The Geek Crew | |
http://www.TWNCommunications.Net/ForumOLD/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
General Category >> The Mother Board >> People That Suck http://www.TWNCommunications.Net/ForumOLD/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1131130353 Message started by b0b on Nov 4th, 2005 at 2:52pm |
Title: People That Suck Post by b0b on Nov 4th, 2005 at 2:52pm Quote:
It just blows my mind that so many people would stand idly by and watch this young girl be assaulted. If she didn't resist, she most likely would've ended up dead. Americans have become a bunch of tail-tucking, yellow-bellied, mouth-breathing cowards. Any able-bodied man that stood by and watched this happen should be forcibly deported to France. What a waste of oxygen. What was up with her brothers, anyway? Assuming they weren't younger children, they never should've abandoned their sister. Gun or not, there isn't a chance in Hell I'd leave one of my sisters behind in that kind of situation. Some people think I'm paranoid when I carry concealed to the grocery store, movie theatre, or other "non-dangerous" location. I think this goes to show just how dangerous those places can be. I doubt this girl was expecting to face any sort of danger on that trip to the mall. Remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. -b0b (...grrs.) |
Title: Re: People That Suck Post by X on Nov 4th, 2005 at 2:58pm
With stories like these I'm surprised more people don't go vigilante like in Punisher or Boondock Saints. I just don't understand how people can be so calus. This situation would have never happened 100 years ago, and that's with more people carrying guns on them. Nor 50 years ago, where people helped out other people. Too many people don't want to help others and that leads them into bad "karma". When we see them crying on TV saying I didn't think it could happen to me.
X (Shakes head) |
Title: Re: People That Suck Post by musiciannary on Nov 4th, 2005 at 9:15pm
It was funny on Seinfeld, but it just doesn't work in the real world.
Seriously...what's happened to our society? (can hear the cries of the Planet) |
Title: Re: People That Suck Post by b0b on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 10:49am
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002641156_mallshooting23m.html
Quote:
Apparently, the only serious injury that occurred at the Tacoma Mall shooting was caused by a tactical error. Brendan drew his concealed pistol and verbally confronted the shooter. For his trouble, he was shot twice and is now in Tacoma General Hospital. He will probably not walk again. If you carry a weapon for defense you are under no legal obligation to utter a single word before you pull the trigger. In fact, it is an error of colossal proportions to tell the shooter that you exist. If you challenge a man who has drawn a weapon with the intent to kill, do you truly believe that you can talk him out of firing? Are you willing to risk your life at the marginal chance of preserving the life of a drug addict and felon? Moreover, if you are the only thing between that man and hordes of crying soccer moms, is it not better to err on the side of caution and ensure that there is only one casualty? Generally, a citizen is allowed to use deadly force to protect another individual (including a total stranger) from death or serious injury, including rape. This is a perfect example of why such a legal doctrine exists. When you have to pull the trigger, there are three ways to disable an attacker - hydraulically, mechanically, and electrically. "Hydraulically" disabling someone requires one or more wounds that will cause the attacker to "bleed out." Even with a fatal heart wound, the attacker has at least 60-90 seconds of mobility before they lose consciousness. For obvious reasons, this is not a preferred method. "Mechanically" disabling someone is more difficult, but it physically prevents an attacker from continuing their attack by "dropping" them. In a close-quarters confrontation, this is most easily done with a pelvic shot, which is a fairly large target. A bullet to the pelvis will drop an attacker instantly and keep him mostly immobile. However, this doesn't disable his upper body, so this will do little to stop a determined attacker with a firearm or other "ranged" weapon. The last and most preferred option is to "electrically" disable an attacker. This requires a very accurate shot to one of two areas - the spine, which is nearly impossible to hit under stress on a moving target, and the "headband," a two inch band around the middle of the head. This is the area to aim for. The headband is the "lightswitch" that will instantly and permanently drop an attacker if hit hard enough. If someone threatens your life, shut him down. If his back is turned, all the better. He can't see you, and will therefore be a much easier target. This isn't medieval Europe, and chivalry doesn't mean a thing when a crazy serial killer is mowing down men, women, and children in the middle of a busy mall. If you ever decide to carry, you'd better be prepared to do what you have to do. A brave man is laying in a hospital bed right now because he did not act aggressively enough. I know that hindsight is 20/20 and I can play armchair quarterback all day long, but this event should be a lesson to us. -b0b (...thinks nice guys finish last in a gunfight.) |
Title: Re: People That Suck Post by X on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 11:27am
Ya know I was thinking. People who say only the police and military and the national guard should be the only ones allowed to carry weapons never talk about security personel. What I mean is that security personel guard money (or things of value) and individual people. Let's look at both these types.
The first is someone who is willing to take a life(s) if another human being is attempting to steal what they are guarding. Armored car drivers, bank security, building security, etc. They almost always carry weapons. Why should this be? They're not working for the state so they should not be allowed to carry (under the rules of the first sentence of this post). They are guarding things that are insured or things that are not people. They have limited power unlike the 3 mentioned in the rule. These people should be stopped of their war mongoring and surrender their weapons. The second type is someone who guards someone else. These people are not employed by the state but rather by individual people. Aren't these people just hired guns? This is a disgrace! Let the police help them. When they're about to be shot by a mugger or stalker let them call the police, wait for the police, and then not be taken hostage. Or let them file a restraining order. That'll keep anyone safe cause no one's going to mess with that holy doctrine! Heck why should the President have bodyguards? Why does he have special protection...let him call the police if someone's trying to assassinate him! Now I like the show West Wing. It has changed by views somewhat on certain types of "liberal" thinking but over all it's just good entertainment. The funniest quote off of there was episode 201. President Bartlet had just been shot by some gunmen who were in a building across from where he was. I won't go into the detail why because that's not my point. But CJ Craig, the president's press secretary, is trying to push the liberal viewpoint. I'll be paraphrasing, I believe, but this is close to what she said. "And for all of you who think guns should be used for personal protection...let me just remind you that the President of the United States was surrounded by 7 well-armed and well-trained Secret Service members." So what this character is saying that not even the President should have the ability to protect himself. My point to that last statement is that every President since Washington has had some type of personal protection. Whether conservative OR liberal. And any anti-gun person in the US, if elected President would NOT stop his/her protection from carrying weapons. The hypocracy is endless. |
Title: Re: People That Suck Post by b0b on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 11:31am
There was a massive disarmament in NOLA after Hurricane Katrina. It should be noted that armed guards were not disarmed. The message? Protecting the belongings of rich people is more important than protecting the lives of average Joes.
Here's a really powerful quote from the mall shooting. Quote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47539 If that doesn't speak volumes, I don't know what does. -b0b (...grumble cakes.) |
The Geek Crew » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |