Good Guy/Gal With A Gun

[IdleBoast]

Homeowner takes advice of Joe Biden, protects his family from intruder...
https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/sheriff-armed-homeowner-shoots-intruder-in-barn

What?

Were his family in the barn?
Were they actually endangered by the intruder?
Was the intruder armed?

Not according to the article.

"Came toward him in a threatening manner"?? Nobody talks like that unless they're writing an official report in a way that they hope will stop them getting in trouble.

Correct headline: "Unarmed man shot in empty outhouse for flinching when elderly man waves shotgun in his face".

[Lois]

If it wasn't for this Good Guy With a gun, someone would have eaten his potato chips!  GRRRRRRR!

South Carolina Man Shoots Cousin He Warned Not To Eat His Potato Chips
The victim told authorities he never actually ate the chips as the suspect claimed.
By David Moye



A South Carolina man is facing an attempted murder charge after police say he shot his teenage cousin after warning the victim not to eat his salt and vinegar potato chips.

Ryan Langdale, 19, of Colleton County, turned himself into deputies on Wednesday and was charged with attempted murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime and obstruction of justice, according to The State newspaper.

Police said that on Sept. 29, officers were called to the home where Langdale’s cousin had been shot. Both he and the victim told deputies the shooting was self-inflicted and happened when the 17-year-old was cleaning a hunting rifle, according to the paper.

The victim was rushed into surgery with life-threatening injuries before being transferred to a Charleston area hospital, according to local station WYFF TV.

But the story started changing after the victim recovered enough for further questioning. The teen told investigators that Langdale shot him after warning him not to eat his salt and vinegar potato chips.

“Do not touch my chips, or I’ll shoot you,” Langdale allegedly told the victim according to a sheriff’s incident report, obtained by the Charleston Post and Courier.

The victim told authorities he never actually ate the chips as Langdale claimed.

Authorities also said that Langdale switched weapons at the crime scene and intentionally pointed out the wrong rifle to investigators, according to WYFF.

Deputies obtained a search warrant for Langdale’s home on Monday and recovered the weapon believed to have been used in the shooting and obtained arrest warrants for Langdale, according to the station.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ryan-langdale-attempted-murder-potato-chips_us_5bbfb50be4b01a01d688c4c3

[joan1984]

  So.... Ryan is not a 'good guy' at all, rather a criminal, who shot his cousin, then lied to authorities, and is therefore charged with crimes. Very different.

[wayne3218]

US gun control
Weaponizing women: how feminism is being used to sell guns

[psiberzerker]

US gun control
Weaponizing women: how feminism is being used to sell guns

How is that Gun Control, or Feminism?  Pretty blonds are used to sell everything.  Everything.  Did you write that title, or copy it from somewhere?

[wayne3218]

US gun control
Weaponizing women: how feminism is being used to sell guns

How is that Gun Control, or Feminism?  Pretty blonds are used to sell everything.  Everything.  Did you write that title, or copy it from somewhere?

Google is your friend.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/tomi-lahren-nra-women-use-feminism-sell-guns

[psiberzerker]

Google is your friend.

Your friend, too.  See, you could have done us both a favor by linking the article in the first place.  While you had it in the other tab to copy the title, and the picture.  Instead of coming back to finish the job, thank you.  Cite your sources, it saves us both time, and this back and forth.  Unless you just like the back, and forth.

More irony/missing the point:  This was published in The Guardian.

Women being gun nuts too isn't feminism, nor gun control.  It's just women being gun nuts.  Too.  Women can be spree shooters, too.  

"Framing gun rights as a feminist issue feels disingenuous and exploitative when there is a huge amount of research that shows women are more likely to be killed by a gun than saved by one."

^This is hilarious for several reasons:  Women are just as likely to be killed with a gun, than saved by one, as men, and children.  However, in decrying this, as an outrage (Women having guns) it statistically misrepresents it so that somehow it's different, and doesn't take into account the stereotype that armed women protecting themselves is somehow an outrage.  It's circular logic:  Women shouldn't own guns for self protection, because they;re more likely to get shot.  (The gun doesn't care whether it's used to shoot a man, woman, child, or just an inanimate object.  Doesn't care if it's carried by a man, woman, or left in the reach of children.)

Both sides of this argument are sexist, and insane.  Also, blaming "Feminism," when they're clearly Trump supporters.  Also finally, Knives, and Tasers are better for defending yourself from Sexual Assault, which is a Close Quarters Crime.  If he grabs you, suddenly, and without warning (So it's more likely to succeed) then he can grab for your carbine, slung on your back, before you do.  The only advantage a gun has is range, so it's basically carrying a gun for a wrestling match.  However, I can see the use for a gun, in case of a Flasher.  (Not technically a Sexual Assault, just ask Justice Kavanaugh.)

[Katiebee]

I enjoy shooting firearms, as does Liz. I am also a collector. The thing is I collect historical content, firearms from WWII. I am facinated by the styling, the look and feel of wood and steel. And I love shooting them. Being a history buff helps.

I probablynown more firearms than do most people. But I also understand that simply having a firearm does not make you safer. Not does it mean you can repel an attack. My father drilled into me when I showed my interest, that a firearm is effective when you hate prepared to use it in that moment (gun in hand), have enough standoff to use it, and you are not taken by surprise.

Speaking in military terms, when you are in a prepared position you are most effective. When ambushed, the you seek cover, distance or help. In an ambush you must react immediately to survive.

A slung longarm is useless.

[psiberzerker]

But I also understand that simply having a firearm does not make you safer. Not does it mean you can repel an attack.

...A slung longarm is useless.

...ish.  I'm going to back off from the absolutes, especially when it comes to the subject of Sexual Assault.  It is a deterrent, when certain types of pathological abusers cruise away from their home or work (Geographic Profile of an Anger Retaliatory Type) they're looking for Victims.

However, this image is fucking triggering.  Look at the fear based response, a girl, especially a pretty young coed with a gun triggered that entire kneejerk article, where they didn't even know what they were so angry and afraid of that they resorted to conflicting stereotypes in a process of elimination.  Trying to wrap their minds around the comment, they called a Trump Supporter a "Feminist" because anything empowering is Feminism, and then turned around to try and explain how women are more likely to be shot, ignoring the evidence in their own mind that They Have Never Seen A Woman Openly Carry Before.

Obviously.  If this is such a shock, that an American would carry a gun for protection, just because she's grinning over her shoulder so you can see her Butt, and the muzzle.  Her face right next to the Butt.  It's a pose, a model pose, they have seen so many times it's subconsciously symbolic, only without the gun.

So yea, it is empowering, and no, that does Not=Feminism.  It means that Americans are Empowered by Guns.  All Americans, not just men.  There are female shooters, Pink Guns are not admissible in court, and yet the Gun Industry rebelss against the very idea of Pink Guns, because they think that makes it an accessory to not taking them seriously.

Don't believe me?

Exhibit B

[psiberzerker]

Carrying a semi-auto carbine is probably not the best tactical choice when expecting to be groped at a frat party.  However, I submit that she's not planning on getting groped at a frat party, and what you can't see is her sidearm.  The neck knife, or tactical folder clipped to her belt, the CCW license she might have in her purse.  

However, on the campus of Kent State, if a badguy shows up with a gun, and a grudge against millennials, or girls that don't put out, or just wants the media Attention you can only get these days with a pile of Student Bodies, she won't be under-gunned.  I don't know what her training is, any more than what's in her EDC, but she's demonstrated familiarity with the first rule of a gunfight:

Bring a gun.  In fact, that's a subset of the Boy Scout Slogan.

Men aren't the only ones that have to worry about self defense.  Pointing that out is playing Captain Obvious, not Straw Feminist.

[Elizabeth]

LOL....owning a gun makes me a feminist .... or a gun nut...??
"Really".....??
I'm not even sure how the conversation de-evolved into either category when it should be about just "owning a gun" and nothing else. But from my stand point a gun on a "campus is a very bad choice" for anyone (male or female).
For me (and me alone) either I carry (I have a NJ concealed weapons permit) or I don't....I would never carry if I'm going out and heading to a bar with friends (guns and alcohol don't mix), I would and do carry when I'm riding in the woods on horse back. I pick and choose "very carefully" when and where I "decide to carry".
Owning a gun doesn't make me a super hero, nor does it make me "Billy bad ass".
I carry very discretely and tend to shy away from anything that might make me have to draw my weapon. The last thing I ever want to do is shoot someone. (the NRA doesn't teach you to be a bad ass, it teaches you responsibility around a weapon, when and how or if you are even able to "be responsible" is your responsibility).

Love,
Liz   

[psiberzerker]

I'm not even sure how the conversation de-evolved into either category when it should be about just "owning a gun" and nothing else.

Sorry, Here.  That was partially in response to an article (Belatedly) linked on the last page.  Hope that provides some context.

I whole-heatedly agree.  A legal gun owner should be a leagal gun-owner.  Not an unarmed black moan, and a girl with a gun should be a girl with a gun without being labled a "Feminist" out of the terrified backlash that image triggers.  And yet, here we are.

The Right to Bear Arms is not a right if it's only socially acceptible for middleaged men with beards, and mortgages.  We should't have to justify the motives for a coed to want to openly carry on the campus of Kent State, and yet we still have to consider whether she's more likely to be the victim of gun violence.

Because she has a gun.  And yet, here we are.  Talking about a girl with a gun, instead of a legal gun owner exercising her 2nd amendment rights.

If it's not acceptible for everyone, regardless of race, or gender, the it's not a right, it's a privilege.  Some people still seem to have a problem with the "Shall not be infringed apon," because she doesn't look like a militiaman.  She should look more like a Victim, but at least she smiled!

[Dirtymind]

I was taught in martial arts that you should avoid a fight as much as possible, but if you're forced to fight you should be prepared to kill.

There's very few people I would trust with a gun. And its not the guns fault. Its the people's.

[Elizabeth]

The more I look at the picture of the girl at Kent State.
I think the political point is maybe a little well to taken, if fact if I can use the words just a "little to smart-assed" on the both the girl and the photographer.
****1968**** Kent State (National Guard Vs The Students Of Kent State).
The fact is they should not have used that particular university for their motives, I strongly have feelings that they were much more a publicity stunt than anything else.
I would suspect that the faculty and the residents  of Kent would not be / are not happy about what they are seeing on that campus after what they had to live through in 1968.

Love,
Liz
 

[psiberzerker]

I was taught in martial arts that you should avoid a fight as much as possible, but if you're forced to fight you should be prepared to kill.

There's very few people I would trust with a gun. And its not the guns fault. Its the people's.

"Prepared to kill" is one thing.  "Si vis pacem, para bellum."  See, the problem here isn't "Some People."  This is the same goodguy/badguy debate that's been raging long before this message board was created.

The truth is, there are no good guys.  There are no good people, there's just people.  There are bad people, but intrinsically pure as the driven snow goodguys, like the Lone Ranger are a fucking fantasy.  We don't think about that, we talk about the "Goodguy with a gun," when we need him.  (Even if she's blonde, and has a pretty smile.)

We also have good intentions, the road to Hell is paved with them.  (At least if the stories can be believed.)  That fantasy guy can do no wrong, the margin for eror is so slim, and you don't really have all that long to react.  So, what if he makes a mistake?  What if, god forbid, the shooting starts.  She grabs her gun, drops her books, and with the best intentions peeks around the corner to the Quad to assess the situation.

Running, screaming, more gunshots, everyone looking for cover, and then she sees 2 guys.  With guns, popping up, and taking shots from behind cover.  (Does she have hearing protection in her purse?  This is a pet peeve:  Find me an article, or vlog that recommends a 12 gauge for Home Defense, and even mentions Hearing Protection.  For shooting 12gauge.  Indoors.  I've seen 1.)

Which one's the good guy?  You can't ask, in the middle of a firefight, and the cops have to figure this out all the time.  The problem is, they could both be badguys, but the real problem is, if you ask them?

They'll both say they're the good guy.

[wayne3218]

like the Lone Ranger are a fucking fantasy.
Next, someone is going to tell us Tonto is a fantasy too.

Where are we going to find all the good guys to protect us?

[psiberzerker]

Where are we going to find all the good guys to protect us?

I know that's facetious, and rhetorical, but it's also on point.

The answer is that Self Defense is the right of the erzats good guys.  They're here to protect us, because they don't trust us to defend ourselves.  That article is an orgy of evidence that they don't trust a girl with a gun.  They trust a Good Guy with a gun, because that's the traditional story.  

It's still the narrative to this day.  Black Widow.  She's "The weakest Avenger," and she's a Good Gal with 2 guns.  Read the comments on any Avengers video.  Any of them that the Avengers aren't turned off, this is just 1 example, but go ahead, and type Black Widow into utoob, and just read the comments.  They don't trust her, even though she's fictional, not because she's THE DOUBLE AGENT.  That's been her character arc all the way up to Civil War.  Which side was she on?

Yeah, they miss that point, and there's buckets of others.  If Wonder Woman ever used a gun, then she'd fall to that too, but at least she's got that Lariat to protect her.  Those Bracelets, they kinda stepped away from the boomerang Tiara, and that was a good call, but still.  As long as they don't put Pants on her, for fuck's sake, if they change that iconic miniskirt of justice then we're ruining their childhood, but the list goes on, and on...

That's the narrative, a girl with a gun is not good.  No reason, they don't even try to come up with a good reason when 3 bad ones will do, but it's a fucking Archetype.  Not a sterotype, the GGWAG is a Jungian Collective Unconscious symbol of Safety, and Security Theater.  Women can't defend themselves, because subconsciously that deprives men from the Right to Play the Hero.

[psiberzerker]

I'm going to back off from Pathos the Avenger, so he can cool off, because this is important to me:

We enjoy some safety on the internet.  We can call people racists without getting shot.  "Racist!"  On the street?

"Bang."  End of argument.  However, these people, you're fighting, are heavily armed, and if you haven't noticed, easily Triggered.  They feel persecuted, and if that guy's not the best example, I'm sure another one will pop up soon enough.

Easily Triggered.  You're using fighting words against psychos, and they can't shoot you.  I can pull out this {Literally patting the Holster Stock right next to me} Inglis Hipower 9mm, but I can't shoot you.  (I can however, walk across the street to the Hipster coffee pub, and pick a fight there, any time I want.)  Neither can they.

They can shoot at a black kid, that comes to their door, asking directions.  They react to fear violently, and you.  Not you, Pathos, we.  All of US are using fear as a weapon in these debates.

When these guys get enough fear, they reach a critical Mass, and start Shooting.  You get it?  This isn't the only cause of Mass Shootings, there's non-Social Media to give them Attention.  There's racism, and sexim, a lot of them display clear signs of emotional abuse from their parents.  Decades of Rambos, and Schwartzenegger flicks like True Lies to indoctrinte them with the Archetype they ascribe to, but Fear is a Stick.

Don't poke the psychos, with guns, with the Fear Stick.  They can't shoot you, which feeds their impotent rage, and when words fail them, they turn to the 1 thing they know barks louder.

If you're going to try to be part of the solution, put down the fucking Fear Stick.  It's not helping.  It's killing the unarmed black guys, and school children that don't even have your voice to defend themselves.

Don't be an asshole, we have too many already.

[Athos_131]

I'm going to back off from Pathos the Avenger, so he can cool off, because this is important to me:

We enjoy some safety on the internet.  We can call people racists without getting shot.  "Racist!"  On the street?

"Bang."  End of argument.  However, these people, you're fighting, are heavily armed, and if you haven't noticed, easily Triggered.  They feel persecuted, and if that guy's not the best example, I'm sure another one will pop up soon enough.

Easily Triggered.  You're using fighting words against psychos, and they can't shoot you.  I can pull out this {Literally patting the Holster Stock right next to me} Inglis Hipower 9mm, but I can't shoot you.  Neither can they.

They can shoot at a black kid, that comes to their door, asking directions.  They react to fear violently, and you.  Not you, Pathos, we.  All of US are using fear as a weapon in these debates.

When these guys get enough fear, they reach a critical Mass, and start Shooting.  You get it?  This isn't the only cause of Mass Shootings, there's non-Social Media to give them Attention.  There's racism, and sexim, a lot of them display clear signs of emotional abuse from their parents.  Decades of Rambos, and Schwartzenegger flicks like True Lies to indoctrinte them with the Archetype they ascribe to, but Fear is a Stick.

Don't poke the psychos, with guns, with the Fear Stick.  They can't shoot you, which feeds their impotent rage, and when words fail them, they turn to the 1 thing they know barks louder.

If you're going to try to be part of the solution, put down the fucking Fear Stick.  It's not helping.  It's killing the unarmed black guys, and school children that don't even have your voice to defend themselves.

Don't be an asshole, we have too many already.

Funny how you claimed you were on my side, yet you chose to sideswipe me.

Fuck off.

#Resist

[Jed_]

I'm going to back off from Pathos the Avenger, so he can cool off, because this is important to me:

We enjoy some safety on the internet.  We can call people racists without getting shot.  "Racist!"  On the street?

"Bang."  End of argument.  However, these people, you're fighting, are heavily armed, and if you haven't noticed, easily Triggered.  They feel persecuted, and if that guy's not the best example, I'm sure another one will pop up soon enough.

Easily Triggered.  You're using fighting words against psychos, and they can't shoot you.  I can pull out this {Literally patting the Holster Stock right next to me} Inglis Hipower 9mm, but I can't shoot you.  (I can however, walk across the street to the Hipster coffee pub, and pick a fight there, any time I want.)  Neither can they.

They can shoot at a black kid, that comes to their door, asking directions.  They react to fear violently, and you.  Not you, Pathos, we.  All of US are using fear as a weapon in these debates.

When these guys get enough fear, they reach a critical Mass, and start Shooting.  You get it?  This isn't the only cause of Mass Shootings, there's non-Social Media to give them Attention.  There's racism, and sexim, a lot of them display clear signs of emotional abuse from their parents.  Decades of Rambos, and Schwartzenegger flicks like True Lies to indoctrinte them with the Archetype they ascribe to, but Fear is a Stick.

Don't poke the psychos, with guns, with the Fear Stick.  They can't shoot you, which feeds their impotent rage, and when words fail them, they turn to the 1 thing they know barks louder.

If you're going to try to be part of the solution, put down the fucking Fear Stick.  It's not helping.  It's killing the unarmed black guys, and school children that don't even have your voice to defend themselves.

Don't be an asshole, we have too many already.

I live in an all white neighborhood, and it’s rather bluecollar and Republican even if I’m not.  Not long ago I answered the door to a young black teen trying to sell a cleaning product.  Funny thing is, if the kid had been white I probably wouldn’t have talked to him at all.  But I went out and after he did his speil told him politely I wasn’t interested.  I never want to seem like the old angry white guy, even if I am sometimes.

Point is, neither myself nor apparently any of my white neighbors felt the need to send this young black teen on his way with a shotgun blast.