0.00000000000032% of gun carriers -- might be most aren't like those,

Or maybe, "those" ain't as good as you think . . . . . .or want to believe. I mean, after all, they carry guns into family places -- that ain't right.

[oneshooter]

274. Do YOU still think a 73yr old woman is "sick" to learn to defend herself ? n/t

[Hoyt]

275. Oneshooter, if you are involved I doubt she's getting the training she needs. But, yes

your mom (I think that is what you said) has a hell of a lot more justification for learning to defend herself with a gun than you. Like I posted, I'll bet your mom doesn't strap two or more to her body and I bet she doesn't give a twit about loads, stopping power, hi cap mags, and all the other BS you guys get into.

My mom has passed, but according to my grandfather when he was alive, my mom could shoot match heads off with a .22 rifle at 20 feet when she was a young girl in the 1920/30s on their small farm. But, she never toted and didn't much care for guns afterwards.

Seriously, give my regards to your mom.

[oneshooter]

281. And what training should she have, according to you.

"if you are involved I doubt she's getting the training she needs"

Tell us what would satisfy your standards of training.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[friendly_iconoclast]

290. No answer to that was forthcoming...typical. That one is all sailor suit and no boat n/t

[oneshooter]

292. I really did not expect an answer. Hoyt runs away screaming like a little girl

and wetting his short pants at any type of question. Typical of one who knows not of what he speaks of.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[oneshooter]

295. I showed her your posts today, most of them, I may have missed a few.

She thinks you are an idiot.

Oneshoter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

207. I dont believe...

...anyone is boasting about it.

You seem to have this huge disconnect between your imagination and what is being discussed.

[oneshooter]

198. "A life is worth more than almost all "property."

So, in your civilized opinion what property is worth more that a life?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Atypical Liberal]

200. "a life"

So, in your civilized opinion what property is worth more that a life?

We aren't talking about any arbitrary life here. We are talking about the life of a thief. Not all lives are equally valuable.

Bellybutton lint is worth more to me than the life of a thief.

[oneshooter]

250. Sorry, I replied to the wrong post. The question was to be directed to hoyt. n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

179. The criminal...

...is the one deciding the value of his life. He is betting the property he can steal is worth more than the chance he is taking on getting killed.

You seem to have a problem understanding this concept. Is there some way I can help clarify it for you?

[Hoyt]

187. No -- Tbag talking points don't work with me when you are talking about shooting a petty thief.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

194. I thought we covered this...

car jacking is not petty crime. It is a felony and a violent one at that.

[Hoyt]

197. Yes, if a person breaks into your car while you are in it. Not the case here.

Besides, I think in the posts above you are boasting about what you'll do with your gun if some teenager tries to steal a pink flamingo out of your front yard.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

204. Do words mean something different to you than most people?

I did not boast in any way. I made it clear that the law protects me.

What this punk did is considered a felony, not a petty crime by any means.

Would I personally shoot a teenager if he swiped a lawn ornament from my front yard? Of course not. That's just fucking retarded. If he's trying to steal my car though, yeah, he's probably getting shot.

[oneshooter]

251. "A life is worth more than almost all "property."

So, what "property" is, in your civilized opinion, worth more than a life?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

261. it's fairly obvious

So, what "property" is, in your civilized opinion, worth more than a life?

Property on which life depends.

Of course, it isn't actually "worth more" than a life, but its value could justify killing someone.

There's very little of that in our societies these days, but in olden days, somebody stealing your food supply or burning your home could really have put you at serious risk of death. If killing the person was the only way to stop that happening, then few would not see that as morally justified.

Of course, the danged thing is that there really are many ways of using force to stop people doing things that don't involve intending to kill or killing ... but sure, they might not always be effective.

For a modern hypothetical ... the co-vivant and I are driving in a snowstorm in the middle of nowhere (I am the driver in the household, and oh, we don't have cellphones in this household). I get pissed at him and decide to dump him there, without his insulin. He might find shelter somewhere, and there might even be food, but he's a long way from finding rescue. He'd be in DKA in the space of two days, and dead in a matter of hours more (I know this, because it almost happened, twice). Could he punch me as hard as it took to stop me making off with his insulin? Yuppers.

Imagine that I have tied a noose around my neck and am standing on a chair contemplating whether to kick the chair away and end it all. I've pretty much decided to give it up as a bad job, untie myself and get down. Just then, a burglar bursts in and the first thing they see is the beautiful, priceless antique chair I am standing on -- just the thing to pawn for the next fix. The burglar makes to lay hands on it. May I, morally, kick him in the head hard enough to guarantee my safety, even if it kills him? Sure thing.

There. Need any more? They might be a little hard to come up with, but I'm sure we could if we tried.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

270. Sadly...

...much of what should be obvious appears to be anything but when it comes to you.

[iverglas]

271. if you have nothing intelligent to say

how about you follow somebody else around?

[iverglas]

286. hey, Mr. Armed and Livin in Texas

Oops, I typed "living" and had to, um, correct it ...

Nothing to say, then?

I don't care who you put the question to, btw. Open forum and all.

[iverglas]

177. you can use your fucking VOICE and VOTE, actually

You can be an activist for something that actually matters, that will actually change society for the better.

You can stop attacking the political party that at least minimally represents that possibility and giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

You can join forces with people doing the work to actually fucking stand up for the weak instead of alienating and insulting and attacking them.

There are so many, many things you can do.

If you really believe that it is your job to stand up for the weak.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

180. That really doesnt do anything....

...at the immediate moment. Telling the criminal he needs to wait until you can go to the polling place and vote seems just a little silly, don't you think? Or maybe you don't. Maybe in your rainbow and unicorn world, criminals will wait.

[Hoyt]

189. I think you live in a cloud of paranoia -- which doesn't mix well with guns BTW.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

191. Still projecting your own fears?

I'm not the one who is afraid of an inanimate object. I merely take reasonable and intelligent precautions and use the tools available to me to solve problems. Sometimes, those problems have two legs and need to be forcibly reminded that I am not their prey.

[Hoyt]

196. Ah, another soul who feels like "prey," so they strap a gun or two to their bodies when they go out.

Seriously, that is a dangerous combination.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

202. Not what I said...

...but you feel free to wallow in your own ignorance, although it truly borders on stupidity rather than ignorance at this point.

[oneshooter]

267. I think you should answer the questions asked of you.

"A life is worth more than almost all "property."
So, what "property" is, in your civilized opinion, worth more than a life?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

If you aren't afraid to.

[iverglas]

146. let us know when you reach a decision, will you?

If that is what it means to be a liberal, then maybe its time I started looking more seriously at the conservative or republican side of things.

Of course, that isn't what it means, but don't let that stop you.

:rofl:

[DanTex]

150. To me...

...if I am the victim of a crime, my top priority is to get away safely. If a criminal gets away with some property of mine, that's not really any more of a big deal to me than if I had, say, lost the property.

To me, the fact that a "bad guy" got the better of me doesn't matter a whole lot, certainly not so much that I would shoot him. Of course, I'm sure that in the heat of the moment, I would be upset and angry. But outside of the heat of the moment, I would realize that, in the grand scheme of things, who really cares. I lose some property, that sucks, but anything major would be covered by insurance.

It's got nothing to do with being a patsy, it's being rational. I'm not going to let thoughts of pride or vengeance drive me to kill somebody because they've taken my stuff, particularly because doing so generally would put me at risk of losing something much more important: my life.

My advice: find some other aspect of your life in which to demonstrate courage, toughness, that sort of thing. Start doing triathlons, climb Mount Everest. It doesn't even have to be physical. Then, if someone robs you, instead of feeling the need to react with violence, just stay safe, let it go, and get on with your life.

[Atypical Liberal]

151. Must be nice.

To me...if I am the victim of a crime, my top priority is to get away safely. If a criminal gets away with some property of mine, that's not really any more of a big deal to me than if I had, say, lost the property.

To me, the fact that a "bad guy" got the better of me doesn't matter a whole lot, certainly not so much that I would shoot him. Of course, I'm sure that in the heat of the moment, I would be upset and angry. But outside of the heat of the moment, I would realize that, in the grand scheme of things, who really cares. I lose some property, that sucks, but anything major would be covered by insurance.

It must be nice to be that well off that you can just kiss your possessions goodbye to whoever wishes to steal them. Myself, I prize my possessions highly. I would shoot someone trying to steal them not because he "got the better of me", but because I want to keep my property, and most of my property is worth more to me than the life of any thief.

While I have insurance, I have a $1000 deductible on my homeowners and auto policies. I don't have $1000 lying around to replace things that may be stolen. And even if I did, that means that either way, I'm out $1000. I guarantee you I'll shoot someone who tries to steal $1000 from me.

It's got nothing to do with being a patsy, it's being rational. I'm not going to let thoughts of pride or vengeance drive me to kill somebody because they've taken my stuff, particularly because doing so generally would put me at risk of losing something much more important: my life.

My advice: find some other aspect of your life in which to demonstrate courage, toughness, that sort of thing. Start doing triathlons, climb Mount Everest. It doesn't even have to be physical. Then, if someone robs you, instead of feeling the need to react with violence, just stay safe, let it go, and get on with your life.

Again, make no mistake, it's not about pride or vengeance or courage or toughness, it's solely about keeping what's mine.

I cannot understand this mentality that says if someone tries to steal from you, that it is wrong to try and stop them. If someone is too afraid to stand up to people who would steal from them, that's fine, I don't expect everyone to be courageous enough to stand up to criminals. But we certainly should not expect everyone to submit to criminals just because some people are too afraid to do so.

[DanTex]

154. It's awesome!

I'm so filthy rich, I wouldn't kill somebody, not even for a whole $1000.

Unfortunately, some people are not as lucky as me, and sadly some end up doing things like, I dunno, stealing a car.

Apparently that makes them a subhuman lifeform that deserves to be used for target practice.

[Atypical Liberal]

155. You got that right.

nfortunately, some people are not as lucky as me, and sadly some end up doing things like, I dunno, stealing a car.

Apparently that makes them a subhuman lifeform that deserves to be used for target practice.

You got that right.

[iverglas]

160. I'm interested in opinions

Person A: Apparently that makes them a subhuman lifeform that deserves to be used for target practice.

Person B: You got that right.


Okay, so the question is this.

Why am I reading this at Democratic Underground?


Possible answers are:

(a) because this opinion/sentiment is consistent with liberal principles and philosophy

(b) because this opinion/sentiment is consistent with progressive principles and philosophy

(c) because this opinion/sentiment is consistent with democratic principles and philosophy

(d) because this opinion/sentiment is consistent with Democratic Party principles and platform

(e) all of the above

(f) some combination of the above (please specify)

(g) none of the above (please explain)


All thoughts are welcome.

[Philippine expat]

255. Amen

[We_Have_A_Problem]

162. You said:

Apparently that makes them a subhuman lifeform that deserves to be used for target practice.
Not quite accurate - more like, the thief chooses to bet his life that his victim wont defend his property.

In the case of my property, the thief is making a very bad bet.

[iverglas]

163. interesting

the thief chooses to bet his life that his victim wont defend his property.
In the case of my property, the thief is making a very bad bet.

So the victim (you), like a gun, has no agency.

Huh. It's all just a big game of Russian roulette; if the thief happens to hit you in his travels, bang, his brains get blown out.

Nothing to do with you at all. He pulled your trigger.

Snork. I wonder what the god claimed by a good chunk of the guns crowd will have to say about that one when the time comes.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

164. I'm not the one...

...who chose to make his living by refusing to live by the rules of a civil society.

I have no sympathy for a thief.

You can attempt to misrepresent what I have said all you want. I really do not care. Frankly I've grown tired of your sophistry.

[Name removed]

232. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gravity556]

246. You're forgetting that the carjacker,

you know, the felon threatening to use force in order to steal the car? Yeah, he had a gun too, but he found out that it's faster to draw from a holster than it is to dig it out of your pants. Fortunately,the bad guy lost. And Darwin smiled...

[iverglas]

262. you're forgetting something actually important

That would be: that I said something.

What you have said has nothing to do with anything I said.

If you want to remind yourself of what I said and reply to it, you're welcome to try again.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

269. That you have said something....

...is not actually important.

Now if you were to say something on topic, that would still be unimportant, but would certainly be unique...

[iverglas]

272. if you have nothing intelligent to say

could I ask again, very nicely, that you follow somebody else around?

Constantly dribbling out obnoxious personal commentary is ... well, it's just constantly dribbling out obnoxious personal commentary.


typo fixd

[jmg257]

283. Wow - you would actually shoot someone who stole a $1000 from you?

"I guarantee you I'll shoot someone who tries to steal $1000 from me"


Damn - that is really hard core. I know of several situations where friends had $1000 (or more) stolen from them...both cases out of bedroom furniture drawers...by 'insiders' (guests of family, most likley estranged wife/girlfriend). Not a nice thing of course, worth getting really pissed over, but in neither situation could I see the victim being better off shooting someone - anyone - over it.

Almost as stupid as that would be someone who carries guns for self-defense admitting they place so little value on the life of others on a public forum.


edit quoted quote, clarified 'alleged' thiefs

[We_Have_A_Problem]

299. If i caught them in the middle of it?

Yep. If it was someone I knew and he insisted upon trying to get out of my house with $1000 that didnt belong to him, I probably wouldnt shoot him, and I would use our previous relationship to guide my decisions. On the other hand, if it was someone who had broken into my home, he's pretty well getting shot.

Every situation is different - and nobody is saying they would shoot someone in all circumstances. It is the totality of the circumstance which decides whether or not the thief gets shot.

[Starboard Tack]

233. One less gas guzzling suv is the only good thing about this incident.

[Starboard Tack]

234. Hopefully the shooter will have sleepless nights until he realizes how dumb he was

[slackmaster]

105. It's always entertaining to wake up and look at a thread where about half the replies are by Ignored

:rofl:

[Atypical Liberal]

127. I agree.

I've finally come to the same conclusion.

[oneshooter]

252. And it makes for much more pleasent reading. n/t

[iverglas]

145. I'm amused by all the "deleted" ones, myself

Can somebody find me a picture of that thing where you aim your handgun, fire off a bullet and then blow at the end of the barrel?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

209. Forget how to use Google?

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=blowing+smoke+off+a+gun+barrel+image

[iverglas]

214. dang

I'd omitted the "smoke" so as not to confuse the issue (google images is easily confused), and blow barrel gun ... well, bizarrely, it's finding me what I want now. Sometimes it works that way.



I shall definitely keep that one handy, because I know I'll be needing it again in the not too distant future.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

217. Glad I could help n/t

[Philippine expat]

190. Good, another criminal dead

[ileus]

210. are you a liberal, prgressive, democrat or Democrat....

LOL....

why do you hate criminals?

:)

[iverglas]

221. yeah, but here's the real question

Have you posted at this board / do you plan to post at this board while not residing in the US?

It's of no concern whatsoever to me, of course, and I ask purely on behalf of the many here who take an intense interest in the subject when it comes to certain other posters, including US citizens residing outside that country. Your profile indicates that you are in the US at the moment but divide your time, so I just wanted to let you know that your bona fides will almost certainly be questioned if you leave the country and anybody here finds out!

[Philippine expat]

231. I rarely post when overseas

in fact as where I reside has no internet access
I rarely even get on the web..That being said, neither
I nor my beliefs change just because my residence does

[Name removed]

244. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starboard Tack]

248. Would you be happy if we turn prisons into death camps?

Or do you just want to kill those who haven't even been arrested yet, let alone tried and convicted?

[Philippine expat]

254. Well not death camps

but I am not opposed to expanding the death penalty
And I have no problem with someone trying to harm or steal
from an armed citizen paying with their life

[Name removed]

256. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starboard Tack]

249. Well, this post certainly brought the trolls out of their caves.

[oneshooter]

253. Yes it did. But we will allow you to return to yours. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

257. Wondered where you were my friend. You missed all the fun.

Out practicing your draw were you?

[oneshooter]

282. Working, making a living with my hands. We are not friends. n/t

[iverglas]

287. I think

you need to go whinge to the administrators ... imagine, one DU member saying "my friend" to another ... I'm sure you have grounds for complaint!

:rofl: