Two-on-one attack ends in self-defense shooting

[Gibbo]

It always pisses me off when people decide to pick a fight with someone, only to start crying when the other person does something to defend themselves. They always choose to ignore that they were the ones who started it in the first place.

At lest the other one was dumb enough to post on facebook that he was wanting reprisals over it. That alone should be enough to see him in a police station.

[Tanasi]

Pep, that web lever (as you called it) is called a grip safety.

Carrying a handgun without one in the camber (IMO) is not smart and a good way to get killed. My regular carry piece is a S&W J frame revolver that I can put in my front pocket with at least two reloads in my other front pocket. Should I be going somewhere that I think I might need a handgun I'll put on my 1911 Les Baer Premium II in condition 1 (round in the chamber, hammer cocked, safety on.)
Condition 2 = Round in the chamber, hamer down and safety on (if handgun will allow this.)
Condition 3 = Empty chamber, hammer down and safety on (if handgun will allow)
(Note: As designed a 1911 safety will not engage unless the hammer is cocked.)

It's good to see the good people of Wisconsin will soon be able to carry and protect themselves.

[PepperElf]

/nods. i just don't like it cos my grip isn't good enough to actuate the safety.

the jframe is similar to mine, though not exact.

as for reloads... i do have some strip loaders i'll need to learn to practice with.
and of course there's the other kind of reload... "the fastest reload is a second (or third) gun"

[Gravekeeper]

I once again find myself disturbed that there are some places in the US where you seriously seem to need a frackin' hand gun to survive. >.>

Though I am of the same mind in that you jump me, its not going to be a fair fight. Ensuring my safety means doing something to you that ensures you can no longer fight. That is the core rule of self defence. You have to negate the threat.

[tabbyblack13]

This may be because I am a woman but if a person is jumped and the target has a gun then is should be used. If one of the attackers die then I cannot fell bad for that attacker. I just cannot.

The man who defended himself will most likely be sued by the family of the attacker. I hope they do not win because the attacker did break the law and could have killed the victim.

[insertNameHere]

I once again find myself disturbed that there are some places in the US where you seriously seem to need a frackin' hand gun to survive. >.>

I know it kind of sad. What really pisses me off, are we have people around here who don't like that I have a gun, it doesn't make them feel safe, so they want to take away my ability to LEGALLY carry a gun for protection, because they don't feel safe and criminals have guns. But they ignore the fact that CRIMINALS don't give a shit about the laws and didn't go through two day course, have not taken written test, didn't qualify on shooting a handgun, didn't have a background check done. They just toss a gun in their waistband and walk around to intimidate, barely knowing how the gun works.

[PepperElf]

I think the problem is... many people automatically think that image applies to all gun-owners... either that image, or one of a toothless dumbo who only shoots while drunk.


Instead of that, many shooters are extremely intelligent. We're not morons who go looking for fights. We have guns because we can, and because some day you might run into a situation where you have to defend yourself - or someone else.

Having a gun does not CREATE a situation like that, it just means that if the shit hits the fan you may have a chance to get out of it. If you know bad guys who let you call the police while they rob you, I'd like to know about it.


And just because you're in an area that's gun-free does not mean it's crime-free... or gun-free for that matter.

[insertNameHere]

Having a gun does not CREATE a situation like that, it just means that if the shit hits the fan you may have a chance to get out of it. If you know bad guys who let you call the police while they rob you, I'd like to know about it.


And just because you're in an area that's gun-free does not mean it's crime-free... or gun-free for that matter.

Considering Military bases in the US, soliders are only allowed to be armed if they are MPs OR during live fire training.... Look at Fort Hood you had bunch of trained killers taken out because they had no means to defend themselves. Gun free zones make the sheep feel safe because LOOK AT THE SIGN, who would break a law!!!

Now that you mention it, I'm sure a few criminals allow you to call 911 while they rob and rape you, it just sporting to know it gonna be a good 2 minutes before they have enough information to know where to send the police to, and even then it gonna be 1-2 min before they arrive onsite AT LEAST, maybe 10-15 if they really have no idea where they are going.

The driver in the OP, got lucky he was armed, he would have been seriously beaten otherwise. Wonder if the guy who got shot survived?

[Rapscallion]

Considering Military bases in the US, soliders are only allowed to be armed if they are MPs OR during live fire training.... Look at Fort Hood you had bunch of trained killers taken out because they had no means to defend themselves. Gun free zones make the sheep feel safe because LOOK AT THE SIGN, who would break a law!!!

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cop-ki...ory?id=9019521

The gun in the Fort Hood case was apparently legally owned. Unless you're referring to the illegal actions of shooting people with it, in which case the open availability of weapons could be reasonably thought to be a contributory factor to the situation.

If you want to claim that soldiers are sheep, go right ahead, because it was military law in that case that prevented the alleged ability to defend. If you want to apply that to the rest of the US outside military bases, then it's misplaced. I'm not quite certain where you're going with this. That soldiers must be allowed to carry weapons at all times when on base? Not sure what that has to do with the guy defending himself. I don't remember anything saying he was on a military base or in an area where guns weren't allowed.

I just don't understand what point you were trying to make here.

Rapscallion

[insertNameHere]

Sorry, Multiple thoughts that I chained poorly together

Basically, I was having the thought that some people are uneasy that this guy used a gun to defend himself and that anti-gun people in the area might try and push for more gun free zones to help lower crime.

Which launches the argument that preventing people from having the ability to defend themselves when someone else breaks the rules is really what gun free zones accomplish. Those soliders had training to defend properly operate weapons, if they had a weapon I would speculate the shooter probably wouldn't have tried his attack or would have been less successful before getting taken down.

And in the City near my local area there were about 8 shootings in a two day period a few within hours of themselves and people are calling for a crackdown on gun violence.... BAN THE GUNS.... because you know criminals won't keep them.

[PepperElf]

Yes, FA (the man who was shot) lived. According to the video commentary, FA had illegal drugs in his blood - I forget what kind - and that they actually prevented him from going into shock, and saved his life.

And yes, I totally understand the argument that banning guns doesn't stop gun crime. Texas use to be OC on your own property only - basically, your home & your car. One of the women who helped get the laws changed to allow for CCW... she had obeyed the law & left her gun in the car when she entered a restaurant with her parents. When a man opened fire inside, killing patrons, the only reason she survived is because her parents threw her out of a window to safety. As she had said, if she had broken the law and carried, it's possible her parents would still be alive today.



As for the original attack story... this has gotten a lot of people thinking. Just today my BF was at an ATM and a group of people were behind him, almost right on top of him. Normally this may just seem like sucky behavior but it could VERY easily be a setup for a robbery.

So my BF turned and told them to back up. They moved back... a couple of inches. He moved his hand to his hip... Then a light went on in their heads and they backed up to a proper distance.

(He did regret not having his pepper spray on him tho - he believes in going for the non-lethal weapons first... and since at least one of the men was shirtless, that would have left some interesting green marks on the guy's shirt & face...)

which is also why I stand back at least 10 - 20 feet from the ATM if someone else is using it - cos getting right up on someone's ass IS threatening when they're getting money.

[Hyena Dandy]

Why do you think he will likely be sued?

Honest question. How many times are people actually sued by people who victimized them like this? As far as I know, you can be disbarred for too many frivolous lawsuits.

[insertNameHere]

Why do you think he will likely be sued?

Honest question. How many times are people actually sued by people who victimized them like this? As far as I know, you can be disbarred for too many frivolous lawsuits.

"wrongful death" is normally not "frivolous"..... I know right??? There should be a law if you get wounded or killed because your breaking the law, you don't even get a shot to sue for your medical bills. Hell I am all for making the person responsible have to pay for wear and tear on your weapon and ammo.

[Skelly]

"wrongful death" is normally not "frivolous"..... I know right??? There should be a law if you get wounded or killed because your breaking the law, you don't even get a shot to sue for your medical bills. Hell I am all for making the person responsible have to pay for wear and tear on your weapon and ammo.

Castle Doctrine & Stand Your Ground laws.

[insertNameHere]

Castle Doctrine & Stand Your Ground laws.

Actually, I believe it is with those laws you can't be tried as a criminal..... the family can still sue you civilly