What if a gang attacked me?

[Sarge]

What if a gang attacked me?

They'd likely shove you in the back of the car, and take you to their hideout or an abandoned warehouse...then they'd tie you to a chair...shine a bright light in your eyes, blow cheap cigar smoke in your face. You know- 'The Works'. They would demand secret information, like the passwords to your internet accounts. Oh, you'd resist valiantly I'm sure- but they have ways to make you talk. So we have to assume that they'd eventually get the informaton.

Then they would go to the sites you visit and READ ALL YOUR POSTS!

After that, it would be like The Ransom of Red Chief- they'd be trying to pay us to take you back.

 

[sw_florida]

I just came up with another thought after I shut off my computer, so here I am again. When you know that you have business ahead of you that requires of you that you dump your hand gun, cirlce the place first to see if any potential scumbags are hanging around. If there are, return later. All those signs on stores 'no guns': just ignore them from now on. Say you didn't see the sign if ever caught. Always carry mace concealed. Carry it into the post office too, while not you hand gun. If ever caught, say it's not a gun.

 

[sgtdemeo]

sw florida.... so I am to understand that you are advocating that its ok for you to break the law whenever you feel like it dosn't suit your purpose? what then when others do it? or, worse yet, what if you got caught, and all that press was on you? seems like an attitude like that just feeds the stereotypes that we law abiding, responsible firearms owners are trying to get out of the media, huh? obeying the law is what responsible people do. if you don't agree with a law, then get a lobby together and change it. but i cannot and will not advocate breaking the law at your own whim, nor recommending that others do so.

 

[DoItRight]

... "Profiling" may not be politically correct, or even illegal if done by government agencies, but if individual citizens who may be potential victims don't do a certain amount of 'profiling' as part of their ongoing risk assessment, then IMO they are probably at greater risk for that decision ...

[rant] I have an increased sensitivity to this particular topic because I happen to be a 6'3", dark-skinned, black man and I have been the subject of this type of "wary behavior" for most of my life -- as recently as yesterday.

Some days, I'll turn on my "Magic Johnson Smile" and say something (in my best non-threatening, college-educated, sales executive, hyper-articulate voice) to disarm the person/people who are feeling uncomfortable and the tension goes away. Other days however, I may be tired, my feet may be hurting, I may be lost in thought about some jerk client of mine, or absently dreaming about my next handgun purchase and I simply don't feel like going out of my way to accomodate someone who is viewing me through their own stereotypical lens. On those says, I simply don't feel like it. But the glances and the suspicion wear on you after a while. [/rant]

Having said all of that, I am the biggest proponent in the world of the notion that "the best way to avoid trouble is to avoid trouble." And the best way to do that is to listen to your "Spidey sense."

That's obviously what you were doing at the UPS Store and I simply can't fault you for it. Just like the young fellas didn't do anything overt, neither did you -- you were just "being aware."

Smart move on your part (and like the kids say), "I ain't mad at you about it."

 

[The Tourist]

The Tourist didn't understand my post above, but I'm sure the rest of you did.

Yes, I did, but I don't think you understand the overall implication of the thread and my basic objection.

First, let me underline my basic postulate. I agree, a group attack by aggressors is a savage act with no redeeming value.

Other than that, you're pretty much incorrect.

I have crossed paths with many folks who could easily be the subject of this thread. And let me educate you to one important fact--they are far from being cowards, either alone or in groups.

Most of these guys just like to fight, in fact, I think they live for Friday nights, cheap drink specials and busting heads. I also believe that many of these "ultimate fighter" specials you see on TV were spawned by these folks. Perhaps the early contestants were in fact these very folks. They're tough, they're used to pain, and they enjoy inflicting it.

As to your overall evaluation that many of these folks are "devoid of brains," let me also inform you that you are pretty much incorrect.

I lived in their tough world for over five years. But after my IQ was measured as a child I was separated into accelerated and gifted & talented schools. Even for a bi-polar, my synaptic speed is quick. In dealing with other people in this environment you seem to despise, I've found that the 'mechanics' who design custom bikes are actually artists.

TV's Jesse James obviously is in this higher intellectual sect, turning to mechanics simply because he was bored as a child.

But I have also learned something else about people who stand out and have the nerve to succeed. For some reason, it just seems to tick other people off. There's even a German word for the idea, "Schadenfreude."

If I'm tough, then I must be a coward on steroids. If I'm smart, I must have cheated on exams. And when I fail, as most people do, then there are legions who delight in that fall from grace.

Don't fall for the stereotyping. Don't underestimate the guy who refuses to be beaten or will not back down.

As I have stated, I have seen more drunken, mouthy Barney Fife types start trouble than any lurking hulk with a bad attitude. Tough guys know they are tough, there's no honor in seeking out the weak.

But just because you feel you have a higher breeding, it is no license to enrage them.

And never when I'm eating a perfect cheeseburger.

 

[Wildalaska]

Can you seriously tell me that you never perceive threats based on age, gender, clothing, behavior, demeanor, "gut instinct"?

Reacting based on hinkiness requires articulable facts. I dont see any in your example


WildnotaverygoodexampleAlaska TM

 

[TexasSeaRay]

sw florida.... so I am to understand that you are advocating that its ok for you to break the law whenever you feel like it dosn't suit your purpose? what then when others do it? or, worse yet, what if you got caught, and all that press was on you? seems like an attitude like that just feeds the stereotypes that we law abiding, responsible firearms owners are trying to get out of the media, huh? obeying the law is what responsible people do. if you don't agree with a law, then get a lobby together and change it. but i cannot and will not advocate breaking the law at your own whim, nor recommending that others do so.

? ? ?

I didn't read where he was advocating breaking a law.

A sign in a business window saying "no guns" is not a law--it's a policy of that business. My policy is to ignore such dumbass company policies unless their sign has specifically met the letter of the law (regarding "no firearms) of the state they reside and do business in. In other words, the sign had better have the USC or state stautue code on it that informs me it is specifically prohibited.

The place I work part-time at now until I fully retire has a policy of "no weapons on company property." Stuff that. My carry gun is under the seat of my truck every single time I drive up to work.

And guess what? I'm not breaking the law. I'm sure as hell violating company policy, but I am not--repeat, NOT--breaking the law.

Jeff

 

[sgtdemeo]

ok, perhaps i was mistaken about the law being broken, however, i still feel the same way about my advice. when i enter someone elses property, even if i have been invited, or if i have every right to be there, as in the case of a store, i am responsible to follow the wishes of the person who owns the property. even if it isn't breaking the law, it still isn't the right thing to do, and sure as hell is pretty disrespectful to another totally law abiding citizen. bottom line is, if i owned a store, i would expect that you follow my rules when entering. if not, then simply shop somewhere else. bottom line. i guess what i am complaining about is the attitudeof I am above that rule, or that said rule must only apply to others. wrong. they apply to all, and as i said, if you don't agree with the store policy, then shuffle off and take your business elsewhere, or follow the rules. bottom line.

 

[The Tourist]

i am responsible to follow the wishes of the person who owns the property

This is correct. The owner of the property trumps 'rights.'

Oh, I am all for enumerated rights. However, the fundmental right of the Revolutionary War was to enjoy one's work and property without the monarchy demanding he house British soldiers.

Now, when it comes to firearms, I wouldn't care if TexasSeaRay came to my home with a door-gun off a Heuy gunship. I enjoy firearms, and I want to mingle with people and hunters who are like-minded.

However, you cannot smoke in my home. And my guess is that I cannot overhaul a Sportster engine on TexasSeaRay's coffee table--at least, not without permission.

This element ties into our debate here, and that centers on respect. One of the elements of this, again, is to teach those children in your care that other people have rights, and you cannot act like a little hooligan every time your blood rises.

For example, as a boy, our school bus dropped me off near home, but I had to walk a few blocks. I could shave off a good distance if I cut through the backyard of a woman who's entire yard was gigantic flowers.

This woman called my Mom and asked her to instruct me that her yard was not a turnpike, and I was to stop walking there without permission.

Now, I wasn't going to hurt her flowers, in fact, I doubt if one little boy was going to wear a path in that yard. But that wasn't the issue. Her yard wasn't the road. That much I understood, and I never did it again.

The concept of understanding boundaries also applies to adults. If I was to return to my boyhood home, I still wouldn't use that woman's yard.

 

[Jay1958]

I have an increased sensitivity to this particular topic because I happen to be a 6'3", dark-skinned, black man and I have been the subject of this type of "wary behavior" for most of my life -- as recently as yesterday.

So, DoItRight, if four young male caucasian (skinheads, punks, whatever, I'm no expert on their "culture") that I was a little concerned about had walked in on you in a building where your only exit was to go thru them, and they stood right at the door, blocking it, with no apparent business to conduct and no apparent reason for being there - it wouldn't have crossed your mind that maybe they were considering robbing or assaulting you?

 

[sw_florida]

The 'no guns' signs, like at UPS (FedEx doesn't have them), is in the same category as 'no red underwears'. The propery owner will never find out what I wear, so in this case I don't care. The property owner thinks a no-guns-policy will eliminate robbery and assault. Let the property owner continue to live in that dream...

 

[sw_florida]

Have you hugged your hand gun today?

 

[Jay1958]

Can you seriously tell me that you never perceive threats based on age, gender, clothing, behavior, demeanor, "gut instinct"?

Reacting based on hinkiness requires articulable facts. I dont see any in your example

WildAlaska,

Reacting? My "reaction" was to be alert and aware and somewhat concerned. I already stated that if I had a weapon at the time, my actions would have been NO DIFFERENT. It wasn't like I was going to draw down on them on the basis that I was concerned that they MIGHT be up to "no good" and that a robbery attempt MIGHT POSSIBLY occur.

If I had posted this story and told how that I saw them come in, then turned my back and ignored them, and then got my wallet stolen and was beaten to a pulp and cut in the process - the same people who are faulting me for "overreacting" would probably be the same ones faulting me for not going on full alert and preparing for the possibility of a imminent robbery/assault attempt...!

Whatever...

Reminds me of a girl I once dated BRIEFLY. When I "A", she wanted "B". When I did "B", what she really wished I had done was "C". No one could do anything without her finding fault and picking them apart...

Here are a few articulable facts:

- males are more than five times more likely to commit a crime than females
- 68% of robberies are committed by males between age 12 to 34
-- source: Dept of Justice website

Here is an articulable opinion, mine:

- these guys looked and acted like thugs who might be looking for trouble

 

[DoItRight]

So, DoItRight, if four young male caucasian (skinheads, punks, whatever, I'm no expert on their "culture") that I was a little concerned about had walked in on you in a building where your only exit was to go thru them, and they stood right at the door, blocking it, with no apparent business to conduct and no apparent reason for being there - it wouldn't have crossed your mind that maybe they were considering robbing or assaulting you?

In a public place, during business hours? No.

If they weren't acting in a threatening manner, "just talking and cutting up among themselves", I would have taken them at face value that they were a group of guys hanging out doing whatever it is they were doing.

FYI, I have been assaulted by a group of "young male caucasians" before -- but not under these circumstances. That time, I was a teenager playing tennis with 2 black friends at a public park. We were chased away by a group of bat-swinging, brick-throwing, insult-hurling "young male caucasians" who felt that Blacks had no business playing tennis on a public tennis court on a Saturday afternoon -- but that's another story. Suffice it to say that Mt. Greenwood park in Chicago back in 1975 was a very different place than it is today. If you're from Chicago, you'll understand. (No point being made here other than "we've all had our share of bad experiences.")

Having said all of that, I am the biggest proponent in the world of the notion that "the best way to avoid trouble is to avoid trouble." And the best way to do that is to listen to your "Spidey sense."

That's obviously what you were doing at the UPS Store and I simply can't fault you for it. Just like the young fellas didn't do anything overt, neither did you -- you were just "being aware."

As I mentioned above, I had no problem with your thinking. You did what you thought you had to do and since there were no overt actions on anyone's part, no harm-no foul.

The point I was making in my rant is that not everyone who looks different than you and acts differently than you expect is out to harm you. You do have to "be aware" of your surroundings but not to the point that every group of "different looking individuals" becomes a group of "thugs looking for trouble."

 

[Jay1958]

In a public place, during business hours? No.

Okay, we are beating a dead horse here, but this "public place" was a UPS shipping center in an industrial park, in a somewhat remote area, and there was no one present in the room except for the five of us - no employees, no other customers.

 

[sw_florida]

Jay1958, you are entitled to feel what ever you felt.

Personally, I often feel uneasy about shady characters. My solution is to have nothing to do with them, not stand close to them, etc. It is my life.

 

[TexasSeaRay]

This is correct. The owner of the property trumps 'rights.'

Not always, and not without notable exceptions to the law.

If I have a public business, I cannot put up a sign that says "whites only" or "men only" or "No Jews." I especially cannot openly employ those attitudes/tactics in hiring practices.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with that. I'm a believer in property owner's rights. And I believe a business should be allowed to only serve whites or blacks or Jews or deny them service or employment. I think the market place would show them a huge backlash (as it should be), but they should be free to be a bigoted idiot if they so desire.

However, if a property owner/business owner accepts so much as one nickel of public money (ie, tax dollars) or gets tax breaks, then he/she has another set of rules they must operate by and that changes the equation substantially.

Oh, I am all for enumerated rights. However, the fundmental right of the Revolutionary War was to enjoy one's work and property without the monarchy demanding he house British soldiers.

Which is why in another scenario somewhere else on this forum, I stated that there is no way in hell I would give over a gun to a cop who "needed" it or demanded it because of a "situation."

I see little difference between that and being forced to quarter soldiers.

Now, when it comes to firearms, I wouldn't care if TexasSeaRay came to my home with a door-gun off a Heuy gunship. I enjoy firearms, and I want to mingle with people and hunters who are like-minded.

My point with CC is that if you carry in such a manner that no one is ever the wiser, what someone doesn't know isn't going to bother them. If I were to come to your house, the only way you'd know I was armed is if you were to frisk me or walk me through a magnotometer.

However, you cannot smoke in my home. And my guess is that I cannot overhaul a Sportster engine on TexasSeaRay's coffee table--at least, not without permission.

Can't smoke in my house either. As far as overhauling a hawg motor on the coffee table, you'd have to ask the missus about that.

This element ties into our debate here, and that centers on respect. One of the elements of this, again, is to teach those children in your care that other people have rights, and you cannot act like a little hooligan every time your blood rises.

You're right. This is a function of attitude and maturity rather than firearms or concealed carry. People act like idiots and thugs with or without a weapon.

Jeff

 

[Jay1958]

sw_florida wrote:

Jay1958, you are entitled to feel what ever you felt.

Personally, I often feel uneasy about shady characters. My solution is to have nothing to do with them, not stand close to them, etc. It is my life.

I'm glad you understand where I am coming from.

The whole point that I was trying to make, that seems to have been completely missed, is that you don't always know when and where things may go bad.

A lot of people on this board keep saying "avoid those situations", and the only real point I was trying to make is that I felt like I ended up in a very vulnerable, weak position without any real way of knowing what I was walking into.

Regardless of what those four guys actual intentions were, if they would have pulled guns and/or knives and set about robbing me and the cash register/front counter, what seemed like a very low-risk situation: going to ship a package at a UPS Customer Center at one of their service hubs, might have turned out to be quite literally the death of me.

The question that I was trying to ask is: if in fact that would have happened, how could that situation have been avoided? Pay someone to run your errands? Stay inside your castle and put alligators in the moat?

Situations that you don't want to find yourself in, can't always be avoided.

 

[sw_florida]

I went to the post office today. Beforehand I had put my large .357 magnum in the glove compartment. On the parking lot of the post office I drove by the entrance and looked for shady characters, inside or outside parked cars. I saw none. I parked right outside the entrance. I did my errand. Returned to my car. Popped my heavy baby back in its hip holster and drove off. Had there been warning signals when I arrived I would have driven to another post office. Snug as a bug in a rug.

 

[The Tourist]

looked for shady characters

If I had been there, what would I have looked like? Remember, I was an corporate executive officer for almost 30 years.

And like I always warn folks, I'm really a 14 year old high school girl on the school cheerleading squad who portrays an old biker on discussion forums.