Friday, July 20, 2012

I'm Mad As Hell and I'm Not Going To Take It Anymore.

What happens when punks try to rob people in the wrong place.


  1. Right there are two guys who will probably think twice before doing that again. Best part was that it was an old guy who nailed them.

    Only way that could have been better would be if it was a little old lady...

  2. Sweet! Go gramps!

  3. Little punks could not run fast enough when someone fought back. Imagine that.

  4. That old guy is _good_. It looks like he probably had tactical training.

    I'm impressed by how calm he was.

    I replayed this about a dozen times. There's a few interesting things going that I can see:

    - he (the shooter) _almost_ gets into a perfect stance before his first shot. If he had even one more second to set himself, that first shot would have been even better.

    - the shooter was rushed because he needed the element of surprise, which he was fast losing, because...

    - the bad guy was in the process of wheeling around - he pointed his gun at the shooter for a split second as it was. The shooter was then basically forced to shoot even though his stance wasn't set.

    - note to self - if I rob a place like that, wear a tight bandana, not a hoodie - hoodie cuts down on peripheral vision - robber should have seen the shooter advancing on him earlier.

    - shooter keeps advancing calmly, and keeps shooting. Shooter steps around the older woman who is too shocked and disoriented by the noise to jump out of the way; avoids putting her in the line of fire. Then just keeps going. Stone cold. In a good way.

    - in the real world, getting hit with a bullet doesn't slow you down. It speeds you up. If the bad guys had been less scared, more cold blooded, and, maybe, you know, had bullets in their guns - and hard core tactical training of their own - it might not have ended so well for the old shooter dude. He was very brave.

    - also in the real world, getting shots on target / center of mass - is a challenge even at relatively short range, and with (I assume) substantial training.

    Disclosure: I've shot guns, but never at anyone. My thinking had been that concealed carry is next to useless without tactical training (not just range time). This pretty much confirms my view. If it was me shooting, I doubt I'd have hit either of the bad guys because I'd have been shaking so bad; very possibly would have hit that woman wandering around with her hands over her ears.

    1. Lewy, I , too , have heard that range time in and of itself does not do very much. Someone on the range has to keep in mind a real life situation.

      When my father was in a supervisor in a qusi-law enforcement agency, he had people who were itching to get into gun fights. He had to tell them, "You know, they shoot back."

    2. No. Gun fights definitely do not look like fun. Not my kinda fun anyway.

      Beats getting shot at, unarmed, though.

    3. Lewy's analysis of the good guy shooter's actions are pretty spot on from my viewing of the video. I spent a brief stint in my uniformed days as cadre training officers in pistol shooting and orienteering. Not too much has changed.

      The issue of bullets and slowing one down (stopping power) has a lot to do with shot placement and caliber of the weapon used. However, in a firefight, "knock down" is seldom the first reaction due to the rapid nature of it all and the varied shot placement that the adrenalin boost (from aggression or fear or both). In this scenario it appears a good thing that the bad guys weren't knocked down (only to be able to shoot from a down position)...they panicked which is always in a defender's favor....and they left the building, removing the threat themselves.

      The most popular self-defense pistols seem to be in one of the 9mm calibers, either the Parabellum, such as used in a Luger, or the Kurz, aka "380" caliber or aka 9mm Short, like in the PPK pistols. My daughter carries a 9mm Parabelum that looks like the pistol the good guy had...12 shoots and small to medium size.

      Me?...9mm na uh. Better than nothing, but you can do better. I'm not a fan of the 9mm, of either kind (I've owned both)The rule of thumb I suggest is applciable to any self defense pistol is that the first number in the caliber should be 4 or larger. I prefer the .45 ACP ...four reasons: A.) They're ubiquitous(lots of available ammo everywhere), B.) Easy to strip, clean and maintain, C.) 101+ years of proven reliability beginning with the Colt Model 1911, and D.) properly placed, it has stopping power due to expending all of its energy inside the target, not blowing through it at high speed.

      Good guy obviously has had some training, at least target practice, and uses the "Weaver Stance" for the most part (body approx 45 degrees to line of fire, arms not locked, less than fully extended, pistol arm/hand pushing against brace arm/hand, both arms' elbows bent). His movement to "advance" implies some "practical pistol shooting" experience, garnered somewhere between the various civilian organizations like NRA, USPSA, or IPSC, or from good instructors at private ranges, or from military or police training.

      I notice that he breaks his basic "Weaver Stance" as he moves about, keeping his focus on his target(s) and continues moving forward, cutting down the angles for the bad guys, and pushing them by what in effect is a "charge" toward them. Rather normal infantry/cavalry tactics, in other words.

      Last, but not least, the old guy had a lot of courage and was deliberate in his actions. That is what makes it work. Deliberately going up against two apparently armed assailants, and moving in to them, takes balls I assure you.

    4. I should add a couple things....

      If you own or purchase a gun, especially for self defense, you should consider instruction as a requirement, followed by hours of practice ... hours and hours as the cowboy sheriff selling "5 Hour Energy Drink" says on TV lately.

      You will fight as you've trained, if the time comes, and if you haven't trained, plan to panic ... because you will.

      I kind of disagree with Lewy's personal assessment that he couldn't do it ... knowing a bit about him I know he has the ability to focus in problem solving situations. In a firefight your focus/vision goes very tunnel very fast ... if you have a modicum of experience you will focus on the target(s) and step around innocents whenever possible. You will move forward because getting shot in the back in not an option for you.

  5. I wish this guy had been watching the midnight showing of Batman in Aurora. He would have blown that orange-haired punk's cookies all over the wall.

    "No. Gun fights definitely do not look like fun. Not my kinda fun anyway.

    Beats getting shot at, unarmed, though."

    Very true lewy.

    1. ...except the theater was a weapons free zone.

    2. ...and as apply demonstrated, there is NO SUCH THING. Only the law abiding are disarmed in such environments.

      Just ask the 36+ homicide victims in Chicago this month so far (not counting the 40 merely wounded) due to gunshot or knife attack. Wonder if the Jug Eared Messiah will visit all of those families ... ??

    3. You're right aridog. There is NO SUCH THING.

      Obama's liberal cough*white*cough handlers would not be comfortable with JEM flying to Chicago to comfort the grieving cough*black*cough families of Rahm's Wild West Show. And it certainly wouldn't occur to HIM to do so. He might get the cuffs of his trousers dusty. Or bloody. Or something. Nothing to see here folks, move right along.

    4. I know there is no such thing. The problem is, if someone did shoot Holmes in a "gun free zone" he would probably be made out to be a bigger criminal than Holmes and would be condemned for endangering people.

      The left won't be happy unless we are cowering in closets in our homes while the criminals have their way.