Over at breitbart.com tanger100 comments on the defensive gun use in the video above [click on image to view]: “Guess these thug teenagers were just bored as well, that’s why they went after this hard-working man. How sad society has become. This man is working 2 jobs to provide for his family, and these thug teenagers, who run amuck with no supervision, discipline, etc. think it’s o.k. to rob someone because they are too lazy and bored to work themselves! What is this world coming too? Thank God this guy was carrying; otherwise, the end result could have been much worse.” My only quibble: society has ever been thus. In fact, society’s been a LOT worse. Violent crime rates have been dropping for two decades. Look south. Look east. Look around. Society’s a lot worse elsewhere in the world. And? When it’s you or them a firearm increases the odds that it’s gonna be you. That’s not a stat. That’s reality. [h/t Tom]
Let’s see if this guy gets the amount of media attention Zimmerman got. No chance. He risked his life being “responsible”.
Here’s a guess on how this would be mentioned in any media reporting (if at all): “This is merely an anecdote, that shows nothing about the need for being armed.”
I really like this incident as an example. He was perfectly justified in defending himself regardless of possession of weapons by these punks…being outnumbered has been established as a disparity of force in legal precedence.
It’s nice that no one had to get injured or lose their life, but if I’m accosted by a *group*, I’m defending myself with my weapon to the extent necessary. Three or four pairs of legs can easily stomp someone to death.
I’d like to know what he was carrying.
Really too bad that reporters always leave out such important information, which is probably because most reporters are ignorant of the types of guns and and because, even if they aren’t ignorant, they would rather the public stayed uninformed and therefore more likely to react to any gun whatsoever as if it were radioactive.
I stopped reading this at “breitbart.com”.
Why is that?
Because Breitbart is a mean-spirited tool. At least that’s the reason that jumps to my mind.
But I kept reading anyway. Even a tool can have something worthwhile on his website from time to time. Although…borderline. It’s a good DGU story, but what looks like a video is just audio playing behind a static ad. Lame.
In case you were not aware, Andrew Breitbart has been dead for more than a year. When he was alive, he championed the cause of fairness and rooting out liberal bias, lies and agendas, like:
Anthony Weiner sexting scandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner_sexting_scandal
Resignation of Shirley Sherrod: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_of_Shirley_Sherrod
ACORN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy
Please take the time to reacquaint yourself with the above scandals. If they don’t bother you, then I guess liberal bias, lies, and agendas are good for America.
This is why I make my own Buffalo wings.
You got tired of the delivery guy thwarting your attempted muggings?
He said “$10 worth of wings…”? Ten dollars for some wings, and HE’S complaining about THEM robbing HIM?
You sir are tonight’s winner.
I’m not sure I’d give any kind of interview after any kind of DGU whether shots fired or not. And that’s the sad part, that we would be afraid to inform the public about successful gun uses because of the possibility of prosecution/persecution.
I agree with the entire post except for the idea that “society has always been thus.” Two decades ago crime was worse, that’s true, but the proper comparison is not today vs. 1993 but 1960-2013 vs. 1607-1959. For most of the history of this country, violent crime was far, far below what it has been in the last half-century.
Here’s one viewpoint on the historical changes from James Q. Wilson: http://www.pbs.org/fmc/interviews/jwilson.htm
Comments are closed.