Sunday, December 18, 2011

The Intimidation Factor

29 comments:

  1. At least THIS bozo has his finger alongside the trigger and not on it, making him look marginally less stupid.

    My own concealed carry class emphasized that you were better off using your firearm at a distance than up close, because of the opportunity for someone to struggle with you.

    I don't want to rely on the eye sight or powers of observation of someone who is a threat.

    If I have to draw a weapon, it is to shoot someone. If I shoot someone, it is my intention to kill, not wound them, because there is no other possible alternative to lethal force. If the bad person breaks off before that bullet is fired, then good for him, and lethal force is no longer necessary. But that window of opportunity idea? No, I'm not going to wait to see if someone has reconsidered or not, or noticed or not.

    Sheesh.

    Intimidation is a dumbass idea, and it bullshit like this which makes me believe that at least some of these gun loons are nuts.

    This is, imho, stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is, I'm sure, a self-taped video because even this shithead can't be stupid enough to aim his guns at a person holding a camera.

    Note the "Superman" ring on his right hand. Penis/super power substitute.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good observation democommie!

    Maybe he is hoping that we will all be so dazzled by the size of his penis substitutes that we won't notice anything else.

    I suspect THAT might be true of other gun loons as well - "don't see my deficiencies, just look at my shiny powerful equalizer that makes me important and powerful and means you have to listen to me."

    Yeah - they WISH.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And because both Dog Gone and Democommie are blinded by prejudice, they can't see the core of what he said: We don't want to kill anyone. We want to stop an immediate threat to our lives.

    Dog Gone in particular, I don't know what you learned in your concealed carry class, but my instructors in both classes told us that we are not trying to kill. We're trying to stop an attack. The intent to kill is the element of premeditation.

    And you say that we're irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I did wonder about the maturity of this guy - not only the superman ring but the marvin the martian dolly, and the hula girl figurines, the Captain America t-shirt...this guy has a kiddie super hero mentality.

    I have an idea - maybe we should run a contest for who can spot the most examples of this on this video.

    We can award honorary MikeB Bonus points for them.

    Hurry up Gun Lunatics, um... I mean KIDS, and see if you can be our whiner, er, I mean WINNER!

    ReplyDelete
  6. You can't see it through my monitor across the interwebs democommie, but I just raised my morning 'cuppa' in a toast to you for that observation, LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "And because both Dog Gone and Democommie are blinded by prejudice, they can't see the core of what he said: We don't want to kill anyone. We want to stop an immediate threat to our lives.'

    Horseshit.

    When was the last time your personal safety, never mind your life, was threatened by an external factor that a gun would have negated? Go ahead, take your time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. democommie said...

    "And because both Dog Gone and Democommie are blinded by prejudice, they can't see the core of what he said: We don't want to kill anyone. We want to stop an immediate threat to our lives.'


    I was taught at the time, and everything I've learned since that class, that one does not EVER pull a firearm on another person unless you are prepared to kill that person.

    That means all possible non-lethal options, including retreat, have been exhausted or are unavailable.

    The concept of drawing a weapon to intimidate another person is wrong.

    What do you plan to do if it is dark - ask the bad guy to come over with you to a place where they can see your firearm, so you can intimidate them by showing what a big bad gun you have?

    OR, do you decide the situation is sufficiently threatening, and instead of impressing the bad guy with your big bad toy, you simply SHOOT, as quickly and accurately as possible, with the weapon with which you are most comfortable, and screw impressing him with a larger bang or a slightly smaller bang (or the visual equivalent)?

    That this man has an obsession with toys and superheroes which seems to be continued in the message of this video and an appalling fascination with firearms as toys, as something that makes him a superhero reminds me of than poor understanding of the historic use of firearms that you've demonstrated Greg. You guys seem to have a serious problem between fact and gun fiction; you seem obsessed with gun myth.

    I will avoid in every way possible drawing a firearm, but if I do, you aren't going to have time to think about being intimidated or not. You will be too busy bleeding, or past any consideration of the pros and cons of how big or small a weapon I'm using.

    I'm not going to take the time to show you what a big bad firearm I have.

    The intent to kill is the element of premeditation.

    Which only proves that once again you fail to understand, utterly, the concept of premeditation, and mens rea.

    NO jury, no law enforcement, will EVER consider such a shooting premeditated if in the face of a threat where EVERY POSSIBLE effort has been made to avoid lethal force, you then as a last resort pull a weapon and fire.

    I'm not so sure you can expect that if you have the gun out, are waving it around, and have been bragging about how you will kill any bad guy that you think is sufficiently dehumanized.

    Having a gun out and waving it around in hopes of intimidating someone and then shooting him or her, now THAT seems to meet the criteria of premeditation a whole lot better than just shooting someone.

    When Laci returns from family celebrations today, or maybe tomorrow, I look forward to his comments.

    When he finishes laughing.

    And you say that we're irrational.

    Irrational, and stupid, and historically inaccurate, and you sometimes dress silly (see the historically inaccurate part of the sentence), and most of all, don't forget we think you are dangerous for the above reasons.

    I'm far more willing to retreat, or to seek non-lethal solutions than you are Greg. But if that is not an option, I'm also apparently more willing to shoot, not play show and tell.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dog Gone,

    I never said to play show and tell. But in the case of a criminal who makes a threat, the display of one's own handgun may rectifiy the situation. In other words, if that's all that it takes, then no one gets hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Advocating intimidation is stupid.

    That you see any merit in it only illustrates you flawed thinking.

    Believing that this is a good idea is part of your gun fantasy, but a lousy idea.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Really, greg, not only are you stupid--you are seriously silly.

    complete this sentence:
    Guns are

    Now, Greg, if you said anything other than deadly weapon, you are far more of a moron than I give you credit for being.

    The unstated premise of this whole exercise is that the person is saying:

    "I have a deadly weapon and I can kill you."

    Using a deadly weapon signifies either one of two things: (1) he intends to kill the other person, or (2) a reckless disregard for life.

    OK, add possibility three, which is you are too fucking stupid to know what you are doing and really shouldn't be allowed to play with things such as guns.

    Even in your dreams.

    WTF does you think is going to happen, Greg? What if the person ends up dying because you shot him?

    Are you gonna start whimpering that you didn't mean to kill him?

    As I said, if you can't live with that reality and how gory it will actually be, Greg, then I strongly suggest you buy yourself some pepper spray.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Laci the Dog,

    Don't try a false dichotomy with me. There's a third option: He intends to defend his life, but only if necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't know how I feel about the few seconds of time in which the intimidation factor can work. Would you cry out, "stop right there."

    I thought Robert Farago said you never draw the gun unless you're ready to shoot.

    Wouldn't planning on utilizing this "intimidation moment" be open to abuse, I mean, wouldn't people be more easily convinced that drawing the gun is OK since you only plan on scaring the guy?

    ReplyDelete
  14. dog gone and Mikeb302000;

    You guys are misunderestimating Greg Camp. Not only will he unlimber his hand cannon from that crossdraw rig, quicker'n lightnin'; but he'll perform an instant diagnosis as to the mental state and intentions of the perceived threatener and then put three in him, two center mass and coup de gras to the squash.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Greg, you are an idiot, which is something you quite willingly keep continuously confirming.


    If you are using a deadly weapon, there is no false dichotomy--you are either going to kill the other person or you aren't.

    You shouldn't use a deadly weapon if you can't kill a person.

    You are taking too much of a chance that someone who is desperate is going to say--"Oh, I really want to live. I won't kill this person."

    More likely, they want to die and will take you with them. They won't give up easily.

    If they have a gun pointed at you, they will shoot you. They may even kill you.

    "Oh dear, I killed him."

    Greg, you aren't in touch with reality.

    I strongly suggest that you stop posting here since you only help reinforce my beliefs about gun control.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mikeb302000,

    If you draw your gun, you must be justified in shooting and ready to do so. All that I've been saying is that if the bad guy gives up at this point, that's good. Unlike you're fellow bloggers, apparently, I'm not bloodthirsty.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Not bloodthirst at all.

    Just really effing stupid.

    Greg, despite your quickie "this is a gun try to hold it so you don't hurt yourself and other people" concealed carry course, you have embarked on a path that is fraught with peril.

    One fuckup and you are the criminal.

    The standards are low to end up in trouble (like your IQ). One false move, and you have more legal headaches than could keep an army of lawyers employed keeping you from being the Ozark Jailhouse bumboy.

    That might just spark up your repressed sexulaity, Greggy, but it may not make you pull your head out of your ass.

    Nope, Greg, I see you as being the future subject of an Ohh shoot post.

    No matter how much you know the difference between "lay" and "lie" and that "criteria" is the plural of "criterion".

    And for being blood thirsty. Your twisted sense of reality hasn't grasped the awesome responsibility that carrying a deadly weapon brings with it--or that British Officer training comes with a lot of the type of browbeating I give you.

    They do that to remind you that you have assumed the power of life and death over another human being--and if you fuck up (which I know you will)--the life in question may be yours or one of your circle.

    Greg, you need to accept that reality.

    Or you really SHOULD NOT be carrying around deadly weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  18. mikeb302000 said...
    I don't know how I feel about the few seconds of time in which the intimidation factor can work. Would you cry out, "stop right there."
    I thought Robert Farago said you never draw the gun unless you're ready to shoot.
    Wouldn't planning on utilizing this "intimidation moment" be open to abuse, I mean, wouldn't people be more easily convinced that drawing the gun is OK since you only plan on scaring the guy?


    This topic came up in my pistol training class; it was the instructor who pointed out that while law enforcement is required to identify themselves, civilians are not; while there are some requirements for law enforcement, WE were not required to yell stop or I'll shoot, in those RARE cases where a civilian using a firearm was legally (and morally) justified.

    He referred to those who favor the brandishing of a firearm in hopes that it MIGHT intimidate an adversary as a dangerous use of time, as an act which in and of itself might be considered illegal brandishing of a weapon, and referred to it as the 'show and tell' muth - which he was most insistent we not embrace, on peril of flunking the class. The phrase 'show and tell' was used repeatedly, as gunner slang for this crazy idea, along with the insistence that the only correct place and mentality for show and tell was in the kindergarten class room.

    That we have Greg embracing this lunatic fallacy depicted in the video at length just shows that along with the myth of 'mexican' belt carry for quick draws, posing with his finger on the trigger, and the history of 'shootists', and his lack of knowledge of mens rea, intent, and premeditation, Greg continues to show us that he does NOT properly understand gun use, gun safety, or the relating to self defense.

    He also demonstrates repeatedly, as do too many of the gun loons who post here, that they are all about the myth and fantasy, the fetish worship, of firearms, and not at all about the reality of anything relating to weapons or self defense.

    A perfect case in point was watching these guys practically wetting themselves over the notion that a stabbing in Walmart was a great instance for the use of a firearm to defend themselves or others. NEVER MIND the impossibility of knowing where those shots could go because of lack of clear line of sight, OR the possibility of ricochet, OR the risk of hitting the stabbing victim.

    Instead we have them trying to justify shooting someone with a knife, and rushing tolook for other Walmart stabbing cases, trying to demonstrate that there were OTHER good cases for gun use in a store stabbing. That simply demonstrated they still had not appropriately recognized how to apply the rules of firearm safety.

    Yes, they did correctly identify illegal violence, but NO, they FAILED REPEATEDLY to identify when and where it was appropriate for civilian use of a firearm for defense.

    They had to agree that the risks did not make this a good instance for shooting anyone, and they did not EVER in those cases demonstrate that non-lethal force would not have been possible, and a better alternative.

    You could more safely and easily stop a stabbing in a Wally world store with a taser or pepper spray than bullets.

    Fuck intimidation, it is simply more pandering to the gun loon fantasy by idioits who appeal to other idiots.

    Anyone who would support this is demonstrably not qualified to carry a firearm or to handle one except under adult supervision - by ANOTHER qualified adult, not another gun fetish lunatic.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dog Gone,

    You're so blinded by your prejudice that you can't bring yourself to consider new ideas. The man in the video has a point. It's a small one, and it's not one that I give time to thinking about, but he has a point. Recognizing some degree of merit in another person's ideas is not a disqualification for carrying a gun, and I won't stop just because you tell me to.

    Laci the Dog,

    You should be careful in making statements that I'm a criminal. That's a comment that needs to be supported with facts. As for the rest of what you wrote, your advice is somewhat less useful to me than Dog Gone's.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "You should be careful in making statements that I'm a criminal."

    And he said that when and where? Careful, now Greg Camp, your lack of precision in the use of english really makes me wonder how you ever got an advanced degree.

    ReplyDelete
  21. No, Greg, you are too fucking stupid to realise that you are walking in a minefield with your plaything.

    And you are too fucking stupid to know all the possible laws you could end up violating.

    Stick to lay/lie and the plural of criterion--beyond that you are a fuckwit.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Short response in simple language, Greg.

    You are the best argument for gun control around.

    Dumbasses like you really should not own deadly weapons since you have no fucking idea what you are doing or the laws about what you are doing.

    You are a danger to yourself and society.

    Is that in simple enough language for Greg to understand or do I need to dumb it down even further for you?

    ReplyDelete
  23. The man in the video has a point. It's a small one

    Naw, his point isn't the small thing.

    It's his dick.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ah, but Laci the Dog, your supposed argument for gun control doesn't work. The laws of this country and this state make my gun ownership and carrying possible. Freedom truly is a wonderful thing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I have an observation. I have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on the subject of gun control. And I am seeing a really consistent trend. Several, if not most, of the people on the gun control side get really disrespectful, nasty, and downright vindictive at the drop of a hat. I understand that some people will have different views from Greg Camp. The way you guys carry on demonstrates utter contempt for another person. And I can already hear you justifying your contempt because Greg is "a fucking idiot" according to your standard.

    Apparently it's fine to berate and dehumanize another person who is a "gun loon" -- especially someone like Greg who has never assaulted or shot anyone as far as I can tell. But if someone dehumanizes criminals who frighten, intimidate, rob, rape, beat, and/or kill innocent victims, well they are evil incarnate.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dog gone you discounted other posts regarding two knife attacks at Walmart stores. And when I say knife attack, I am not talking about some guy standing around waving a knife in the air shouting threats to passers-by. The attackers were in the act of repeatedly and viciously stabbing their victims. You claimed an armed citizen should not intervene with their gun because there was too much risk of a missed shot hitting a bystander ... and alternate non-lethal interventions were the "right thing to do" because they would spare the life of the attacker.

    Do you hear yourself? If a criminal is attacking you with deadly force after you tried and failed to escape, you are totally justified to draw your gun and should immediately shoot to kill. But if a criminal is attacking someone else with deadly force after they tried and failed to escape, it is not appropriate for them or a concerned citizen to intervene with a gun; rather they must use precious seconds to exhaust all possible non-lethal methods to stop the attacker who has already stabbed someone repeatedly and is continuing to do so.

    That is irrational, plain and simple.

    And don't give me any garbage that stabbing someone isn't deadly force or that it isn't absolutely imperative to incapacitate the attacker in the fastest, surest way possible. One of the stabbing victims died. The other would have if someone had not shot the attacker until the attacker stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Crunchy, you are wrong when you write You claimed an armed citizen should not intervene with their gun because there was too much risk of a missed shot hitting a bystander ... and alternate non-lethal interventions were the "right thing to do" because they would spare the life of the attacker.

    First of all, non-lethal force should ALWAYS be used when it is an option, over lethal force. THAT is the reason, not to save the life of the attacker. We are a nation under the rule of law, except apparently for too many of you gun loonz who don't understand what the law is.

    It causes far less risk to others, including the stabbing victim, and that you miss that just boggles my mind.

    You are required to use non-lethal violence if that is possible, regardless of what the bad guy is doing, and this is an example of where that would work. This is true of the police and it is true for you.

    If reasonably possible, we try bad guys like the assailants in the WalMart in court, rather than have citizens executing them while shopping, regardless of how satisfying a wet dream this is for the gun loon vigilantes.

    But you have yet to get past that this is a bad idea if you cannot meet the rules of firearm safety when firing - and in a WalMart you cannot fire safely. And if YOU think you can YOU are too dangerous to be allowed a firearm.

    One of the lessons of my firearm training was similar to lifeguard Water safety training - sometimes you cannot save another person no matter how hard you wish to do so. If you can't do it safely you don't do it, because while it is tragic to lose one life, it is more tragic to lose additional lives.

    No exceptions, always follow the rules of firearm safety. Non-lethal force allows you to do things SAFELY to stop someone in those situations that lethal force does not.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Crunchy writes:
    Apparently it's fine to berate and dehumanize another person who is a "gun loon" -- especially someone like Greg who has never assaulted or shot anyone as far as I can tell. But if someone dehumanizes criminals who frighten, intimidate, rob, rape, beat, and/or kill innocent victims, well they are evil incarnate.

    Crunchy, I don't consider it dehumanizing if you want to use the f-bomb in describing the actions of a criminal,or any criminal themselves. It insults them, it does not negate their humanity, it does not deny they are still people- dumb people, bad people, but still human beings. Very few people are evil incarnate - I'd include people like Kim Jong Il - really belong in that category.

    Greg is berated here because he persistently makes stupid comments, claims he can back them up and then doesn't do so with anything remotely resembling credible sources (this from a man who claims to teach English at a community college), and who practices chronic intellectual dishonesty.

    In short, he has earned and I would even argue provokes the responses he receives.

    He conspicuously displays a lack of critical thinking skills, particularly in the area of making false analogies and false arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  29. dog gone,

    In the stabbing victim examples that we are discussing, I suspect we disagree on the risk levels involved with a lethal versus a non-lethal intervention. There is substantial risk to the attacker, victim, and bystanders no matter what course of action anyone takes. A risk analysis is in order.

    (1) Doing nothing guarantees that the victim will suffer great bodily injury and quite possibly die. And it enables the attacker to assault bystanders and possibly harm pedestrians or vehicle occupants during their getaway.

    (2) Intervening with a non-lethal method carries a risk that the victim will die, and a risk that the person intervening as well as bystanders could sustain serious bodily injury or die, and the attacker could injure pedestrians or vehicle occupants during their getaway.

    (3) Intervening with a firearm carries a risk that the attacker, victim, or bystanders suffer great bodily harm or die of a gunshot wound.

    So what are the relative risk levels?

    I am not going to analyze option (1). It is unconscionable in my mind to watch and do nothing.

    Regarding option number (2) non-lethal intervention:
    Criminals used knives for 147,991 aggravated assaults, 29,059 robberies, and 1,932 murders according to police reports in 2010. Clearly criminals believe that knives give them a substantial advantage for engaging citizens. Unfortunately, one class of non-lethal responses require that the person intervening get within arm's reach of the attacker to club them, taze them, or administer pepper spray. That means the attacker could turn and stab them in less than 1 second. A single stab wound is almost guaranteed to produce great bodily injury and could easily be fatal. It happens thousands of times in the U.S. every year. Another class of non-lethal response includes locating a hard object and trying to throw the object from a "safe distance" and hit the tiny target area of the attacker's head. The additional time to locate a suitable object allows the attacker to stab more times ... any single stab of which could prove lethal. And if either class of non-lethal intervention fails to incapacitate the attacker, he/she could injure additional bystanders, pedestrians, or vehicle occupants during their getaway. Criminals commit multiple victim attacks and crash during their getaway several times a year.

    Regarding option number (3) intervening with a firearm:
    I cannot find any database nor a single documented instance of a person intervening with a firearm and harming the victim or a bystander. Until someone can produce a substantial volume of documented cases, I cannot classify a potential for something to happen as a great risk that it will happen. Quite literally anything could happen. An automobile could spontaneously explode with enough force to kill anyone within 20 feet of it. The potential is there. But it happens so infrequently that there is almost no risk to anyone.

    Therefore I believe option number (3) minimizes the risk of great bodily injury or death to the public. Does it significantly increase the risk to the attacker? Yes. Does it significantly increase the risk to the victim, bystanders, pedestrians, and vehicle occupants? No. If it does, where are the hundreds, thousands of documented cases?

    FBI Uniform Crime Reports:
    2010 violent crimes --
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls
    2010 percentage of weapons used in murders --
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl07.xls
    2010 percentage of weapons used in aggravated assaults --
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10aggvtbl.xls

    ReplyDelete