Lefty realizes he has no "man card"

[johndoe3]

http://www.wusa9.com/opinion/editorials ... /509608926

A DC political comedian (lefty) and host of a DC Examiner TV show suddenly realized this past week that he never really had a "man card" (personal responsibility for your life and safety, and those around you).

He was walking down a well-lit section of M Street at about 7:45 p.m. Wednesday when two men approached him—one of them had a gun.

“Terrified. You know, when I talk to people about this… you’re scared. There’s no man card involved. I was defenseless,” explained Young, who’s a political comedian and host of ‘No Things Considered’ at the D.C. Examiner. The men ran off with his cell phone.

Young said six to seven people witnessed the attack, but no one tried to help him while it was going on. Two people called 911 after it was over and the “rest of the folks walked off.”

“They just stood by and watched as I was yelling for help. ‘Help, I’m being robbed!’ They stood by and watched,” recalled Young...

...Now, he said he absolutely plans to apply for a concealed carry permit in D.C., but it won’t be easy. The District is one of the toughest places in the country to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

“When you’re in an instance where there’s a gun is pointed at you and your life is being threatened for your property and no one’s going to help—and now I know that no one’s going to help—I want to feel more secure. I want to feel safe, and I have something to defend myself with,” he said.

Welcome to the real world Mr Young.

[John A.]

I'll just wait for all those 7 witnesses videos who were probably live streaming the armed robbery to hit youtube and liveleak so I can laugh at him.

[a_canadian]

So once he gets his CCW permit and picks up a handgun, he'll be ready to draw on a drawn gun pointed at him? To defend his next cellphone? Seems to me rather likely that should he suffer a repeat of the incident, someone's going to die over a piece of communications equipment, either him, his assailant, or some hapless bystander. Really have to wonder at people's value systems, when property takes on more meaning than life itself. And what did he expect the witnesses to do, jump in and take a bullet for him?

[ick]

So once he gets his CCW permit and picks up a handgun, he'll be ready to draw on a drawn gun pointed at him? To defend his next cellphone? Seems to me rather likely that should he suffer a repeat of the incident, someone's going to die over a piece of communications equipment, either him, his assailant, or some hapless bystander. Really have to wonder at people's value systems, when property takes on more meaning than life itself. And what did he expect the witnesses to do, jump in and take a bullet for him?

You are right. He should just continue to be a perpetual victim to predators.

Long term that is the best solution for everyone. That individual liberty and responsibility thing is just retarded. It is so over-rated. A right to self defense... no... wait.... the responsibility to defend oneself ... is moronic.

He should learn to be happy that it was only his cell phone and the police will eventually get there to do nothing but give him a shoulder to cry on.

Beta male all the way.

Perhaps he should start wearing panties too. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I am just sayin'.

[a_canadian]

Wow, you're even stooping to homophobic rhetoric in your vain efforts at defending an indefensible position. Drawing on a drawn gun, in a crowd, to defend a trivial piece of property, almost invariably leads to the victim becoming the injured or the dead victim. Such a scenario won't end well for any but the most elite operatives... and something tells me this 'political comedian' isn't an ex-SF dude. I mean, he doesn't carry already, and seems rather clueless generally, so what are the chances? And unless he's willing to dedicate hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours to training in aid of acquiring those relatively rare skills and the presence of mind to go with them, his odds of becoming that dead victim will only go up if he decides to draw. Unless of course he goes around drawing on every shifty-looking character on every sidewalk, ever, in hopes one of them will just happen to be about to draw on him. Otherwise there's little chance he'll find himself with the upper hand. Bye-bye phone, bye-bye life. Oh, and then it'll be bye-bye handgun too! Bonus for the thief.

[ick]

Wow, you're even stooping to homophobic rhetoric in your vain efforts at defending an indefensible position. Drawing on a drawn gun, in a crowd, to defend a trivial piece of property, almost invariably leads to the victim becoming the injured or the dead victim. Such a scenario won't end well for any but the most elite operatives... and something tells me this 'political comedian' isn't an ex-SF dude. I mean, he doesn't carry already, and seems rather clueless generally, so what are the chances? And unless he's willing to dedicate hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours to training in aid of acquiring those relatively rare skills and the presence of mind to go with them, his odds of becoming that dead victim will only go up if he decides to draw. Unless of course he goes around drawing on every shifty-looking character on every sidewalk, ever, in hopes one of them will just happen to be about to draw on him. Otherwise there's little chance he'll find himself with the upper hand. Bye-bye phone, bye-bye life. Oh, and then it'll be bye-bye handgun too! Bonus for the thief.

Homophobic? How do you get homophobic out of that?

How about we give him the RIGHT to make his own choice?

You pull a gun on me I want the OPTION to have made my OWN CHOICE. No thanks to YOU deciding that I should be unarmed.

What happens if my iDaughter is there next time and they decide to have a little fun instead of my iPhone? What should i say as she is dragged into a dark alley as witnesses stand there like sheep?

"Honey.... just give them what they want! If you don't they might also want your iPhone!"

[doubloon]

...
You are right. He should just continue to be a perpetual victim to predators.

Long term that is the best solution for everyone. That individual liberty and responsibility thing is just retarded. It is so over-rated. A right to self defense... no... wait.... the responsibility to defend oneself ... is moronic.

He should learn to be happy that it was only his cell phone and the police will eventually get there to do nothing but give him a shoulder to cry on.

Beta male all the way.

Perhaps he should start wearing panties too. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I am just sayin'.

+1

There's a place in life for every one of god's special little snowflakes and some are just destined to be resources on which the more fit are meant to survive.

[a_canadian]

Homophobic? How do you get homophobic out of that?
Perhaps he should start wearing panties too. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I am just sayin'.

This wasn't a homophobic slur? Pardon me for misunderstanding. Back in the dark ages of the 1970's, when I went to high school, comments suggesting males either should wear or were actually wearing 'panties' were 100% homophobic in nature. Guess insults have changed and I'm out of the loop. So now you're just making a fashion suggestion regarding this fellow's undergarments? I see.

How about we give him the RIGHT to make his own choice?...
... You pull a gun on me I want the OPTION to have made my OWN CHOICE. No thanks to YOU deciding that I should be unarmed.

Excuse me Mr. Hair Trigger, but where in my comments do you see ANY REMOTE SUGGESTION that he not arm himself against potential aggressors? What I stated quite simply was that drawing on a drawn gun is rarely a good choice, and certainly among the worse choices when mere property theft is on the line. Choose your fights wisely.

Of course if it's the safety of your "iDaughter" on the line (ew, yuck, you actually talk about your kid that way?!) then obviously that's an escalation which needs to be addressed with suitable force. Again, where do you see me suggesting you stand there and watch in such a case? Heck, even if it's just you being accosted with a weapon and you have a strong sense that escalation into deadly violence is intended, by all means draw! Heck, I would. But over a phone? That seems unreasonable, on a crowded sidewalk, when it seems there was zero likelihood of a shot being fired over the bloody thing. And if it was in fact an iPhone, he's probably better off without it. Should move on to a Samsung or LG, something which doesn't shatter when you look at it harshly.

[poikilotrm]

So once he gets his CCW permit and picks up a handgun, he'll be ready to draw on a drawn gun pointed at him? To defend his next cellphone? Seems to me rather likely that should he suffer a repeat of the incident, someone's going to die over a piece of communications equipment, either him, his assailant, or some hapless bystander. Really have to wonder at people's value systems, when property takes on more meaning than life itself. And what did he expect the witnesses to do, jump in and take a bullet for him?

What’s it like to be a perpetual victim and a total coward? Did you ever have any self respect?

[doubloon]

We need something like a DNR flag for people who would rather be victims than receive help.

SDV - Self Designated Victim
DNI - Do Not Intervene
TMS - Take My s--t

??

[a_canadian]

Here we go. Manly men saying manly things, making their mothers proud. And yet I see no one addressing the question; do you draw on a gun pointed at you to protect your cellular phone? And if so, what do you consider to be the odds to be that your family will be down by one member as a result? And those several people around this particular event being discussed, were their lives so trivial as to be forfeited over a phone, when the terrified comedian pulled his weapon and started squeezing the trigger until the threat was gone? Human bodies don't magically get out of the path of bullets owing to their innocence. In my country last week a young boy was killed in a street shootout. He was in his dad's car, on the way home from a family dinner, the bullet passing through the metal and into his body. Does it make any difference that this was an apparent drug gang related shooting, not a cellphone robber? The bullets didn't care either way. The teenager became just another backstop.

I've several times had to defend myself from physical attacks, though nothing in the past quarter century. Each time I've dealt with the threat effectively and moved on unscathed. No occasion would have benefitted from my having a gun. The one attempt with a knife might have been 'resolved' had I shot him, and there was time for that, but I would likely then have spent at least part of my life in prison and that would have been a waste of my time. I value my time. So I talked the very angry drunk out of it on that basis, explaining that if he similarly valued his time he ought to reconsider. While I kept my hand close to a striking tool, which thankfully was not needed. Had I a gun I would have kept my hand close to that, but would have used the same approach.

Shooting someone should only become the first choice when one's intelligence and abilities offer no ready alternative. I suppose for you gentlemen, insults and deadly violence are the only options? Reminds me of high school bullies. Sad little would-be men whose lives have invariably turned out poorly, their lack of imagination proving a crippling disability. I deal with risk by remaining always vigilant. Never a downward-staring cellphone zombie. Always attentive to possible risks, shifting plans of action, possible escape routes, and of course strategies of counter-attack should the need arise. Awareness and imagination are useful tools.

I'm not saying any of you should stop carrying a gun, though you seem convinced otherwise. I'm saying that it's not a good first option in any but the rarest of circumstances, no matter how eager you might be to use it. And from the attitudes around here, it seems that eagerness is obvious. What a bunch of heroes.

[poikilotrm]

May I suggest you go to youtube.com and enter clerk shoots robber in the search criteria? Just a thought. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=McaOSjkeLvs

[poikilotrm]

Here we go. Manly men saying manly things, making their mothers proud. And yet I see no one addressing the question; do you draw on a gun pointed at you to protect your cellular phone?

Aaaaand right there is your fundamental disconnect. I won’t be shooting some scumbag over a phone, I’ll be shooting to halt an imminent threat to my life and the lives of my fellow citizens. You have this bizarre fantasy that “all he wants is xxx.” That ain’t reality. A SOB points a gun at me, the reasonable inference is that he intends murder.

[a_canadian]

Saying that something is a reasonable inference does not make it true. The vast majority of weapons related incidents do not result in murder. Most pointed guns don't get fired, as the intention is a threat, not a murder. Odds change dramatically for those who involve themselves with criminal activity of course. If you're in a gang, chances are excellent you'll get murdered next time a pistol points your way. Similar odds if you've chosen to be a cop. Or a soldier. But for everyday citizens not so much. Add in carrying and then drawing a gun while being robbed for your property and your odds shift, your likelihood of being shots becomes similar to that of the gang member or cop. Here's an excerpt from a study done in Philadelphia:

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

[doubloon]

... In my country last week a young boy was killed in a street shootout. He was in his dad's car, on the way home from a family dinner, ...

Less than a year ago an unfortunate young man choked to death on a pancake, probably laden with maple syrup, possibly imported from your country.

So should we outlaw pancakes or maple syrup or maybe put an embargo on Canada to protect young men like this?

[DKDravis]

Just picking up the thread ..

@ a_canadian -- The issue is NOT "defending your iPhone IMHO ... The issue is really wether you ARE allowed to or should defend yourself.
The BEST defense is always a very good "situational awareness" -- If you are properly aware of your surroundings, you will be able to spot "escalating situations" - and react accordingly-- Maybe this means a discreet drawing of your own gun, to have an advantage, or to just cross the street to avoid two slightly suspicious persons .. I'm convinced that that has saved me from muggings on numerous occasions, when I lived in one of the toughest areas of Manchester, England in the 90'ies

In my country the big political discussion right now, is wether to allow ordinary citizens to carry pepper-sprays (They are illegal for civilian use now!!) One of the arguments seem to be: Ordinary citizens should not need to defend themselves, for that we have the police!!! -- thus only the police should have "defensive weapons" --

Incidents of robberies at gunpoint are extremely rare here -- the kind of Perps that would rob you on the street have little access to guns. -- Even knife-point muggings are rare -- But they do happen -- even to school-kids at the local supermarket-

Shooting incidents has been increasing in my country .. We have some of the thoughest gun laws that I know of, maybe except the UK and Japan. These laws make it impossible for even the most law-abiding citizens with absolutely no records, to own or use a gun for self-defense .. if, as a civilian, you want to own a handgun your ONLY option is to join a sports-shooting club! After 2 years of membership, the board of the club may issue a permit for a handgun, after checks with the police. This gun can only be of certain approved calibers (.22RF, .32, .38, .357Mag, 9 mm, 40S&W, 44Special (Absolutely NO .44Mag.. Way too "Macho"& Dangerous ) 45ACP or 45 Colt.) You can ONLY carry this gun DIRECTLY from your approved safe storage (Gun-safe approved to EU standard EN-0) to an approved Gun-range, that is certified for the use of handgun calibres. (By the Police) or to a military shooting range.
If, as a civilian, you want to own a shotgun or rifle, you have to either get a hunting license (for that you need to take an official exam, with a curriculum of knowledge of all the animals you can hunt in our country + weapons knowledge) or you need to join a shooting club. (But then you can not buy a hunting rifle, only approved target rifles)
When you have the hunting permit (renewable every year - fee around $80!!!) you may purchase shotguns, but they must be registered to you. If you want a hunting rifle, you need to apply for a permit .. this fee starts at $132, and drops to half that for subsequent permits -- Permits for Silencers are free

In spite of all this -- we STILL had more than 25 shooting incidents last year - mostly by gang members trying to shoot each other in an ongoing dispute i our capital city .. 98% of the weapons they use are smuggled into the country from former Eastern bloc countries now in the EU ..

Tough gun laws- even when in effect for half a century --- have NO direct effect on gun crime -- it can still increase --

[fishman]

What country? If you don't mind me asking.

[a_canadian]

DKDravis; Again, where in my words do you find that I suggest someone ought not to have the right to defend themselves? It seems there's at minimum considerable conflation going on in these attacks upon my posts, and in a couple of cases outright misrepresentation. I was addressing the specific topic of the thread, namely that it seemed the 'manliness' of the journalist in the article was being called into question, apparently because he wasn't armed and didn't shoot his assailants. The guy was not physically harmed. He lost his phone. Shooting in that situation seems to me a mistake. That is all.

I actually agree with his decision to apply for a CCW and then carry a pistol, provided he engages in ongoing and high quality training in its use. Never once will you see me suggesting otherwise. But the zeal with which some people seem to insist that every confrontation should escalate to deadly violence is absurd and frankly idiotic, an abdication of intellect in favour of brute force driven by fear. Mindless reaction over rational decision making. An iphone, in this specific case, was not worth forfeiture of any person's life. A weapon carelessly drawn escalates violence. Look to the infamous road rage shootings in Southern California in the 1980's for one set of examples. California's worsening gun control laws are in no small part owing to that sort of idiotic mindset, where having a gun equates with the 'right' to defend anything and everything the holder regards as theirs, including a particular place in a traffic jam. With a gun comes an enormous increase in personal responsibility. That's something many police don't seem to grasp, let alone private citizens. Flashing a gun is usually an abdication of that responsibility. Occasions to legitimately draw and fire are vanishingly rare for most of us.

[doubloon]

What country? If you don't mind me asking.

Postal code 8541 maybe?

[DKDravis]

I live in Denmark .. Some say its a kind of "paradise" -but that's the kind of people that are willing to give up on basic freedom, in order to have "safety" IMHO .. Danish politicians, regardless of left or right wing, can not utter one single sentence without including the word "safely" (I actually live in Postal code 8541 - I like the unintended reference to MOS-8541 - now 0317 . ) (I have a family member in the Marine hall of fame .. Gsgt. Leroy N. Poulson .. Navy Cross i think .. )

@ a_canadian --- I was in no way intending to "attack" your post(s) But I still feel that trying to diminish an attack on your person and a robbery at gunpoint to the tune of "He only lost his phone" shows that you have probably not experienced this kind of attack yourself?? -- No! he lost a lot of other things! Among those his belief that he could just walk peacefully down a busy street and "Be Safe" -- He also probably felt violated, and will be struggling with all the thoughts of: "Maybe if I had done this -- Why does no one care -- they could be next up for a mugging".
I agree that there is probably little point in escalating a situation like this, where the perps had a distinct advantage, I would certainly also just hand over my iPhone -- and perhaps the money from my wallet .. or whatever they would be demanding of "property" but I would (and will if it happens to me!) make as much as possible of observations, and as forcefully as possible demand contact information from witnesses .. I have been mugged several times when i lived in England, but never with close up witnesses, and in several of these muggings, I "disabled" the would be mugger. In one instance with a 5 D-cell Maglite - in another with a well placed kick to the side of his knee (Skinny addict type with a very bad attitude) in ALL instances I called the police, went to the station when asked, and gave as detailed statements as I could. I have been called in as a witness to muggings twice, and have given evidence in court against a number of criminals -- not just street muggers or attackers, also burglars and a car thief. To maintain law and order I see it as a civic Duty to testify against ALL criminals, when you can. I have had a few threats against me and my family because of this, but I refuse to back down or live in fear because of this .. when you do that, the bad guys win!

Like you I also find the suggestions that "manliness" should rely on violently escalating bad situations. I also take offence at the notion that "lefties" or other political views, not on the far right of the spectrum implies "lack of manliness" or a "victim attitude" - thats just plain bigotry .. like the implied slurs on homosexuality.. I could not care less if someone wears "panties" or has different sexual preferences to me.

I carry no weapons for self defense, I make do with some skills in self defense (Krav Maga mainly) and trying to maintain as high a situational awareness as possible. Loss of personal freedoms aside, where I currently live, I will probably never need those skills, but maintaining situational awareness is always a good idea .. this extends to things like: When you're driving your car -- thats what you do -- Only last week this attidude probably saved me from serious injury or even death, when a semi-truck carrying 23 tons of mandarines tipped over on the motorway .. right in front of me--- I saw the truck veer into the soft berm (the driver was probably texting... ..) and saw the driver loosing control of the truck when it lurched back on the tarmac and just fell over on its side.
That little mishap closed the main motorway all morning ...

One thing I have found in my encounters with "Scumbags" is that your own attitude to the attack, AND your actions afterwards, goes a long way to "get over it" and not feel humiliated or "violated" when resolving the situation as peacefully as possible in the situation -- Relying on others to "help" in these situations just enforces those negative feelings and makes you take on the role of "victim" even more --
(Case in point: Whine- whine-- Why did those people standing around not help poor me )

[doubloon]

... Danish politicians, regardless of left or right wing, can not utter one single sentence without including the word "safely" ...

Like some of the oil companies in Houston-ish that can't hardly start a meeting without a moment of silence for safety.

[ick]

If someone has the balls to pull a gun on someone in order to demand an iPhone... we are waaaaaay beyond "what is worth more, someone's life or the iPhone"?

A cogent philosophical discussion may very well conclude that nobody should ever die over an iPhone, not even a thief willing to threaten deadly force. That is not the issue here, that is academic.

The issue is that if someone is stupid enough to threaten deadly force for petty theft gains then they have the right to discover their victim is able to defend themselves.

Lefty realizing the reality of his situation is a good thing. Get trained, learn about your options, get gud, think it through, decide for yourself. Perhaps wake up, take responsibility, and defend yourself.

The next time they may want the virginity of someone's daughter.... or just figure the hell with it. I am going to shoot this guy and take his iPhone.

Many criminals feel that YOUR life is worth a whole lot less than THEM having a "FREE" iPhone. That is their philosophical conclusion.

[a_canadian]

DKDravis; some excellent thoughts, I feel.no need to quibble with these over whatever small differences in perspective. Regarding awareness - a couple of evenings ago I was crossing a street with a full backpack when a woman apparently unconscious while driving drive directly at me. As I skipped to one side I screamed very loudly at her, at one point less than a foot from her face, her eyes never left the road, her expression never changed, no slowing nor course correction. Had I been walking like a typical pedestrian here, face buried in my phone, I'd have at least lost the use of my legs if not worse. I was primarily angry, not really shaken or afraid, because I do maintain awareness and wasn't in any real danger. I do fear for any less prepared person who finds themselves in her path. Unfortunately her speed and the darkeness prevented catching her license plate, otherwise I'd have made a report.

Similarly I've avoided many a potential dangerous situation where 'scumbags' are concerned, keeping such interactions to a scant few over the decades by generally seeing them before they see me. Awareness is crucial. And a more positive attitude, not internally playing the victim card, is similarly important if one is to thrive in this sometimes treacherous world. I wasn't comfortable with much of what this fellow was saying about his experience. By the end it seemed a rather simplistic, reactionary sort of posturing, and I had the impression it wasn't entirely honest. As though his stated decision to possess a pistol were more related to re-establishing his sense of control, of agency, more than any real utility regarding potential future robberies. Most likely he'll have a firearm taken from him should anyone decide to rob him again.

[poikilotrm]

Most likely he'll have a firearm taken from him should anyone decide to rob him again.

In the interest of LE safety, have you started advocating for disarmed cops? I can't decide if you are trolling with this stuff, or a genuine idiot.

[DKDravis]

Most likely he'll have a firearm taken from him should anyone decide to rob him again.

I wonder how often this actually happens in real life? -- If carrying concealed, will the perp even find the weapon, unless you show him? (or do a sloppy job of concealing the firearm, or carry a handcannon that "prints" through a winter coat.. ) Would any sane person show the perp his gun? - I would not..

My experience, in the very few instances where I have been carrying a firearm for defense, is that since carrying the firearm was such an unusual thing for me, this affected my entire way of acting and interacting with people around me. I became self conscious and extremely aware of my surroundings and people around me, to the point where I decided NOT to carry a gun for self defense while out of uniform. In short I felt paranoid, not reassured. (or more manly.. )

I have very extensive firearms training, including live-fire exercises, and 35+ years of competing with guns of all kinds + I have been hunting since I was a kid .. I still have no idea how all this experience would influence my behaviour in an armed encounter... (Although, If I did shoot, I would probably not miss my target ) I have has enough other violent encounters in my life to know how I react in those, and that is with a lot of caution and use of my self imposed "Situational awarenes training" In almost every case of violent encounter in my adult life, I have been able to keep a clear head and stay focused on analyzing and resolving the situation (mostly by removing myself from the situation with the use of force if needed)

On the other hand, a lot of such violent or threatening encounters happen so fast, that one may not have sufficient time to apply reasoning or logic to it, and react in a way that attempts to resolve the situation with intellectual reasoning.. If for instance pain is the first thing you encounter, then only very deeply embedded training with muscular memory will help you react in a way that helps resolve the situation to your advantage .. I have experienced this, and the self-defense training did help..

@poiki: Armed LE is only needed in an armed society -- England did without it for more than 60 years .. Then they got caught up by the open EU borders -- The majority of English "Bobbies" are still only armed with extendable batons and pepper spray .. The Danish Police have always been armed, but hardly ever use their sidearms.. Until quite recently they fired a total of 50 rounds a year in "training"