Posted on 09/12/2008 9:42:26 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Hey bud...here is the "real world for you"....the victim's Obituary.
...AMY HANCOCK, age 30, of Alexander, formerly of Arkadelphia died Tuesday, September 9, 2008. She was born July 11, 1978 in Arkadelphia. She was a loving wife, mother, a Baptist and assistant manager for the Otter Creek Homeowner’s Association. Survivors include her husband, Bobby Hancock of Alexander, Arkansas, one son, Tyler Hancock of the home, her mother and step-father, Marsha and Terry Davis, her father and step-mother, Mike and Connie Loy, three brothers, Nathan Loy, B.J. Davis, and Lee Loy all of Arkadelphia, one sister, Sherry Davis of Malvern, her maternal grandmother, Clora Anderson of Arkadelphia, and numerous nieces and nephews.
Funeral services will be at 11 a.m. Saturday, September 13, 2008 at Ruggles-Wilcox Funeral Home Chapel with Rev. Mel Vail officiating. Interment will be in Rest Haven Memorial Gardens. Visitation will be 6-8 p.m. Friday at the funeral home. Online guest book is available at www.ruggleswilcox.com.
Best line of the day! Thanks for the laugh!
Very very wrong friend. You have absorbed to much of the anti gun talking points your repeating here. You need to take a moment and not get angry or defensive and really rethink you points based on what does work and what doesn’t. What is myth and what is proven to work.
Don’t fall victim to gun grabbers rants ! Your a good person , a smart guy..... been here at FR a while . You know better than what you stated to Shooter 2.5 IMO !
Stay safe !
I have yet to see a martial arts weenie beat a street fighter. Never have. As much as I loved “e-tool 101” taught by Uncle Sugar..... I would rather have a 12 ga or a 1911A1 for CQB versus going hand to hand with an unknown adversary.
... There are folks that own a gun for self defense and then there are “martial artists” skilled in shooting offensive and defensive drills for both work and games aka competition. As we all know experience is not taught it is gained through life long events. But that is better dealt out for military, professional PSD / Private Security and law enforcement . My life’s events thus far are few experienced in military and in law enforcement. The rest is how to carry safely in a always ready condition and stay alert aka condition yellow 24/7 as much as possible. Learning NOT to be a victim is real easy when the class is taught by a small arms professional. But really hard when taught by a liberal socialists that thinks paper laws stop knives, clubs and bullets !
All average US citizen needs to know is safety, use of force laws regarding self defense and ability to point and shoot the firearm they own for such self defense purposes as a last resort IMO and ...........experience.
just my opinion of course.........:o)
Yep ......more worried about Eeeek having to be under foot with the Mom.....she’ll smack him good if he gets bored without his power tools !........;o)
44 was for you aka DCbryan1 versus just DCbryan....my goof !
Waiting for them to blame cell phones. /sarc
Get rid of the idea that I need permission to defend myself and I’ll agree with you. Paying for a permit is not the type of freedom I fought for.
The Gun is Civilization
by Marko Kloos of the
Munchkin Wrangler blog
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
You’re wasting your time.
He won’t change his mind until he’s elderly or in a wheelchair. Then and only then will he suddenly think having something that puts him on par with predators might be a good thing. Until then he believes in his own freedom and not of others.
Heard anything from any of the other Houston-area folks?
Nothing...... west side seems to be Ok , very little damage and just power outage. Could be a few days. Most power lines in that area (where they live) are under ground according to them so fix should be quicker that a ville with power poles that may be down.
Everyone has an inherent right to self defense. The elderly and disabled are victimized because they are easier targets. According to your logic, they should just surrender to the criminals.
Thank you for being on the forum and contributing to it. I think you are mistaken, but I believe that you mean well. I welcome differences in opinion and the free flow of ideas.
Certainly, mindset is the most important part of the equation. If a person is aware, often they can avoid the encounter altogether. If they are of the victim mindset, it may not matter much if they are armed with a firearm, though most criminal flee at the sight of a gun.
This is where we differ a great deal. An unarmed scroat has *everything to lose (his life) and little to gain (a little machismo) by taking on an armed “victim” instead of running away. I believe that you have this part of the equation entirely backwards. As evidence, let me put forward that the victim surveys in the United States pretty consistently show that about 90% of the time, the mere showing of the firearm is enough to diffuse the situation, usually with the criminal running away.
Hand to Hand combat training is a good thing, well worth while, and a valuable alternative to deadly force, but, as many have mentioned, it is effectively unavailable to many who most need to be defended. For those who are tough of mind, a firearm offers real protection.
Thanks again for your contribution. We welcome all thoughtful posters.
Nice try at flying the racial accusation under the radar.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If you're overpowered by a criminal, it doesn't matter if he has your gun or his bare hands. You're dead either way. The old "Use your weapon against you" is a worn out canard that defies logic.
We're in rare agreement. Like Kiwi,I'm well versed in the martial, and I suspect more so. I've learned enough in my lifetime that I know that I no longer want to fight anyone younger, stronger, and faster than I am, without a weapon on my side.
You have erroneously concluded that the two are exclusive. I'm a martial artists, I've been in and won plenty of street fights, and I'm more likely to shoot a thug attempting to mug me than I am to break a hand trying to hit him.
Do not post links to thugreport.com here again. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.