Nobody needs an AK
Except when they do: Florida Man Uses AK-47 to Fend off 3 Armed Intruders
Via MD
19 Responses to “Nobody needs an AK”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 9th, 2014 at 2:28 pm
The four men knew each other. This was probably a matter over drugs. This isn’t a good example of citizens protecting themselves with a firearm.
The victim started shooting as they fled, killing one of the perps. This may become a problem for him.
January 9th, 2014 at 2:32 pm
The four men knew each other. This was probably a matter over drugs. This isn’t a good example of citizens protecting themselves with a firearm.
Not necessarily. Someone that’s on the straight and narrow but has enemies from the past presumably knows who those enemies are and vice versa.
January 9th, 2014 at 2:46 pm
“The victim started shooting as they fled, killing one of the perps. This may become a problem for him.”
3 armed intruders
Anything else?
January 9th, 2014 at 3:05 pm
The version changes slightly in this report:
“…the alleged victim of a home invasion is recovering from a severe beating suffered Thursday night, Davie police said.
The resident of the apartment had some company over and they tried to rob him, Capt. Dale Engle said.”
So a party (or drug buy) gone sour? Hard to square that with “home invasion” if he invited them in.
As to how they beat him badly enough that he was hospitalized (and released) and then let him pick up a gun, well, that was mighty social of them.
January 9th, 2014 at 3:19 pm
TO: All
RE: Heh
Druggies or home raiders, they’ll start coming in groups in places where no one is allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon that holds more than seven rounds.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[When the SHTF, you’ve only yourself to rely on.]
P.S. It took the Dallas police 74 MINUTES to respond to a shooting incident.
January 9th, 2014 at 4:10 pm
The four men knew each other. This was probably a matter over drugs. This isn’t a good example of citizens protecting themselves with a firearm.
Because goodness knows, three armed men would never try to rob the house of someone NOT involved in their activities…
Seriously, that detail is irrelevant. Home invasions like that are indeed rare, but “rare” does not mean “non-existent”.
January 9th, 2014 at 4:16 pm
You know what’s even rarer than multiple home invaders? Me using my weapon to commit a crime. That never happens at all.
January 9th, 2014 at 4:35 pm
I wish first poster Dave would give us an example of something that *does* pass his exceedingly stringent smell test. It’s probably like what Muslims require in rape cases: 2 or 3 eye witnesses and a videotape of the incident.
January 9th, 2014 at 4:36 pm
I am sure that an account of actual use doesn’t count as a real need. It was just a meaningless coincidence. A real need in the mind of a liberal is still not a liberal-qualified “real need”.
But that is the difference in worldview between presuming a person has liberty, and thus everything is legal unless government declares it to be illegal and where everything is presumed to be illegal unless government allows it.
January 9th, 2014 at 4:40 pm
Well, even drug buyers for whom a buy went bad and they are being attacked may have a legitimate self defense claim.
January 9th, 2014 at 5:00 pm
I don’t have time to look it up but during the Trayvon era plenty of drug-related shootouts in Florida were cited as examples of how the Stand Your Ground laws can have some unexpected beneficiaries.
Oh, I’ll take the time:
“Elsewhere in the state, drug dealers have successfully invoked “stand your ground” even though they were in the middle of a deal when the shooting started.
In Daytona Beach, for example, police Chief Mike Chitwood used the “stand your ground” law as the rationale for not filing charges in two drug deals that ended in deaths. He said he was prevented from going forward because the accused shooters had permits to carry concealed weapons and they claimed they were defending themselves at the time.
“We’re seeing a good law that’s being abused,” Chitwood told a local paper.”
January 9th, 2014 at 5:47 pm
Uh, Tom-why should we be concerned about drug dealers shooting each other? Regardless of whether or not they have permits.
While I suppose it is possible a drug dealer (known to the cops as such, apparently) to get a concealed carry permit, it seems highly unlikely. Perhaps they were new on the “job”, and hadn’t acquired a rap sheet yet…
January 9th, 2014 at 6:45 pm
Now two.
An improvement
in my book.
January 9th, 2014 at 6:55 pm
“Uh, Tom-why should we be concerned about drug dealers shooting each other?”
IF, I say “if”, the current story is about one drug dealer getting in a scuffle with three of his business associates (he “had some company over and they tried to rob him, Capt. Dale Engle said”, in a different account noted above) then is this really, truly the case that guns-rights advocates want to hang their hats on to sway public opinion?
Give me a terrified woman shooting an armed stranger to save her kid. Or give me a terrified guy fighting off three home invaders, which *might* be what this case is.
But if this case is bad guys shooting it out amongst themselves, well, as a PR strategy I think he could make an embarrassing poster boy. “Hey – Criminals Need Guns Too; Do You Think Their Job Is Safe?” is a message likely to resonate only with the already-converted.
My two cents.
January 9th, 2014 at 7:11 pm
The moral of this story is: end the drug war and wipe all gun laws off the books at the same time.
January 9th, 2014 at 8:42 pm
My sister, the pharmacist, sells controlled substances (prescription drugs), and is licensed to do so. She should be able to defend herself.
Drug dealers need guns too.
January 9th, 2014 at 9:01 pm
> is this really, truly the case that guns-rights advocates want to hang their hats on to sway public opinion?
No, but it’s likely the one that will be assigned to us by the media.
So, is defending the rights of Kluxxers to march in a parade really, truly the case that the free-speechers want to hang their hats on to sway public opinion? If not better call the ACLU.
If a right only applies to people you’d invite into your house, that’s not a right, that’s a privilege.
January 9th, 2014 at 11:22 pm
Ryan Waxx – Boom! right on!
January 10th, 2014 at 1:44 am
“No, but it’s likely the one that will be assigned to us by the media.”
Really? Mr. Say Uncle is the media? He seems like a willing volunteer to me.
“If a right only applies to people you’d invite into your house, that’s not a right, that’s a privilege.”
My assessment of the current political and legal environment is that the Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, found that gun rights are Constitutionally protected subject to reasonable public safety limitations. Which means that like it or not (presumably, “not”) we are in an ongoing public debate as to what limitations are reasonable. So what is the best way to advance our side?
If there were a serious threat to free speech rights I would wait until the law cracked down on, for example, the Boy Scouts (possible homophobia…?). I would not pick the Klan as my main talking point; it worked for the ACLU only because free speech is really not that controversial.
Since there is a serious threat to gun rights, I would pick my battles and rallying points carefully, and I would not start with a campaign to support heavy weaponry for illegal drug dealers for their own safety. But I suspect the absolutists out there would do just that.