Anti rants about guns because of gangbangers

Status
Not open for further replies.

TargetTerror

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
469
Location
Stalingrad, MA
I saw this post on a blog from a guy who was almost shot by a gangbanger:

I had a pretty scary first-hand experience with the American gun problem last night.

I went to have dinner with a friend, which required me driving a few miles, so I walked two blocks from my house to pickup my truck here in the mission.

I got to the corner my truck was parked on, on that corner is a small mom and pop grocery store (you see them just about every block in San Francisco), next to the store were three teenagers playing around, sort of wrestling, or as my dad likes to say “playing grab ass”. Two of them were sort of teasing the other one, bear-hugging him, etc. It appeared to be pretty playful typical teenage-guy horsing around stuff, and I didn’t really think much of it.

They were dressed in typical moronic gang-banger garb, baggy plants, and lots of “bling” sideways baseball hats, more or less the tourettes syndrome of modern American retard fashion. Almost all of the American kids are dressed this way in my hood, so that in itself is not a big deal, but you never know which of these kids are wanna be “gangstas” and which ones are stupid enough to go the extra mile.

Turns out, these kids, at least one of them, was stupid enough.

I crossed the street, waiting for the next light to change, as soon as I got there they started yelling at each other, in that lucid diplomatic way American youth has picked up from whatever rap-artist-of-the-week they’re trying to emulate… “Niggah” this and “Motha ****a” that.

The light changes, and I’m about to cross with this cute Latin girl next to me, when we hear POP POP POP… Really loud, as in M80’s, not firecrackers. It was surreal; I couldn’t believe anyone would use a gun just 20 feet from me over something so stupid as a wrestling match gone awry. For the first few seconds I really thought maybe someone threw a string of powerful firecrackers into the melee, I think the girl did too, as she didn’t seem too panicked either.

That all changed when about 5 seconds later one of the kids comes running right by us, then runs down the block to a gas station, meanwhile the kid who was being harassed runs into the middle of the intersection, waving a gun, screaming all sorts of ridiculous nonsense “I told you Niggah I told you Niggah! That’s right, don’t you mess with me Niggah!”

Then it happened, everyone in a one block radius freaked out and ran. The girl and I bolted down a side street, so did other people who happened to be on sidewalks within a block of this idiocy. I ran for about 3 blocks, and watched the shooter (who I’m guessing was 16 or 17) continue to wander around the intersection, full of bravado, still screaming epitaphs, I couldn’t reach my truck as the guys orbit would take him just 10 yards or so from it every few seconds, the last thing in the world I needed was to be car-jacked by this asshat.

I was now about two blocks away, safely watching this with a small crowd of other people at the end of the street; I imagine the same thing was happening 1-2 blocks away on the other streets as well.

After about three minutes, the sirens started, I have to give the SFPD credit for their quick response; I also heard the tell-tale sounds of ambulance and fire engine sirens, heading in the direction of the gas station.

The shooter disappeared up the street, in the opposite direction from where I was just as the cops arrived, within just a few minutes there were cops everywhere, and everything was cordoned off. I walked back up the street, feeling safe now, and surveyed the results of 16 year old retards having easy access to hand guns in America.

Down at the gas station, an ambulance crew was working on the guy who had run past us, apparently he was shot, and made it to the cashier booth at the gas station before collapsing in a pool of blood.

Back at the Mom & Pop store, the cops were checking out the footage from the security cameras (which I didn’t even know was there) which actually showed the entire thing unfold, in living color, just as if you were watching it from the comfort of your living room.

I finally made it to my truck, went to dinner a little shaken up, and told the whole store you just read to my friend.

I came home almost 2 hours later, and the gas station was back to normal, but they had cordoned off the entire area near the store with police tap, and we’re looking all over the place, for shell casings I would presume.

Another 20 feet, or maybe another 20 seconds, and I would have been right in the middle of this mess, who knows, I may have been hurt or killed.

But hell, it’s good to know responsible gun owners can still buy hand guns isn’t it?

This is the one thing that people like Ron Paul, and the Pro-Gun Lobby will NEVER understand. Sure, in an ideal world, only people kill people, and guns are kept by responsible gun owners, locked in vaults, only used for target practice or killing bambi’s.

But in the real world?

You know, the one that REAL people live in, in this place called REALITY? In that world, tens of thousands of Americans die every year due to gun violence. While it may be the Columbines and Virginia Techs that make the news, it’s the every day bull**** emotional outburst by some ****ed up teenager with an easily acquired handgun that kills other people, by the THOUSANDS every month.

This is something Ron Paul just doesn’t understand; there are ramifications to his view that everyone should be responsible for themselves with unrestricted market economies.

In fantasy land, only responsible people own guns, girls and women don’t have unwanted pregnancies, and everyone can buy their own health-care, the reality is far different than that, and until you experience it first hand, you’ll never really know.

Porter
 
My reply (I couldn't post my full reply in the comments on that page, for some reason):

Porter, you make the mistake of levying the entirety of the blame for this and every other gun incident on the gun. The extension of your argument is that if there were no guns in the world, there would be no violence or very little violence.

But guns are just a tool. They are a very effective tool, but tools nonetheless. It is the person using the gun negligently or maliciously that causes all of the violence - the gun is just a means. Consider that guns have only been around for the past several hundred years, yet violence has permeated human societies since their inception, thousands of years prior. There are evil people in this world, and they will use whatever means available to them to commit crimes and violence. Guns are particularly effective in this regard, which is why they are used so often. But, to think that in the absence of guns, there will be an absence of crime and violence is naive and unfounded.

But such theory of discussing a world without guns is pointless because guns are simply too prevalent throughout the world. Guns will never, ever be completely eradicated, and thus we must learn to live and deal with them.

One option is banning guns, as you imply to propose - making guns "hard to acquire" or "prohibitively expensive" is a de facto ban. This disarms the law abiding part of the population - specifically, the people who are 1) least likely to use their gun illicitly or negligently and 2) are victims of the criminal element of society. Countless studies and statistics taken over the past decades have shown that not a single gun control law has been proven to reduce crime. If anything, crime has become more prevalent in the face of stricter gun control measures. England has had a dramatic increase in violent robberies and assaults since outlawing handguns. Australia likewise has seen a dramatic increase in crime and assaults since banning and confiscating all of the country's semi-auto guns. By contrast, Maine has among the highest guns per capita and very low crime. In Vermont, you don't even need a license to carry a handgun concealed. That should make Vermont a virtual bloodbath right? Wrong. Try 49/50 for crime in the US.

But don't take my word for it alone. I encourage you to read this article, printed in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Consider also the efficacy of the gun control laws already in place. California, where the incident you relayed, took place, has some of the most draconian gun control laws in America. To purchase and possess a handgun, like the one used in your incident in CA, you must be over 21. In order to carry a gun concealed (which I presume the shooter was doing as you didn't mention seeing a gun carried openly) you need a discretionary license issued by the County Sherriff. To say that such a license is hard to get is a massive understated. In nearby Orange County, CA, Sherriff Mike Carona is under a Federal Indictment for, in part, selectively issuing concealed-carry licenses only to "privileged" folk (ie, those he knows and who contribute to his campaign). The logical inference is that he does not do so for "ordinary" folk. Given that San Francisco has repeatedly tried to ban handguns (each time struck down due to its blatant unconstitutionality), I can't imagine that these underage gangbangers had concealed weapons permits. There are also laws in CA against shooting people and attempted murder.

So, lets review: the gangbanger you passed violated: 1) CA law banning the ownership or possession of a handgun by someone under 21 (or at least under 18 if I am wrong on the 21 year old age), 2) CA law banning concealled carry of a firearm without a permit, 3) CA laws against brandishing a firearm, 4) CA laws against shooting a firearm recklessly, 5) CA laws against shooting a non-threatening person with a firearm (someone fleeing is not a threat to you, by law), 6) CA law prohibiting the attempted murder of another person.

That is 6 MAJOR criminal violations, #6 being second only to ACTUAL murder, that this gangbanger committed. Please tell me which law you could pass that he would follow that would have averted this situation? Why do you think he would be any more likely to follow that law then the 6 laws he already disregarded? Since it is laudable at best that any further gun control measures would be followed by this gangbanger, how does further restricting the rights of a legal gun owner help prevent these type of incidents in the future?

Consider too the effect of completely disarming the populace. Guns are an effective tool for WHOEVER WIELDS THEM. That goes for REGULAR CITIZENS as well as criminals. Imagine that your daughter is being threatened with her life by an ex. She goes to the police, but they can't do anything preemptively - they have to wait until her ex does something physical to her. Her ex responds by shooting and killing her and her friend. But, she went to the police? Aren't the police there to help and protect us? Actually, no. The police are under no obligation whatsoever, per the United States Supreme Court, to offer any help to anyone - you merely request assistance which may be acted upon. Too bad for Tiffany Barwick: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-cfbriefs24_207oct24,0,2411321.story

Now before you say "aha! If here boyfriend didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have shot her," recall from above that a gun is a TOOL used to an end. Here, the boyfriends goal was to kill his ex. A gun makes it easier to do so, but that is not the only weapon available to him by any means. Or lets make it even simpler. Lets say he only wanted to beat her up badly, but not kill her. Put yourself in Tiffany's position. What are you supposed to do? The police, who you thought were there to protect you, can and will do nothing. They will only respond AFTER you have been assaulted. So what do you do? Call 911 as soon as the assault begins? How long will it take for an officer to show up, if one even does? 5 minutes? 2 minutes? 30 seconds? How much damage can be done to you in 30 seconds? In 5 minutes? The exact answer is irrelevant. What is important that YOU HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SUFFER ANY DAMAGE. Quite literally, your best and only defense is to carry a gun. Nothing else will be as readily available, deployable, and effective in stopping your ex from harming or killing you as he has specifically said he will do.

Yes, most of us are privileged enough to live where we don't need a gun to protect ourselves. But for the few who do, gun control only emasculates their ability to realistically and effectively protect themself from known harm. Gun control does nothing to disarm or stop the very criminals and perpetrators the laws are supposedly intended for.

I respect your right to not want to own or use a gun to defend yourself. But you in turn need to respect the right of your fellow citizens to legally do so. If you don't, you are simply substituting your own perceived sense of safety for the actual safety of an innocent victim.
 
What? In san fran? How could such a thing happen?!?!

I thought carrying firearms was illegal in San Francisco? :confused:


Obviously someone is living in their own fantasy land. :scrutiny:


(And who took out the Ron Paul link in my sig? No answer/PM and I'll assume I can put it back.)
 
Link to where we can comment to him?

I had a pretty scary first-hand experience with the American gun problem last night.
The first sentence right away shows the entire problem.

This is the one thing that people like Ron Paul, and the Pro-Gun Lobby will NEVER understand. Sure, in an ideal world, only people kill people, and guns are kept by responsible gun owners, locked in vaults, only used for target practice or killing bambi’s.
Seems like he forget self defense.
 
Why does he say that being in the middle of it is a bad thing? Maybe then he could have prevented it. I guess some people only live for themselves, by themselves.
 
This is the one thing that people like Ron Paul, and the Pro-Gun Lobby will NEVER understand. Sure, in an ideal world, only people kill people, and guns are kept by responsible gun owners, locked in vaults, only used for target practice or killing bambi’s.

Leftist extremists are incapable even of imagining commoners might a.) wish to defend our lives against the predators, and b.) actually do so.

Their lives may not be worth defending, but ours are.
 
I had a pretty scary first-hand experience with the American gun problem last night.

You can stop reading right here. The author might as well have said: "After living countless years in the freedom and safety an armed society provides, I finally came into contact with a criminal."
 
I had a pretty scary first-hand experience with the American gun problem last night.
Wrong. It should read.

"I had a pretty scary first-hand experience with the American gang/thug problem last night."
 
Possession of a gun without appropriate training and practice would not have helped our bloggist. Even with a CCW, in a circumstance like that, most instructors would tell you to run away. Run away if you can, fight if you must. I have been instructed to try to avoid armed confrontation, to adopt a "bodyguard" like attitude, i.e. get the package out of the danger zone as quickly as possible.

Although our bloggist has a different viewpoint than I have concerning the desireability of firearms, I would have done the same thing as he did, run away, if I could do so.

There is a part of each of us which would like to have saved the "innocent" in such a situation, but near as I can tell from the description, it would have been difficult at best to determine who that was. Ferinstance, was the "victim" actually the perpetrator who possessed a weapon and tried to use it on the "thug?" A question I can't answer, and I'm not willing to interject myself into a situation with significant penal and financial consequences as shooting the wrong guy because I didn't see the "victim's" gun or knife.

Anyways. Like they say it is an opinion like many others.
 
Another 20 feet, or maybe another 20 seconds, and I would have been right in the middle of this mess, who knows, I may have been hurt or killed.

Yep, good thing you didn't have a gun to defend yourself with! :banghead:

Typical wuss. Considers only the case of "what if the gangbanger had no gun" and never the case of "what if I had a gun too."
 
Target Terror - Your arguments are rational and logical and the blogger doesn't care. He is relating to his experience on an emotional level and in his mind, passing laws banning guns is going to make guns magically disappear. The falicies in that argument are what must be refuted.

Edited to add: Oops, I gues you did in the 5th para; my bad for not reading closer.
 
what annoyed me most (in addition to his total lack of understanding) is he is preaching in a superior "holyer then thou" sort of way.

"In fantasy land, only responsible people own guns, girls and women don’t have unwanted pregnancies, and everyone can buy their own health-care, the reality is far different than that, and until you experience it first hand, you’ll never really know."
and in fatasy land, criminals don't exsist. but porter, in the real world they do. taking guns away from the law abiding doesn't stop that and never has.
 
"porter van, how on earth do you suppose it is possible to completly eliminate a piece of technolgy from society world wide? thats living in a fatasy land. the reality of modern culture is that we are human and we are the same as we were 1000 years ago. guns and gun technolgy is not that antiquated. the guns of our forefather were the most modern weapons of war at that time. they created the second amendment as a way to be sure that no weapons owned by the state could not be owned by the people. we have a government for the people BY THE PEOPLE.
furthermore, takeing guns out of the hands of lawabiding citizens will not stop criminals from aquairing them and using them. the key word is criminals. people who don't follow the law. the idea of gun control and banning guns does not work, has not worked and will never work when it comes to criminals aquairing guns. "
well darn, you can't post a comment unless you belong to that blog thingy. and after i spent all that time typing, i'm darn well gonna post it somewhere! if someone would be so kind, can you copy it over?
 
well darn, you can't post a comment unless you belong to that blog thingy. and after i spent all that time typing, i'm darn well gonna post it somewhere! if someone would be so kind, can you copy it over?

I posted it for you. I guess I have the magic touch ;)
 
why thank you kindly, targetTerror.
read some more of the comments. porter van is accusing the pro gun posters of not being able to think for them selves. i find that funny, being he is not really thinking at all. (was that not high road appropriate, hmmm i can't tell) this is the perfect example of someone being totally irrational in regards to an issue. furthermore, while i am a little sceptical i don't find it all that hard to believe mr. porter shot a gun before. however i doubt he actually hit the target.
 
This is the one thing that people like Ron Paul, and the Pro-Gun Lobby will NEVER understand. Sure, in an ideal world, only people kill people, and guns are kept by responsible gun owners, locked in vaults, only used for target practice or killing bambi’s.

But in the real world?

You know, the one that REAL people live in, in this place called REALITY? In that world, tens of thousands of Americans die every year due to gun violence. While it may be the Columbines and Virginia Techs that make the news, it’s the every day bull**** emotional outburst by some ****ed up teenager with an easily acquired handgun that kills other people, by the THOUSANDS every month.

This is something Ron Paul just doesn’t understand; there are ramifications to his view that everyone should be responsible for themselves with unrestricted market economies.

In fantasy land, only responsible people own guns, girls and women don’t have unwanted pregnancies, and everyone can buy their own health-care, the reality is far different than that, and until you experience it first hand, you’ll never really know.

Porter

What on earth would anyone expect from San Francisco? The guy has his undies in a bunch because "girls and women don’t have unwanted pregnancies, and everyone can buy their own health-care." Geeesh!
The guy is clearly a statist and wants the govt.com to take charge of our lives.
 
My response:
The facts directly related to this story: Some juvenile delinquent got access to a tool capable of inflicting harm on others, and used the tool inappropriately. Porter was in close proximity when the tool was used, and was in fear for his life (rightly so). The tool used was a handgun of some kind, which was not legally carried or used by the perpetrator.

The facts NOT directly related to this story: Guns exist, and will always exist by virtue of the idea already having been unleashed. No amount of wishing will remove guns from reality - ever. Good thoughts, karma, praying… none of that will get rid of guns. Being as it is, wouldn’t the most sensible path be to allow those of good conscience and will to choose their own destiny when faced with the possibility of harm done by a juvenile delinquent with an illegally carried (and quite probably obtained) handgun? I see no other real moral option. The alternative is to condemn any person at any time to the possibility of death or great bodily harm at the hands of those who are known to ignore the laws.
 
My response FWIW:

I am glad that you did not get hurt, but as mentioned above, a lot of laws were broken by that idiot in this situation. How would more laws have done anything?

"...Other nations seem to just fine without having this little gadget among its populace,..."

In the 20th Century there have been at least seven major genocides in which at least 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children, have been murdered by officials of governments "gone bad". The seven cases are:

1915 - 1917 Ottoman Turkey, 1.5 million Armenians murdered;
1929 - 1953 Soviet Union, 20 million people that opposed Stalin were murdered;
1933 - 1945 Nazi occupied Europe, 13 million Jews Gypsies and others that opposed Hitler were murdered;
1948 - 1952 China, 20 million anti communists;
1960 - 1981 Guatemala, 100,000 Mayan Indians Murdered;
1971 - 1979 Uganda, 300,000 Christians and Political Rivals of Idi Amin murdered;
1975 - 1979 Cambodia, 1 million educated persons murdered.

TOTAL VICTIMS: 56 MILLION!

That's more than 1500 unarmed men, women and children murdered by their own government for every single day in the 20th Century.

I do not consider that doing "...just fine".

In every case, there was on the books before the murdering began, at least one "gun control" law, sometimes the last of a series. In five of the seven cases, "gun control" was first enacted by a regime that came before the genocide regime -- sometimes decades before.

If we somehow disarm the populace, then WHO gets to have guns? Police with 2 years of post-high school training? The military? Won't we still have the problem of gun availability to criminals if guns are still available for military and police? So...let's take the guns away from them. I'm sure in this enlightened age, no one will try to take what they want from us by force.

Criminals don't follow laws. That is why they are criminals. All banning more guns does is disarm law-abiding citizens and eventually makes us all subjects of a future tyrannical government.

Even Liberal Democrats used to understand this:

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -Hubert Humphrey-
 
I responded thusly:
Porter, you said “Yea, it wasn’t the gun, no way, no sir, that’s not why there are 50,000 gun deaths a year. It could EASILY be 50,000 slingshot deaths a year, but these highly trained killers, well, you know, they just prefer guns.”

Here is a challenge for you. Post a sign in front of you home, or on your apartment door if you don’t own your own home. Make that sign to read “This is a gun free zone. There are no guns on the premises now, and there never will be any guns on the premises in the future." Likewise, wear a t-shirt proclaiming “I am not armed with a gun.” It sounds as if life on the streets of your neighborhood is a little bit dicey. I am sure that your neighbors will be relieved somewhat to know that you’re not one of those right-wing, gun-totin’ nut jobs. I am equally sure that punk-ass pissants in your neighborhood, like those 3 wannabees involved in the shooting, will be equally interested in the information. Be sure to carry lots of cash at all times. Maybe nobody will hurt you then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top