VIDEO: Milwaukee Waitress Draws Gun On Attacker Who Punched a Coworker

Milwaukee restaurant attack DGU

courtesy liveleak.com

As the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex makes sure to remind us at every opportunity, women are more endangered by having a gun in the home than they are protected by them. Oh, and any chick dizzy enough to consider carrying a firearm will only have it taken away and used against her. So don’t even bother.

Leave aside for a moment how insultingly patronizing and sexist those messages are. Instead, watch this video and show it to the next hoplophobe who parrots that rote, anti-gun catechism at you.

The attack happened in a Milwaukee restaurant when a “customer” walked back into the kitchen and cold-cocked the cook. That’s when the waitress behind her drew a pistol as he approached her, too.

“It is sickening to see this unsuspecting worker assaulted so brutally by this individual,” Milwaukee Alderman Bob Donovan said.

The woman who was hit had a concussion but is back at the work.

Another worker, who pulled out a gun and pointed it at the man to get him away from the victim, has quit.

“I thank God that the one waitress had a concealed carry and pulled out her gun. I shudder to think what might have happened had she not been able to do that. What this guy would’ve done,” Donovan said.

Police know who the man is but are still looking for him.

Yes, it is sickening. But it’s also another example of a successful defensive gun use, one that didn’t require firing a shot. It happens literally hundreds of thousands of times a year in the United States, a fact that President Obama’s National Research Council confirmed.

There’s simply no denying that a firearm is frequently the best, most effective tool a woman can use to even the odds against a bigger, stronger, faster, more aggressive attacker. Just as it did in that Milwaukee restaurant.

Does that matter one whit to Gabby Giffords, Shannon Watts, Joan Peterson, Lucia McBath, Kamala Harris or Carolyn Maloney? Of course not. They’d prefer to see women disarmed, defenseless and vulnerable to thugs like the guy in the video above. Better to have them injured or dead than able to demonstrate that guns can and really do save lives. Now that’s sickening.

comments

  1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Libs/dems do not listen to facts…
    they are fine with 600,000+ deaths by abortion each year, but try and convince themselves that it is not a life yet
    imagine if a fetus was found in ANY other place in the universe…it would be hailed as LIFE under those circumstances…RIGHT?

    1. avatar JesusLovesGunss says:

      Abortion satisfies Khorne.

      The messier the better!

      Blood for the blood god!

      1. avatar Mike Oregon says:

        I think that it was Moloch that desired child sacrifice.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          That was hillary.

        2. avatar Nigel the expat says:

          Elric says “Blood and souls for my lord Arioch”

          /random reference of the day

  2. avatar Captain O says:

    She could have shot him and claimed that she was defending a coworker. (Felonious assault is enough to justify the use of Deadly Force). There isn’t a court in the land that would have convicted her.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      “There isn’t a court in the land that would have convicted her”

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
      *wheezing*
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    2. avatar Amfivena says:

      Really? White woman shoots a black man, plenty of courts would convict, with elevated hate crime charges as well.

      1. avatar matt says:

        It is beyond that, it was video recorded. I think it wouldn’t be a waste for society if she had dropped him, but it depends on state law heavily. Here in Maryland unless the person is in your home you basically can’t meet force with anything other than a similar level of force. Someone punches you, if you pull out a gun and shoot them, you are probably getting a manslaughter charge. Maybe you’ll have a sympathetic jury. Now maybe if they had a deadly weapon the DA might decide not to press charges.

        Hopefully there are more sane than insane states in this country, but only a handful have no retreat laws.

  3. avatar OregunianC96 says:

    If having a gun means it will just be taken away from you and used against you, doesn’t that mean that once the perp has taken it from you, he is the one who is now vulnerable to have it taken from him and used against him?

    Guns do save lives. They get perpetrators and victims stuck in an endless loop of passing it back and forth.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Ha! If they’re both women, then I guess that’s the only possible way it could go. It’ll only end when one of them frees a hand to call the police, or finally drops of exhaustion.

      But I’m afraid this joke merely shows that you don’t understand the truth. Criminal perpetrators are stronger and better than you in every possible way. No one can resist, and no one should.

      After all, victim-status equals power. You are the victim of a single human, but that single human is the victim of an entire society. Even if you could resist such victim-power, it would be wrong; to resist would be to oppress this poor person even further.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “But I’m afraid this joke merely shows that you don’t understand the truth. ”

        The most I would conclude is the commenter may not be fully proficient in the use of irony, or perhaps the commenter can be more subtle and ironic than we can understand.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          I was channeling the SJWs. That’s my defense and I’m sticking to it.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I was channeling the SJWs. That’s my defense and I’m sticking to it.”

          Got it.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    “that wrote, anti-gun catechism”

    Maybe “rote?”

    1. Damned auto-correct.

  5. avatar bobo says:

    I love this vid

    you can just see that split second when his Johnson and balls deflated at the sight of the gun, yet tried to hold back the tears as he walked away to save his own life….I am sure that he is ‘woke’ now.

    1. avatar m. says:

      a firearm is usually enough to keep jamf punks like this one off your a$$, every female should have a .380 on hand

  6. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

    He cold-cocked the cook and continued to walk towards the second woman.

    In Florida, that would have been a good shoot, as the second woman had just witnessed a violent assault, and the assailant was heading towards her…

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      It would have been a good shoot because of the serious advantage of size/strength the attacker had over the victims (in quasi-legal terms disparity of force).

      Had the victims been men, they would have had a harder time justifying using deadly force because the courts figure male victims would be able to defend themselves successfully with their fists.

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    THIS is all over the news. Curiously overwhelmingly pro-gun. I wonder if the leftard “news” would condemn her if she shot the bastard?!?

  8. avatar Brian says:

    The best part of this is her behavior pre-draw. She sees something coming, backs up, gets her hand staged, and is ready the instant the friendly is out of the way. 10/10 for technique and response time.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      +1

    2. avatar Swarf says:

      Yeah, her response and especially her draw was very well done.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      The only mistake was not immediately putting 3 rounds into the big SOB.

      We REALLY need a gold medal for such use of a firearm. Perhaps with an awards package. I don’t think this one wouldn’t even need any extensive review of circumstances.

    4. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      She clearly had good situational awareness of what was coming.

  9. avatar Bloving says:

    My favorite part? Not having to retrieve her purse to rummage around for her gun.
    Say “no” to off-body carry!
    🤠

  10. avatar Amfivena says:

    “Another worker, who pulled out a gun and pointed it at the man to get him away from the victim, has quit.”

    Hopefully she finds a better job with a company that values their employees.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Was she asked to quit, or did she decide to implement “avoid stupid people doing stupid things” by leaving the place where she met a stupid person doing stupid stuff?

      1. avatar Andrew says:

        She probably resigned to avoid some kind of retaliation from the dude. It’s pretty easy to move on if you make an hourly minimum wage.

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    She could have dropped him. Witnessed an assault, moved towards her for round two, could have been a dead mofo right there. Then the cops would have little trouble finding him. He’s the sorry sack of shot on the floor with a few extra holes in him.

    1. avatar m. says:

      worst part; useless m.mf will get a trial @ taxpayer x-spense

    2. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

      She should have emptied that pistol into his sorry a$$.

  12. avatar jwm says:

    The lefts message of enabling murderers and rapists is just one of many reasons we have Trump for president.

    They are destroying themselves and their chances in this country. Have a beverage of choice and popcorn ready for the tears in November.

  13. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I thank God that the one waitress had a concealed carry and pulled out her gun. — Milwaukee Alderman Bob Donovan

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    That is WINNING!

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      No kidding.
      Huge win for our side when a Milwaukee Alderman says that.

      Wonder what he’ll say the next time the Chief babbles about having his ‘troops’ assault open carriers.

  14. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Dead victims support the narrative that guns do not save lives. People with guns do not save lives.

    EOS.

    1. avatar m. says:

      i would not try 2 save your life, u worthless ahole

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Another classy response from the intellectually impaired.

        Perhaps a re-read, and deeper think would result in understanding a cutting snark at the anti-gun crowd.

        Maybe not. People who resort to foul language and personal attack seldom have the capacity to analyze the written word. You may benefit from requesting a refund of the money spent on what was called education in your life.

  15. avatar John Q Public says:

    “HEADSHOT!”

  16. avatar Svigor says:

    Now, what’s important is that none of you white men express any racism at witnessing this assault by a strong, proud man of color on a couple of white women.

  17. avatar skiff says:

    This coward is lucky to be alive. She has such a smooth draw and did it without hesitation. He knew that she meant business.

  18. avatar skiff says:

    This may be a teachable moment for him. He will start carrying a handgun.

  19. avatar GD says:

    This is an example of a good person with a gun saving the day.

    Good job! Violent assault is extremely dangerous of a situation and can quickly turn into extreme bodily harm out of no where.

  20. avatar J Mac says:

    Where’s the Justice? Why wasn’t this posted everywhere? It was on IG one day if that and now it can’t be found anywhere! The double-standards are sickening to say the least and I want to see this pc of 💩 lose his job and get arrested.

  21. avatar Dan Hawkley says:

    Sorry I’m a newbie when it comes to debate about citizens with guns. Isn’t most gun legislation aimed at being more selective about who is trained and authorized to carry guns, and what kinds of guns should be available for purchase? The video does suggest to me that there is a good case for being prepared to defend one another against this kind of violence and threat.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      First, you start with the second amendment, as written, in its proper context. The key phrase is “…shall not be infringed”. Which has the same force as “Congress shall make no law …” in the first amendment.

      You enter the discussion at the proposition gun ownership is a “right”, and there are no conditions or exceptions written in the constitution. No training or permissions required.

      Then, you decide which firearm you want, whether or not to purchase formal training (to a level of competence determined by you), whether or not you wish to carry a firearm with you in the dwelling and, or outside, in public, concealed or openly carried.

      Then you frequent a blog covering guns and gun ownership, and denigrate or insult anyone who does not agree with you.

      And a good time was had by all.

      1. avatar Firefoe says:

        Absolutely correct as “Shall” is the key term when executed in this context meaning this absolutely cannot be changed, almost as if our founders had some kinda extraterrestrial knowledge of future affairs. Naw they probably just knew how lame our political system would become as a result of our corruptible nature!
        Good Job, You Old Dead Gentlemen!!

  22. avatar Andrew says:

    Great example of concealed carry and responsible gun ownership. As a gun owning Texan, I’ve had plenty of conversations with Independents and Democrats and the vast majority of them do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment. Rather, they want strong background checks, crackdown on the black market, red flag laws, and laws to hold people accountable if their guns are used in crimes and have not been reported stolen.

    The vocal minority always drowns out the silent majority. Unfortunately there is so much fake news out there by the extreme right and left (i.e the crazies who have nothing better to do) that every time anything related to guns is reported in the media it turns into a social media war between tough guys in basements on the extreme right and left instead of a constructive democratic conversation to make America safer.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Independents and Democrats and the vast majority of them do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment.”

      To sort wheat from chaff (to copy a phrase), present this scenario:
      Your state governor has two bills to disposition. They are the last two open pieces of legislation, and the session is about to expire for two years. The state constitution declares the governor must officially dispose of the bills before the session ends. The governor is not allowed to let the bills “die” without action.

      The two bills are these: one establishes sanctuary state, the other constitutional carry. Which do you want to governor to sign, which to veto?

  23. avatar Fred says:

    I live in California which is one of the most ridiculous gun law regulation states in the Union. If this happened in California not only would the person who drew the gun be placed in prison for the rest of her life but the woman who was knocked out on the floor would be placed on death row.

    Insane liberal politicians like Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are protected 24/7 by armed security but they don’t want the rest of the people in this state to be able to protect themselves.

    I find it amazing that liberal women who fight for all sorts of women’s rights and equality are willing to remain silent when anti-gun groups say women should not have guns because they will just be taken away from them. That is so incredibly condescending and sexist that I almost puke everytime I hear it. I know many women who own guns and I have seen them shoot on the range. These women could kick the a** of most men any day of the week in a firefight.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email