People disgust me.

[BuzzKillington]

Forgive me for starting from the beginning but here we go.

I'm at work and get asked to make a Ralphs grocery call. It's a weird Ralphs where the parking is in a parking garage underneath. I get all my stuff and head to my car. I put the stuff in my car, get in and go to leave and when I look forward I see an old man collapsed on the ground trying to use an overturned cart to get up.
I hopped out of my car, and ran over and asked if I needed to call 911 or if he had any family members I could contact. He said no, he just needed help up. I'm trying to help him up but his legs kept giving out. People were just walking by and/or just spectating as I'm struggling to get this guy out of the path of cars.
Finally, another guy helped me. I asked him if he'd like me to get him up to a wall so he could sit for a minute until help came. (the guy who helped me had his gf/wife go into ralphs to get help.) He said he just needed to get to his car. We helped him to his car, he gave the other guy his keys to unlock the door and the guy went to give him his keys back but I took them and put them in my pocket. The man got upset because I wouldn't give him his keys. He's nuts if he expected me to let him drive like that.
I was still on the clock so I couldn't stay so I handed off the keys to another spectator and said, I don't care what he does, don't give him his keys until an ambulance or a family member comes to pick him up. They agreed and I left. I called 911 after I got back to work 2 blocks away. I wanted to make sure for myself help was coming and an authority to be there just in case the old man talked someone into letting him drive.
It turns my stomach how many people can just walk by or watch as someone is obviously in trouble -- a ~70 year old man AND myself. Not trying to bring politics into this but being in California, it's majority is liberal (unlike myself)... someone who preaches about caring about every damn thing blah blah blah. They care so much they can't be bothered by actually helping. I'm glad the situation was entertaining for them all. People piss me off.

[x88x]

I'm reminded of the opening monologue from Boondock Saints..

Yeah, people sucks sometimes.

[artoodeeto]

I wouldn't blame "liberals" per se (the majority of southern CA is actually...conservative...and anyway there's plenty of people on both sides of the fence who are total jerks, and plenty of others who are great folks). Rather, I'd blame human nature. Today's society has gotten very introverted - we shy away from interacting with strangers whenever possible. When was the last time you smiled or said hi to someone you passed on the street, or when they did the same to you? I know in my experience it rarely happens. Heck, even the times I've tried to make eye contact to say hi, most of the time people just look away. It sucks, yes. But it's just the way people are. It's easier to act like you're not paying any attention. My fiancee got hit by someone running a red light, and as they were stopped in the intersection, not one car stopped to help. Everyone just drove around them. Course, it's LA, so what do you expect. (Luckily in her case a CalTrans guy was nearby and witnessed it)
There are many examples world-wide of this kind of behavior - remember that story awhile back about the guy who'd crashed on his scooter and lay dying in an intersection, and nobody stopped to help? I forget where that was now...it wasn't the US, I know that much. Now, I'm not trying to defend this behaviour, I don't agree with it at all. Just trying to put it in context, at least as far as my own experience goes.
All that being said, huge kudos to you for helping the man! He may not have been super appreciative at first, but it was certainly the right thing to do.

[msmrx57]

What Artoo said pretty much sums it up. It seems that the more metropolitan the area the more prevalant this is. How often driving down the highway do you see someone pulled over with obvious car trouble and nobody stopping to help. Unfortunately we live in a "what's in it for me" society.

[x88x]

Unfortunately we live in a "what's in it for me" society.

I forget what the term is, but there's also the factor of, the more people that see something like that happen, the less likely each person is to help since they all assume that 'somebody else' will help.

[BuzzKillington]

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was blaming Liberals, I definitely wasn't. I was just saying at the beaches it's mostly 18-25 year olds which here in California more often than not means Liberal. It's the cool thing to do here in Cali for young adults. On that note, I just found it ironic that since there was a good chance that there was a crowd with people who talk about caring, no one would help. There's a good chance there were a few hard core religious people that preach the same thing and would help either. I wasn't trying to trash talk anyone, it just happened to the situation.

[mDust]

The more people there are in an area the less personal the connection between each person becomes. In small towns, everyone knows everyone. In medium sized towns and small cities, there are neighborhoods that each function as a small town, and many of the people know each other. In medium to gargantuan cities, nobody knows anyone else and couldn't care less.

As inhuman and 'disgusting' as it seems, I don't care about anyone I don't know. I assume they have a group of people that they care for and that cares for them, as do I. If not, I still don't care unless I got to know them personally. I'm not saying I wouldn't stop to help a stranger having a medical emergency or something; I would have helped that old guy up. And I would check on the people involved in a car wreck and call the appropriate emergency services if necessary. But if they're OK, then I'm skedaddling as it's not my problem to deal with their mess. There are hundreds of car wrecks each minute in the US, and I don't care about any of them unless they involve someone I know or myself.
I'm certain everyone else feels the same way even if they don't admit it. When was the last time anyone here was upset about someone they didn't know getting hurt or killed?
On the note of stopping to help strangers having car trouble:
I knew two people that were killed in different cities at different times here that stopped to help someone with car trouble. It was gang initiation both times. They were good Samaritans that were stomped in the face until they died. It just isn't worth it to help stranded people anymore... If you want, offer to let them use your phone, but don't get out of your car for any reason and be prepared to leave your phone behind if necessary. A better option is to call the non-emergency number for the local police and have them help instead. There are just too many crazy f**ks in the same world as us.

[ownaginatious]

I knew two people that were killed in different cities at different times here that stopped to help someone with car trouble. It was gang initiation both times. They were good Samaritans that were stomped in the face until they died.
Man... that's just plain evil.

[BuzzKillington]

I've only stopped twice but after reading that I think I'll pass.

[Konrad]

One of the first things they taught us in First Aid/CPR was to assume Authoritah. Point, shout commands, force the curious indifferent monkeys to become involved. (Or to squirm and skulk away in front of witnesses.)

"You, guy in the red shirt, call 911! You, guy wearing boots, go find security!" etc.

[billygoat333]

One of the first things they taught us in First Aid/CPR was to assume Authoritah. Point, shout commands, force the curious indifferent monkeys to become involved. (Or to squirm and skulk away in front of witnesses.)

"You, guy in the red shirt, call 911! You, guy wearing boots, go find security!" etc.

this. If you are helping someone, just start shouting at people and be specific.

[slaveofconvention]

Defintely - people are sheep and most of the time, the first instinct is to do what you're told unless it's something which goes against your morals etc.

[BuzzKillington]

I'd only do that in a more serious situation ie someone that needed CPR or was in shock/bleeding/dying. This guy was was just drugged up or something.

UP DOWN LEFT RIGHT CLEAR! Low crawl to the victim. Are you alright, are you okay?! YOU!! -- Call the corpsman! Triage the victim! head to toe, toe to head, don't forget the arms!

lol

[artoodeeto]

Yeah, sometimes I wonder if the Swiss have it right...forcing people to be in the military at least for a year or two (it *is* the Swiss that do that right?). There's some training, like emergency response, that I think would be good for everyone to know. Heck, I don't know if I'd freeze up in a bad situation. I'd like to think I wouldn't, but the truth is I really don't know.

[BuzzKillington]

I'd like to think I wouldn't freeze up either under an extreme situation like a robbery or something. It makes me wish I could get my CCW but being in California I think it'd scare me even more to react in a life or death situation like a bank robbery than to just lay on the floor like everyone else. I've heard of too many good guys going to prison in similar scenarios. I know no matter what you're taken to jail until you're cleared. That also kinda creeps me out.

[Konrad]

lol, I've been in extreme situations - one of them being robbed (working alone, in my young days), by a slightly muscular wild-looking druggy armed with a bowie knife and a large pair of scissors (of all things). We sorta faced off in a glaring contest while I stupidly considered being a Hero (and stalling for time, since it was all on 4 cameras and I'd already pressed the Panic Button) ... until he suddenly roared in rage, charged, and leaped the counter.

I didn't hesitate or panic at all. Nope. I ran away, ran as fast as I could, blindly.

A second or two later I'd found the bigass pizza machete and with new confidence I cautiously peeked around the corner. All I saw was the thief running out the door with the entire cash register (lol, he couldn't get it open so he took the whole damned thing).

Good to know that I didn't just turn into Bambi and get stabbed. Better yet, I grabbed a weapon. Kinda disappointing to discover that a couple years of practicing Arnis (an aggressive martial art that emphasizes quick dirty fighting with weapons) still wasn't enough for me to dominate the situation.

I have to sort of disagree with you (artoo, Buzz) - not even the military can teach everybody how to think and act. Too many people are passive, nonconfrontational. It is impossible to teach or train them to be self-reliant, have balls, and show initiative - it's just not in their nature, they're simply incapable. Movie extras and cannon fodder.

I do personally have the crazy notion that a requirement for a firearm license is a period of military or police service. For many different reasons, not least being that the real dumbass punk losers who shouldn't have guns would either fail or correct their failings. Just my opinion.

[BuzzKillington]

While I don't believe everyone should go into the military, I do believe the military can teach you have to react.
Bad guys will ALWAYS get their hands on firearms and disarming 90%+ of the population just because they're not active/retired law enforcement or military would be asinine and unconstitutional. I can see where you're coming from for a concealed carry permit, but open carry should be allowed with proper screening. An armed society is a safe society. It's been proven to reduce crime in right to carry states.

[Konrad]

I think we agree in concept but differ in degree, Buzz.

You refer to "proper screening". I sense that you feel the sort of screening currently done is sufficient, perhaps there's room for some improvement but overall it's not a bad system because it works (I'm kinda just assuming here, based on your tone and context) ... The difference is that I feel "proper screening" is determined by a season of military boot camp and training. Yes, it's unconstitutional, in the States - to be honest, I feel that being able to carry firearms is a right that needs to be earned. Not quite the same as a privilege because anyone should be able to get a license (as opposed to only a privileged group) - provided they go through a tempering process that hardens the good steel and discards the weak.

Maybe an analogy would be "you can pass a few tests and get a driver's license" vs "you must attend several weeks of driver training courses and pass your tests". Wouldn't that take a lot of bad drivers off the road? Wouldn't it help salvage some of the drivers from the borderline?

What if mandatory retraining (cars or guns) is required periodically, say, every 10 years? To reinforce good habits and eliminate people who can't hack it? Maybe you didn't make it the first time? Do it over again ... if you're serious then you can demonstrate you're worthy to get a car (or gun) with enough effort. Assuming you're not absolutely incompetent, lol.

I would agree with you that most people with firearms licenses are responsible and intelligent. And accidents can happen which no amount of brains or training can realistically prevent. And accidents don't happen because they use their brains. But you'll have to admit that there are a lot of people out there with guns who really shouldn't have them.

I'm not talking about criminals. The application of force is something they understand well, so they'll use force mulipliers (guns) regardless of the laws ... and they'll keep getting away with it until the police are permitted to reply with equal force. That's not a failing in legal compact, it's a failing in legal enforcement.

America is unique in all of history for being the only country that happily allows it's citizens to carry arms, even without these citizens demonstrating their patriotism, serving in the military, serving the government, even without voting. There's an astonishing number of gun-related crimes, but really overall it's not too bad, especially when you consider the majority of these problems are caused by criminals without gun licenses. But the rules are different in the rest of the world, some of those rules are what I (non-American) find more acceptable.

[BuzzKillington]

I think we're starting to see more eye to eye here.

There are plenty of people who own firearms who shouldn't be allowed even near one. In the united states, as long as you're 18 you can go in, purchase a rifle or shotgun without a permit/license. You wait w/e the cool-off period is (some states don't even have one) and come pick it up and you're ready to go shoot. While this is all fine and dandy for most, I don't believe any 18 year old should be allowed to purchase a weapon. I do NOT agree with registering all firearms as the past has proven that it's a way to keep track of who has them which can lead to the government disarming America though I DO agree that they should be tested prior to purchase through an x amount of hours of range time with an instructor to perhaps be given a "right to own" license. I know too many young adults my age that have zero sense of safety or even common sense for that matter that own firearms.

I'm not sure how drivers licenses work in Canada but here in the states you do have to go through a few weeks of behind the wheel training with "instructors" but you'd be surprised how lenient they are... either that or people are just able to adapt to the rules for their test alone then go straight to driving like an 8 year old thereafter. I believe once you're 18, or maybe it's 21, you can go into the DMV, take a test and receive your license -- no behind the wheel training needed. Scary huh? I'm not sure what they were thinking when they decided an extra few years of not driving made people capable of driving.

Current screening is usually just a background check to purchase a firearm but obviously goes a bit deeper for any sort of carry permit but it doesn't end there for CCW's in California. Your professional has to be deemed dangerous before they consider you, you can't simply get one for ****s and giggles. I was cleared for top secret clearance in the military yet because I'm not a body guard or any sort of law enforcement I have no chance of getting one. That to me doesn't make sense. I personally would like to carry a weapon merely for just in case situations. There has been a few recent shootings where people have just pulled out guns and began spraying into a crowd of people... if just one person had a pistol on them, they could have saved innocent lives.

I never leave home without at least one knife and a small cree flashlight. I would absolutely never use it unless I was sure myself or an innocent person would die if I didn't. In fact, I was jumped by 4 guys for asking to turn their music down at midnight and the thought didn't cross my mind to bring a weapon into the equation. I got my ass kicked by a few low-lives but no one went to the hospital that I know of.

Getting back on track here, (sorry I'm tired so my paragraphs are out of wack) to own a pistol I'm fairly sure you have to complete a safety course prior to purchase which includes weapon safety and firing. This was roughly 10 years ago since I heard that and since I haven't bought a pistol nor have I asked anyone I know who has recently bought one so I'm not 100% sure if that measure still applies.

Took me a minute to realize what this thread was about. :P I've strayed quite a bit off course. All in all, people wont help in a "calm" environment... it's scary to think of what would happen in a hostile one. Being without a firearm, I feel I'd be forced into the helpless group.

[mDust]

I love how threads evolve here. :)


I was jumped by 4 guys for asking to turn their music down at midnight and the thought didn't cross my mind to bring a weapon into the equation. I got my ass kicked by a few low-lives but no one went to the hospital that I know of.
I would have sent at least one of them to the hospital with a bullet in the thigh. If they thought kicking your ass was how that situation needed to be handled, then they deserve a life lesson. I honestly would not have hesitated to wound one or more of them if they refused to stop.
That's me though. And it would depend on the situation and environment, but if I were carrying and someone was threatening me with physical violence, I would use greater force as a warning/deterrent. I guess I just don't feel like brawling with every clown I meet...I'd rather just get their attention and let them know that their life doesn't mean very much to me. The next move is theirs.

[diluzio91]

^ thats pretty rough, JW, but how did it happen? cuz if you were in an apartment or something the easiest way to avoid getting gang beaten is to make a 4on one fight into a 1 on 1...

[x88x]

Maybe an analogy would be "you can pass a few tests and get a driver's license" vs "you must attend several weeks of driver training courses and pass your tests". Wouldn't that take a lot of bad drivers off the road?

This is already done in many states in the US (though not all), and from my personal experience, I would say that yes, it does keep a lot of bad drivers off the road, or at least reduces the number of bad drivers. My experience is just with Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, but in those cases I know it goes like so:

Delaware: Very intensive (for the US) process that is mandatory for all new drivers and is paid for by the state.

Maryland: Semi-intensive process that is mandatory for all new drivers under 21 (iirc...might be 18 ), but is outsourced to private firms and costs usually around $300-400 per person.

Pennsylvania: Show up and take the test. If you fail, come back in 24 hours and try again.

From my experience driving in these three states, the experience is largely exactly what you would expect from the process that each state uses to license drivers. Granted, there are other influencing factors, but I would guess that a large portion of it is the licensing process.


The difference is that I feel "proper screening" is determined by a season of military boot camp and training. Yes, it's unconstitutional, in the States - to be honest, I feel that being able to carry firearms is a right that needs to be earned. Not quite the same as a privilege because anyone should be able to get a license (as opposed to only a privileged group) - provided they go through a tempering process that hardens the good steel and discards the weak.

Except that it in essence would create a 'privileged group', as not everyone is physically able to complete the process. Should people with physical disabilities or certain diseases (ex, asthma) be barred from owning firearms? Let alone the fact that not everyone can afford (for various reasons) to take several months off work to complete the process (going off the current numbers for US military branches (http://www.todaysmilitary.com/before-serving/boot-camp), from 8 weeks for Navy or Coast Guard to 12 weeks for Marines). My point is, requiring completion of a military boot camp for the right to own firearms is, imo, inherently discriminatory, for reasons I stated before, excessive, and unnecessary, in no small part because only a small portion of the training process has anything to do with firearms education and training.

On the other hand, I do firmly believe that anyone buying firearms should be required to go through a training and education process for that type of firearm. Maybe make a tiered system. For example, say I want to buy a shotgun. I go and complete the training and education course for shotguns, and then I can buy shotguns, but if I want to buy a rifle or handgun, I then have to complete the proper training for each of those. Then you could have a sort of 'firearms license', with different 'class' endorsements, kind of like the current US driver's license. Certain states already require a similar process for owning automatic weapons, and I think all states have a similar process for concealed weapons, this would merely extend to all weapons. I think such a process would decrease the rate of firearms accidents, which more often than not are caused by people who don't properly understand or respect the firearms that they are using.

Of course, there's always to problem of yet again pushing government control even further. The democrat in me says, "Yes, that's a great idea, people should definitely have to be educated about potentially dangerous things that they buy, and be trained in their use so that they're not a danger to themselves or others." But the libertarian in me says, "F*** that! Get out of my business, government. WTF are you doing here in the first place?" :whistler:

On the third hand (yeah yeah, I know, shut up :P ), I don't think this would do much if anything to affect gun violence crimes. According to a 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics report (link is dead unfortunately, but the graph can be seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Firearms_market) ), only 19% of firearms possessed by federal criminals were obtained through federally licensed means (assuming all retail stores and pawn shops in question were federally licensed). Additionally, an ATF study in 1998 found that only 18% of the firearms used criminally were in possession of their registered owners. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are going to use a gun for a crime it just makes more sense to acquire it illegally, and if someone wants a gun bad enough, there's always a way. Heck, look at how batcrap crazy our government over illegal drugs, and yet they're still widely available.

[Konrad]

It almost seems to me like you're trying to install a layer of Government Bureaucracy ... implementing yet another system of arbitrary hoops designed (in large part) to generate revenue from licensing fees, lol. Yeah, I know that's not at all what you're trying to say - but I suspect that, as always, that's eventually what would happen.

I have to admit that I don't quite see the distinction between firearm classes the same way. To my mind it's either a "pistol" (one-handed) or "rifle" (two-handed) ... what matters most from my perspective is how concealable the weapon would be and how much stopping power x rate of fire it would have. Of course there's plenty of blurry cases, and special considerations like shotguns and such ... maybe a distinction for weapons capable of penetrating (common cop issue) vests and vehicles.
More training is never a bad thing, but I can't really see why you'd need, for example to split shotguns and rifles into two separate licenses.

I can see your point about military boot being an excessive requirement for access to firearms. I even agree that it's a valid point within America, where the freedom to have guns is deeply ingrained.

It's a bit of an alien attitude to me. Hunters and some sportsmen need guns. Soldiers and cops obviously need guns. Gun merchants need guns. Otherwise I can't see any valid reason for people to have guns, at least within large cities. Except for self defense (against criminals with illegal guns) of course - which wouldn't be necessary if the cops were allowed to actually enforce the laws.

Then again, I'm all for capital punishment, castrating sex offenders, and changing the focus of prisons from useless hippy rehabilitation to productive punishment. Alas my world views are skewed, an odd mix of idealistic utopia and Russian gulag. I don't particularly "approve" of the way America handles guns, but I'll reluctantly accept that it's the least of all possible evils.

Incidentally: where do all these bad guns come from? I'm sure some turn up to be stolen of course. And some, especially older ones, might have somehow escaped registration. Are people smuggling or manufacturing them in America?

[x88x]

It almost seems to me like you're trying to install a layer of Government Bureaucracy ... implementing yet another system of arbitrary hoops designed (in large part) to generate revenue from licensing fees, lol.
And mandatory military training for any gun owners wouldn't? ;) You're likely right about the licensing fee profiteering, unfortunately. Not much we can do about that though.


I have to admit that I don't quite see the distinction between firearm classes the same way. To my mind it's either a "pistol" (one-handed) or "rifle" (two-handed) ... what matters most from my perspective is how concealable the weapon would be and how much stopping power x rate of fire it would have. Of course there's plenty of blurry cases, and special considerations like shotguns and such ... maybe a distinction for weapons capable of penetrating (common cop issue) vests and vehicles.
More training is never a bad thing, but I can't really see why you'd need, for example to split shotguns and rifles into two separate licenses.

I've actually been doing some research on the topic today since I'm looking to buy a handgun at some point over the next year or so, and it looks like from a legal perspective, most US states have four categories:
Rifles and Shotguns: Likely separated for the purposes of hunters/etc, there are relatively few restrictions on these, and usually do not require registration.
Regulated firearms: Consisting of handguns and assault weapons, in some states if a rifle or shotgun as a barrel under a certain length it falls into this class. These are more restricted and usually require registration.
Antiques: Anything made before 1899 (or a replica), often with the requirement that the ammunition is either not fixed (ie, muzzle-loader, etc) or no longer manufactured. Why 1899, not 1900? IDK. These are usually less regulated, and sometimes are completely exempt from state law.
Machine Guns: Fairly self-explanatory. The laws vary from state to state, at the most lenient requiring special registration, at the worst being banned completely except for scientific and historical purposes.

My purposes for separating different types of guns for the licensing idea is that rifles and shotguns, for example, although similar in size and concealibility, require a different attitude and skillset to use properly. Both the function of the firearm and the projectile spread are very different and specific training for each should be done. Maybe instead have a 'base' license that includes training for rifles and shotguns (probably the most common non-handgun firearms), with 'endorsements' for other types, rather like you have to get endorsements to you driver's license for driving vehicles over a certain weight class or with certain cargoes.


Hunters and some sportsmen need guns. Soldiers and cops obviously need guns. Gun merchants need guns. Otherwise I can't see any valid reason for people to have guns, at least within large cities.
I would add recreational use to this. Yes, it's not a need, but why does everything have to be? I (and many people I know) quite enjoy target shooting. Do I need it? No, of course not, but it's fun. :D


Except for self defense (against criminals with illegal guns) of course - which wouldn't be necessary if the cops were allowed to actually enforce the laws.
Well, since they are illegal guns, having more laws wouldn't exactly change anything, now would it? Wherever there is a demand, there will be a supply, in some way, shape, or form. Pessimistic? Yeah, but also realistic.


Then again, I'm all for capital punishment, castrating sex offenders, and changing the focus of prisons from useless hippy rehabilitation to productive punishment.
Interestingly, I support all of these (given sufficient proof of said crimes and a better definition of 'sex offender' than we currently have on the books), but that's another topic for another time.


Incidentally: where do all these bad guns come from? I'm sure some turn up to be stolen of course. And some, especially older ones, might have somehow escaped registration. Are people smuggling or manufacturing them in America?
According to the graph I linked, mostly either stolen, black market (ie, stolen or illegally imported, sold, or manufactured), gifted, borrowed, or owned by a friend or family member. ..or 6% "other", which I imagine would include stuff like 'zip-guns' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm) (improvised firearms). It is actually quite trivial to make a simple gun, and with most states not having strict controls over the sale of most ammunition, I imagine the only reason it's not a higher percentage is because of convenient access to professionally manufactured guns.

[diluzio91]

thread jacking, but in this same category, some guy just chased after and beat down my roommate to steal his ipod... on a college campus.. what the hell is wrong with people that they would do that with people watching... the only difference is that everyone who saw helped him out.

[BuzzKillington]

It's a bit of an alien attitude to me. Hunters and some sportsmen need guns. Soldiers and cops obviously need guns. Gun merchants need guns. Otherwise I can't see any valid reason for people to have guns, at least within large cities. Except for self defense (against criminals with illegal guns) of course - which wouldn't be necessary if the cops were allowed to actually enforce the laws

Taking your guns out to the range or desert is a blast. (pun intended) Aside from recreational use, firearms are a good investment as they will outlive you which means they can be handed down generation to generation. Last but not least, they are for home defense. If an intruder has broken into my house I wouldn't bother calling the police until the guy had ran off or needed to be cleaned up off of my walls and floor. It's obviously impossible to get immediate help so a shotgun helps keep the wait time safe, if not safer. The only problem with that is the legal system can pin you for excessive force or w/e they want to call it. "He just wanted to borrow your tv and girlfriend and you shoot him!? Sure he broke in and had a knife on him but a big bad gun was uncalled for!....15 years for you."

[BuzzKillington]

thread jacking, but in this same category, some guy just chased after and beat down my roommate to steal his ipod... on a college campus.. what the hell is wrong with people that they would do that with people watching... the only difference is that everyone who saw helped him out.

Wow. Was that low-life a student as well? If so, his ass better be expelled and I hope to God your roommate presses charges.

[artoodeeto]

... ...The only problem with that is the legal system can pin you for excessive force or w/e they want to call it. "He just wanted to borrow your tv and girlfriend and you shoot him!? Sure he broke in and had a knife on him but a big bad gun was uncalled for!....15 years for you."

Yeah, the legal system in this country can be really screwy. I once heard about a case of a sheriff's deputy who, for some reason, got really mad at work, punched a hole in the wall, and successfully filed a worker's comp claim against the employer (the sheriff) because he injured himself. Not to mention the cases now and again where some moron breaks into a yard, falls in the pool, or otherwise hurts themselves in the process of a break-in, and successfully sues the homeowners. Seriously...how is that right? Stuff like that reeeeallly makes me mad.... :evil:

[Konrad]

Ah well, so much for the electrical barb wire and land mines. They're either designed to be non-lethal and the bastard sues you, or they're designed to create perfect salsa every time and you get arrested for premeditated murder or something.

How about protecting your property with vicious guard dogs? Seems plausibly deniable.

[mDust]

How about protecting your property with vicious guard dogs? Seems plausibly deniable.Nah, if your dog bites someone, even if that someone just broke in your window to 'borrow' your TV, you are legally responsible for it. Then again, common sense doesn't matter in US courts, who has the better lawyer is what really matters. So if you have the better lawyer then I guess you aren't responsible for it after all.:?

[x88x]

thread jacking, but in this same category, some guy just chased after and beat down my roommate to steal his ipod... on a college campus.. what the hell is wrong with people that they would do that with people watching... the only difference is that everyone who saw helped him out.
That is messed up.. I will say though, at least at the college I attended, the number of people willing to help out someone obviously in trouble on a college campus seems to be higher than in normal society. IDK if it's because it's a smaller group of people, or because more people identify with each other, or what, but it is nice. :D



The only problem with that is the legal system can pin you for excessive force or w/e they want to call it. "He just wanted to borrow your tv and girlfriend and you shoot him!? Sure he broke in and had a knife on him but a big bad gun was uncalled for!....15 years for you."
That's what kneecaps are for. ;)


Not to mention the cases now and again where some moron breaks into a yard, falls in the pool, or otherwise hurts themselves in the process of a break-in, and successfully sues the homeowners. Seriously...how is that right? Stuff like that reeeeallly makes me mad.... :evil:
On the pool matter, that's one thing I really like about Maryland. As long as I have a fence around my pool that's the right height (varies from place to place but always at least 4'), I've done due-diligence and if someone climbs in and hurts themselves they're on their own. :D

[diluzio91]

That is messed up.. I will say though, at least at the college I attended, the number of people willing to help out someone obviously in trouble on a college campus seems to be higher than in normal society. IDK if it's because it's a smaller group of people, or because more people identify with each other, or what, but it is nice. :D


odd thing is that prior to this year i used to walk across campus alone in the middle of night and never felt unsafe.

[x88x]

odd thing is that prior to this year i used to walk across campus alone in the middle of night and never felt unsafe.

If you don't feel safe doing that now, find out what your state and local laws (and college regulations...that's one thing I absolutely loathed about college...) are on carrying bladed weapons, then get the biggest, most intimidating one you can, and wear it prominently. For example, by Maryland state and Prince George's county law I could walk around all the time with a katana strapped to my waist, and I would be entirely within my rights to do so. :D Local laws in certain areas override this, but most places I've looked into don't get really strict unless they're a high-population-density area (ie, city).

It's true, this could backfire, but I look at it from the security perspective of raising yourself above the 'low-hanging fruit'. Make it at least appear that it would be too much trouble to try and take you on, and the potential attacker will probably move on to an easier target.

Incidentally, interesting fact: A study conducted a few years ago (I forget who did it...I'll try and remember to look that up tomorrow) found that most Americans are more afraid of knives than they are of guns.

[Konrad]

I'd be wary of a knife or a gun. I'd probably agree that the gun is "less" threatening simply because (in my society at least) there's generally an assumption that anyone walking around with a gun is qualified to do so.

What would terrify me more than either would be an attacker armed with a syringe.

Soft targets are always the ones who suffer opportunistic attacks.
Hard targets aren't immune though; if the thieves really want your toy bad enough they'll increase their chances (bring along their friends and weapons). Chances of casual violence are reduced, but when violence occurs the results are automatically escalated.

Laws - federal, state, or college campus - are only effective if they can be enforced. I'm not advocating being a criminal, but I'm all for doing what I can to not be an easy victim or soft target to outlaws.

[BuzzKillington]

Granted, laws are only effective if they can be enforced but use any weapon you're not legally allowed to carry and you're looking at jail time, even if it was used in self defense.

[x88x]

any weapon you're not legally allowed to carry

This is one thing I love about Maryland. Anything that's legal to own is legal to carry, as long as it's not concealed. :D handguns require a permit, but other than that it's completely open. A little surprising in one of the few states that doesn't have a '2nd-amendment-esque' statement in its constitution. :think:

[BuzzKillington]

In Cali you can carry a knife but that's it. It can't be over x amount of inches or automatic either... which is stupid. Automatic knives are just cool... they don't deploy any faster than any other knife aside from your old school grandpa knives. They're trying to ban any knife that you can deploy with one hand too... I HATE California.

[x88x]

Actually the automatic knives law is federal (http://knife-expert.com/fedswitch.txt) as well as duplicated in most states. :( ...I can still open pretty much all of my knives almost as fast as an automatic knife though, and with one hand too. ;)

I took a quick look through CA law (http://knife-expert.com/ca.txt), and it's...yikes! Remind me never to move there. :P

Something I find interesting is that a lot of states ban nuchaku. Now, I know that in the hands of a person skilled in their use they can be pretty dangerous, but come on...they have steeper learning curve than EVE Online! If you don't really know what your doing, you're more likely to hurt yourself than anyone else!

[Konrad]

... a couple years of practicing Arnis (an aggressive martial art that emphasizes quick dirty fighting with weapons) ...

That's what kneecaps are for.
I ain't gonna claim I'm a ninja by any means. And in my above example my training didn't kick my attacker's ass - I chickened out big time. I've only been in a handful of real scuffles since highschool (mostly getting dragged into conflicts between a pair of hotheaded dumbasses, just because a friend or cute chick is involved) but I've managed to dominate those quick and dirty and decisively. And the more time I spent training, the more tools I had to sense and avoid or control situations before fighting.

You don't need knives or nunchako or swords. Common items (like plates full of food, coffee cups, clothing, cellphones, housekeys) are good weapons, deadly weapons, everywhere, concealable, and they don't get you in any trouble. There's probably a half dozen useful weapons sitting on your desk right now (including keyboard and mouse).

You don't have to hospitalize the guy (although that's always an option) because there are infinite ways to inflict pain and humiliation until he submits or backs off. Maybe I've been lucky, seeing how many muscly mixed-martial-arts gladiator guys are strutting around these days. Certainly I've been lucky in not being swarmed or gunned down or spotted by a drugged up berserker - awareness and confidence helps steer you away from that ****. Again, I'm no ninja, technically not even a blackbelt, and I'm not one of those hardcore survivalist nutjobs or paranoids who expect an ambush at every blind corner ... I'm just someone trained how to be proactive instead of waiting to be a slow and surprised victim.

Last I checked, martial arts wasn't illegal in any country outside of ancient Asia, lol. An additional bonus is that it enhances your athletic (and dancing) abilities, something no gun or knife in the world will do for you.

[diluzio91]

^ what he said... i havnt had formal martial arts training, but my dad was an ATF agent and made sure that i could defend myself. im not one of those macho "ill kick your ass" guys, but i always make sure that i give more than i get, bbut just knowing that you have the ability gives you confidence and makes you less likely to get attacked. Most people back down when they start screaming in your face and you dont react, or react completely calmly. it may also help that im 6' and weigh about 230 lbs and look like i could throw a guy across a room (im really not... im a pudge, but its fortunate pudge that makes me look somewhat buff underneath). best advice i can give though, have friends around.