Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: A reason to be armed: Does it get much more animalistic and primitive than this?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    I thought this news story would pop up here but it hasn't, maybe because it's a bit too "disturbing?"

    Anyway, IMO it's just another very good reason to be armed and -- in this particular incident -- be ableto shoot a whole lot of people who richly deserve it.

    And please tell me, if certain cess-pool "neighborhoods" and all their low-life inhabitants disappeared overnight, what would be the loss to the rest of us?

    Nonewhatsoever.

    -- John D.



    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355235,00.html

    CLEVELAND— Even by tough, urban crime standards it was a grisly attack: Up to 15 people chased a man, then kicked and beat him to death on the street. Before police arrived, one attacker urinated on the victim's head.[/b]

    By the time Charles Gooden Jr., 41, took his final steps, the crime-hardened neighborhood had awakened and two people, talking in matter-of-fact tones, reported a man down, his clothes being dragged off.

    "You got a male being assaulted by 15 other guys. He's laying on the street," one 911 caller said.

    <snip>

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355235,00.html



    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    Well it's obvious white people didn't do it because it's not the lead story on every TV channel.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Man, I have been avoiding carrying additional magazines, I though 14+1 was enough, but I'm not quite that confident in myself to hit center of mass every singe time 15 times in a row. I guess it's time to get that mag pouch after all.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    And my fiancee asks why I carry 2 extra mags when we are going into the city at night instead my usual 1. I'll send her a link to the story so she understands why I want and extra 13 rds with me in the city.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    Yes, dealing with these many people -- short of a SHTF scenario of course -- ishighly unlikely but still, I believe it certainly IS prudent to have more ammo available. Besides, I'm not one to play the odds of an event NOT likely to happen.

    And also yes, if you shoot the first few of these scumbags the rest will probably scatter (or return fire, as they may be armed, too), but as I say, do NOT count on that happening...and plan accordingly. Figure you'll have to freely distribute rounds to them all...do not hesitate to discriminate.

    My personal rule for any gun I carry is 3 mags...one in the gun and 2 more in a dualie pouch...or at the very least, a box of 50 rds in the car...if I can get back there in time!

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  6. #6
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Apparently the crime was perpetrated by gang-bangers, who had been provoked by the victim. Not saying that makes it right, but when you see 15 people standing around all wearing blue (or red, or yellow, etc), you should know not to pick a fight with them...

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    It's hard to believe one guy picked a fight with 15 people, knowing what would probably happen to him...but maybe he was "special needs" or something and a bit off his game that day? :?

    Yes, I couldn't care less what happens togangsters --the less bad people around the better-- but the lesson here still is to be armed no matter who you are. Especially the good guys.

    And for whatever reason, any of us could face multiple assailants -- like those citizenswho made the wrong turn one night and got lost, ending up in some gang's "neighborhood" and caught in a dead-end street by them (with tragic results for the citizens in the car).

    Also, it showsjust how savagesuch an encounter could end up being.

    As for 15 people standing around wearing gang colors -- and free do do so -- something's seriously wrong in this country (but we already know that, don't we).Gangsters should be almost impossible tofind standing around ANYwhere in America...and open-season on them when they ARE found.

    Looking forward to that day, as unlikely as it is,

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    They ripped the guy's clothes off after they beat him to death? Must have been trophies from a rival gang member, that's all I can figure. Maybe the guy made some indelicate remark about their bandanas with respect to the "code" from the film Cruising. Ouch.

    As for freedom of association, the courts can and do restrict this - in theory - by prohibiting felons and known gang members from associating with each other. How enforceable this is is questionable, but they do have legal tools for busting up such gatherings to avoid situations like this.

    -ljp

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    True that this was apparently an over the top mob reaction to a provocation. However we have many other examples of gangs, mobs, groups of punks attacking others en masse. Those type of people often imagine or manufacture provocation to justify themselves. I have seen many situations start with innocuous behavior from the victim that the aggressor decided was a slight and then as the confrontation began his buddies would join in the abuse.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Police haven't mentioned a motive. Conwell said it involved an argument involving a woman and a threat by her cousin against Gooden.
    "He went to defend his malehood honor. He hit the cousin in the mouth. When that happened the other gang members jumped on him," said Conwell, relying on information from police and neighbors.
    Soooo...it's inadvisable to pick a fight with a group of 15 gang members. This dude should get a Darwin award. That is of course assuming that is what really happened...

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    deepdiver,

    True, you just look at gangsters wrong...or too long...and they think you're mad-dogging them and in their view thatdeserves some kind of retailiation.

    Legally speaking, however, words directed at you -- no matter how vile, insulting or harsh -- isnot legal cause/sufficient provocationto respond with physical violence, let alone assault someone because how they looked atyou.

    But of course, on the street, "the law" is a joke sincecriminals disregard it anyway, and couldn't care less about any consequences of assaulting people.

    So whenone deals with them, one also may as welldisregard "the law" and do whatever is needed.

    -- John D.


    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Clearly they need to ban legs, arms (the other kind), and bladders so that this won't happen again.

  13. #13
    Regular Member BUBB4H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Centreville, VA, ,
    Posts
    165

    Post imported post

    See, in D.C. they don't have this problem. They have clubs, not gangs...



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    I'm confused....

    Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton, and all of those liberals keep telling us that we don't need to carry guns because the police will save us......

    what happened with that idea?:shock:



    personally, it gives me the creeps to walk around Knoxville without proper defensive capabilities. it sounds like this guy should have been carrying an AR-15

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    I'm confused....

    Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton, and all of those liberals keep telling us that we don't need to carry guns because the police will save us......

    what happened with that idea?:shock:
    That is an easy concept to propagate when you have armed bodyguards with you or are protected for life by the Secret Service. Let's take away Rosie's bodyguards and Hillary's Secret Service detail and then see how much they bray about no need for self-defense firearms.

    ETA: Obama, perhaps the worst of the gun grabbers in national politics asked for armed Secret Service protection earlier in the campaign than any other candidate in history I understand from news stories. What greater reeking of elitism could there possibly be than "you pay for armed bodyguards for me and my family while I work to eliminate your ability to defend your own family".
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP ETA: Obama, perhaps the worst of the gun grabbers in national politics asked for armed Secret Service protection earlier in the campaign than any other candidate in history I understand from news stories. What greater reeking of elitism could there possibly be than "you pay for armed bodyguards for me and my family while I work to eliminate your ability to defend your own family".
    Oh, great. Now I'm gonna be disgusted all weekend.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP ETA: Obama, perhaps the worst of the gun grabbers in national politics asked for armed Secret Service protection earlier in the campaign than any other candidate in history I understand from news stories. What greater reeking of elitism could there possibly be than "you pay for armed bodyguards for me and my family while I work to eliminate your ability to defend your own family".
    Oh, great. Now I'm gonna be disgusted all weekend.
    You mean that the Olofson case and the Dickson City incident didn't already make you disgusted this week? :?

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP ETA: Obama, perhaps the worst of the gun grabbers in national politics asked for armed Secret Service protection earlier in the campaign than any other candidate in history I understand from news stories. What greater reeking of elitism could there possibly be than "you pay for armed bodyguards for me and my family while I work to eliminate your ability to defend your own family".
    Oh, great. Now I'm gonna be disgusted all weekend.
    You mean that the Olofson case and the Dickson City incident didn't already make you disgusted this week? :?
    Yes, but I had shaken it off a good bit by supper time this evening.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    I'm confused....

    Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton, and all of those liberals keep telling us that we don't need to carry guns because the police will save us......

    what happened with that idea?:shock:
    That is an easy concept to propagate when you have armed bodyguards with you or are protected for life by the Secret Service. Let's take away Rosie's bodyguards and Hillary's Secret Service detail and then see how much they bray about no need for self-defense firearms.

    But that would make them equal to us lowly peasents.......

    ETA: Obama, perhaps the worst of the gun grabbers in national politics asked for armed Secret Service protection earlier in the campaign than any other candidate in history I understand from news stories. What greater reeking of elitism could there possibly be than "you pay for armed bodyguards for me and my family while I work to eliminate your ability to defend your own family".
    As sad, and disgusting as it is, that is the way things work now in the land of "by the people,of the people, screwing the people... I mean FOR the people...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •