During the discuss on the post The Gun Lobby Has A Death Grip on Congress Richard Warnick put himself into contention for the Pro-Ignorance Troll of the Year award and won the daily award.
Richard doubted that firearms could be used in self defense. His exact words were "Give me one example of a rapist who was stopped by a gun."
That wasn't enough to win the daily award.
Several of us took up the challenge, I used Clayton Cramer's excellent Blog Civilian Self Defense to find the story of a Missouri woman who killed the scum that came back to rape her for the second time.
- Richard Warnick made this comment:
#31 by Richard Warnick - June 10th, 2009 at 06:54
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch story, as I note above, looks like a revenge killing. There was an alternative to killing the guy, simply run out the front door (as she did after waiting for him to break down a door and shooting him).
I don’t have time to go over every case in detail, but it does seem that the availability of a gun leads some people to use it instead of calling the police.
#32 by Bob S. - June 10th, 2009 at 07:05
Richard,
You’ve got to be SHITTING ME. The woman was RAPED, the RAPIST came back and broke into her house a second time and you want her to try the same tactic that got her raped the first time!!!!!!!!
She didn’t have to avoid killing him, HE HAD TO NOT RAPE HER. If he hadn’t been there, he would have never been SHOT.
She waited until his INTENTIONS WERE CLEAR. He wasn’t there to invite her to a tea party. HE WAS THERE TO RAPE HER AGAIN.
If she had tracked him down and shot him, I would agree it was a revenge killing. That wasn’t the case was it? The criminal scum came back and tried to attack her again…why aren’t you calling that a REVENGE RAPE for her going to the police. Nope, once again a pro-ignorance liberal attacks the victim of the crime.
How dare you say that she should have ran away from someone breaking into her house. SHE had a legal moral and ETHICAL right to defend herself from the criminal scum attacking her. HE COULD HAVE turned around at any point, HE DIDN”T HAVE TO BREAK HER DOOR DOWN, HE DIDN”T HAVE TO RAPE HER THE FIRST TIME.
Yes, the availability of firearms do lead people to use them instead of waiting minutes or HOURS for the police to show up if they show up at all.
In the mean time, the woman would have been assaulted AGAIN.
Why should she or anyone have to run out of their house because someone is breaking in???
Why are you wanting people to let the low life scum have their way?
Why are you telling people not to fight back against scum who are trying to rob them, trying to assault them, trying to rape them, trying to murder them?
Why are you trying to help the criminals have an easier time committing their heinous acts?
Nope, NEVER TELL me you don’t want to disarm America AGAIN. YOU WORDS HERE PROVE THAT YOU DO.
19 comments:
Col. Cooper said it best, evil is not defeated by fleeing from it.
why on earth should lawful people have to run away from criminals who invade their homes --- repeatedly, even! --- with a mind to do them harm? why on earth would anybody ask a fellow citizen to not only disarm themselves, but to act like scared rabbits fleeing from the hound, when faced with nothing more than another human being --- a dangerous, harmful human being, who will at some point or other have to be stopped by somebody?
if not right then, what better time? if not the person put most at risk, who else, and where are they?
Also Becky in the same thread talks about running being an effective defensive tool because "Most attackers won't persue you" (No citation, and I'm rather skepticle)
Bob talks about his arthitic knees. Frankly I've never enjoyed running m'self, I'd rather walk or ride my bike for exercise/getting from place-to-place thanks. Honestly I don't trust my ability to run to be sucessful, nor do I want to bet my life that I'll see trouble comming from far enugh away that I'll have a good head start.
Also if Women running is such a great tactic, why is it track and field don't allow men and women to compete together?
I have already decided for myself that if I'm confronted with danger I'm standing my ground. My opponant likely has spent more time running (either after people, or away from the police) than I have, so by me attempting to run all I have done is effectivly turned my back to a known threat.
Nope I'll stand and fight, and I won't fight "fair" becuase I'll use tools to defend myself.
I am not a sheep, and I am not prey!
running is an effective defense? yeah, tell that to any woman who's ever had a psycho stalker ex-boyfriend. i've heard tales of some who've had to run across state lines and change their names. why the fuck should any human being ever have to do that? and who would ever stop the attacker, if everybody had nothing else to do but run? "stop! police! stop your assault or i'll run away!"
running's such a great defense that asthmatics usually can't contemplate it. that matters, because asthma's one of those things you can't tell by looking at somebody --- an otherwise healthy, even fit, twenty-something person might be unable to run and breathe at the same time. wonder what Becky cares for them...
we could probably get her to, however grudgingly, make exceptions for folks in wheelchairs; folks on crutches; maybe even women with infant children they can't carry and run very fast with. but would she except just any old ordinary-looking, single, young person who simply can't run?
(yeah, i'm doing all my commenting over here. that oneutah thread has over two hundred comments already; the swamp's too deep for me. besides, just the excerpts i'm seeing here are doing my blood pressure enough harm...)
RE preventing a rape:
Lance Thomas, Read about him HERE
This is from a more extensive bio in Paul Kirchner's book on "THE DEADLIEST MEN".
One evening Thomas heard a woman screaming from a parking lot on the other side of Santa Monica Boulevard. Running out of his shop (armed with a SIG .45ACP) and across traffic, he scared off a rapist who had already pushed his intended victim to the ground and torn open her clothing. As Thomas returned to his shop, Castor ( owner of a neighboring shop ), who had been drawn outside by the ruckus, asked him why he hadn't just called 911.
"I AM 911", Thomas replied.
And he didn't even shoot him.
As for me, why should I run when I have my little friends that can run 800 feet per second or more?
Clay Allison isn't buried too far away from me. He sent 20 people to judgment day for good reasons. A secondary grave marker was later added by friends and relatives after his burial.
It's a simple granite stone that says "He never killed a man that did not need killing."
He died in a farm accident, not a gunfight, too. And, he was a gentleman. When invited to dine with a person he knew was going to try to kill him ( didn't work for the other fellow ) he was asked why he went if he knew the other fellow was going to try to kill him. He said: "Because I didn't want to send a man to hell on an empty stomach."
You can trace the history of defensive gunfighters that were people of merit and held in high esteem back to times before the wars with the English king, if one's inclined.
Let Richard get raped during what's effectively a home invasion. I bet you he'd change his tune. If he lived. If he didn't, well, good riddance. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the fewer people in the world with that mentality, the better, and if they meet their demise through such means I just can't find a shred of sympathy in me for them.
"#7 by Richard Warnick - June 10th, 2009 at 06:23
Bob S. — 99 percent was a figure of speech, not a “lie.”
#2 by Richard Warnick - June 9th, 2009 at 09:56
Bob S. wants “proof” of my ball-park guesstimate that 99 percent of Americans were OK with the national park gun rule as it existed before Congress changed it with a sneaky amendment to the credit-card bill.
#5 by mikeb302000 - June 10th, 2009 at 05:29
No, Bob, what a reasonable person would have done is understood right away that Richard meant the”vast majority.”
#9 by Richard Warnick - June 9th, 2009 at 10:53
Obviously, when I said 99 percent I was not quoting a poll, but stating an obvious fact.
#11 by Richard Warnick - June 9th, 2009 at 11:27
You’re the one with reading comprehension problems. I said that 99 percent is a “ballpark guesstimate.”
Wow. OMFG WOW. You got a keeper with this one.
I think I may have to add you to my daily read. Hope ya don't mind
Kaveman,
Glad to have you as a daily reader, hope you continue to comment.
I'm just stoked that people find my rantings a.)amusing, b.)interesting, c.) twisted enough, d.) some combination of all of the above.
I've seen your comments on other sites, so I know you can add to the discussion.
Thanks Sir
A good read regarding defensive behavior:
A DEFENCE OF DEFENSE
Bob S...
To be perfectly honest, I should probably be mad at you.
I try to limit my blog reads to the bare minimum just due to time constraints.
But when I read ALL the comments over at OneUtah for the troll post, I simply had to add you to the list.
You're now an icon on my desk top.
Clicky clicky will ensue.
The thought process of someone who thinks it is wrong to shoot a repeat rapist when he attacks you again is so alien to me that I don't think meaningful communication is possible.
I am strongly in favor of rapists getting shot by their intended victims--For every rapist shot, several more rapes are prevented. If we can get the number of shot rapists (or preferably attempted rapists) up high enough, we could easily halve the number of rapes.
Sevesteen
If we can get the numbers of women that carry up high enough, nobody in anything close to their right mind would risk attempting a rape and the rest would be killed or at least maimed.
Hint for both male and female pistoleros:
Groin shots incapacitate the person at the receiving end, result in massive blood loss if you nick the right blood vessel and decent amount if you don't, scare the hell out of the guy that doesn't want to lose his member, and are way easier to make than head shots, as it's the part of the human body that moves least when a human is ambling or running about. Also one of the least likely areas to have any form of body armor.
Criminals like easy targets. Don't be one. Shoot back. Help Darwin criminals. It's your duty.
Cops are mostly janitors, it's the citizen's job to keep things on an even keel.
People like him are beyond help. Sure, you can run away from a violent attack. Hell, if I can get away from a violent attacker without using force I certainly will IF that is the best option available to me.
What do you do if you run away and he catches you?
And saying that someone, upon having a violent criminal forcibly enter their house, should RUN OUT OF THEIR OWN HOME is just so full of sheer stupidity that I cannot possibly understand it.
How the hell does someone's mind get so warped that they can actually think this way? And how can they call themselves American?
I agree that shooting the rapists and defending against home invasions with a gun are great theories. My question is are they working in real life. It always gets back to the question, do the guns do more harm than good. I say yes (it's just a fuzzy-wuzzy feeling I have, please don't ask for proof).
MikeB,
Let's conduct a simple mental exercise.
Rapist broke into woman's house, she followed advice given by police and people like Richard, she ran. She was caught and raped. She reported to police.
Did the police prevent the rape?
No.
Did they catch the rapist after the fact?
No.
Rapist came back again. This time the woman followed a different piece of advice and when the thug did violence --- breaking into her house-- when he committed a crime and threatened her safety, she shot him.
Did she use the firearm to stop the thug from raping or murdering her?
YES
Will that thug, proven to have raped her once, ever rape again?
NO.
So, which did more harm to society, running away or using a firearm?
Running away!
Nomen had a great point
when faced with nothing more than another human being --- a dangerous, harmful human being, who will at some point or other have to be stopped by somebody?
How many other people did the thug assault or rape in between the attacks? We don't know, but do you think he was sitting around knitting with old ladies at a retirement home?
We are trying to show you the proof that guns don't do more harm then good. Open your mind and actually look at the evidence.
We are trying to show that there is a benefit to society with firearms. Open your mind to the evidence.
We are trying to show you that your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is wrong. Open your mind to the evidence.
We are trying to show you how our right to keep and bear arms doesn't derive from the 2nd amendment, but is protected by it. Open your mind to the evidence.
We are trying to show you that, Yes we know that there is harm from the criminal use offirearms but that does not justify taking away our firearms. Open your mind to the evidence.
You have a computer, a camera, Yes?
Would you give them up if I said it was necessary to stop people from producing child pRon?
I agree that shooting the rapists and defending against home invasions with a gun are great theories.
MikeB - What difference does it make whether the woman uses her own gun to shoot the rapist who's breaking into her home, or calls a man with a gun (the cops) to impart defensive violence on her behalf?
The only real difference is practical. If she has her own gun she can stop the threat immediately. If not, she has to wait for one to arrive in the holster of a cop, hoping he gets there before she's dead or raped.
"I say yes (it's just a fuzzy-wuzzy feeling I have, please don't ask for proof)."
In other words, I FEEL, therefore I BELIEVE IT IS TRUE, and please don't hurt my fragile psyche with nasty, evil facts & evidence.
Saying something doesn't make it reality MikeB. I'm sorry you live in a fuzzy-wuzzy dream land where stimulus-provided unicorns fart protective force fields around everyone.
First of all, a quote from the Post Dispatch:
The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door....
Followed up by this:
"My question is are they working in real life."
Well they sure worked on at least one son of a bitch, didn't they? But you quite obviously don't care even with that, do you MikeB?
Oh-hoooo, I love me some Motorhead! "Double up or quit, double stake or split, the Ace of Spades, the Ace of Spades..."
Richard doesn't really believe the crap he posts. He just hates being proved wrong. He'll entertain whatever logical contortions in order to claim that he's won an argument. It's sad, really. It's also one of the reasons I refuse to debate with him further.
If you're interested in having fun with Richard, read the items he links to. They rarely reinforce his opinion. Usually they contradict his point.
He's a tool.
JD,
Notice how he's backed out of the debate.
The idea was to sum up the entire argument, put the best possible evidence and case forward in one place. Does he want to do that....NOPE.
He wants to talk about how the "gun lobby" has too much control over Congress.
My answer is pretty simple, if the "gun lobby" has so much control -- why aren't we all able to walk around with fully automatic weapons plainly visible anytime we want to, without having to register any weapons, under go background checks, etc?
So much for the "gun lobby" controlled Congress.
Post a Comment