This is a discussion on bad - 4 Guardian Angels stabbed in subway within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by barstoolguru but they still have the right to self defense or to aid in the defense of another and I believe can ...
so you have a few untrained mall ninjas playing super hero in a rough part of town, too bad they weren't trained too well and paid a serious price for being vigilantes.
As for me I will take the mall ninja's over someone that will just stand there and watch someone get pistol whipped and does nothing! there is a list a mile long of TRAINED people that are killed or injured so even the best get beat but they all have one thing in common.... they are willing to make a difference and that to me is better than watching and doing nothing
I think the Angels serve a good purpose, because to many stand by an watch and don't want to be involved let alone be a witness. I think they need more training and aware of there surroundings, could of been alot worse. LEO can't be everywhere or there in time in some situations. They should of been on phone with 911 and carry video cameras.
After watching the video and reading the commentary I feel the issue is not whether the Guardian Angels have a failed business model or are “mall ninjas” or are short or a pita for LEOs or even that a fellow member needs help. For me the issue is how is it acceptable to the law abiding citizens of Chicago that they are deprived of the basic right to protect themselves? Evidence suggests that their brand of gun control doesn’t work very well and yet there is no public outcry. What's up with that?
Last edited by Caertaker; May 17th, 2012 at 07:28 AM. Reason: apparently unacceptable 3 letter abrieviation for "what the ____"
You are fighting against years of teachers telling children how bad guns are, politicians telling people how bad guns are and the media reinforcing the propaganda from the government and the sheeple believe whatever they are told.
In another thread I advocated that gun owners like us make a commitment to reach out to at least 1 newbie/anti and bring them shooting to try and help them get over all the garbage they've been brainwashed with over the years. I truly believe that such an outreach project could help teach the ignorant the truth about guns and gun ownership.
if we as gun owners do not try to counter all the propaganda that is put out against us we will be on the losing side of this issue.
Having been a resident of Chicago, I can attest that some of what apvbguy says is correct. When I left Chicago, there was still a trap and skeet range on the lake, in the city limits. I lived within a mile or two of it.
So, the change in attitude towards guns has occurred within one generation.
For a while, before I left the "Chicagoland" area (and moved to Iowa), I lived in the south suburbs. I bought my first rifle at one of the largest gun shops in Illinois at the time (I think it was in Blue Island, but could be mistaken).
There are still plenty of gun enthusiasts in Illinois, and even in Chicago... But those within the city limits of Chicago are few, and have enough disposable income that the fees to have weapons in town don't bother them...
Unfortunately, as the population center of the state, Chicago (and it's political machine) controls the remainder of the state. Wisconsin, (yes, the whole state) the largest "suburb" of Chicago, suffered from the anti gun sentiment that ex-patriot Chicagoans brought with them, until just recently.
And finally, there is some movement towards saner gun laws in Illinois (even including concealed carry, oh my!). It has been a long slog... but pro gun folks are persistent, and it may yet come to pass...
But, anti gunners are anti gunners, wherever they are found. There are more of them in urban areas because there are more people in urban areas. Most of them are reasonably well off (you have to be to afford to live in a northern city/metropolis), and their emotional attachment to notions of utopia are based on two things:
1. How they wish things were.
2. How they are "apart" from all those nasty realities of life. ("Oh what a shame about those Guardian Angels... on the "el" in that neighborhood.") They choose to remain blind when it happens in their neighborhood.
It could be worse!
I guess it's only OK to be a "vigilante" if you're paid and armed by the government to go out and look for trouble. It's called the POLICE. But the police aren't vigilantes because they are sanctioned by the government.
Mere citizens may not stop crime (other than in self defense) while in possession of a firearm for fear of prosecution or media crucifixion as a vigilante.
Let's remember that the police exist because society deemed such a job necessary to augment, and eventually replace, the citizens' duty and grant more authority to the traditional "night watchmen."
Does a citizen today have a right or responsibility to stop crime? Is there a place in law abiding society today for an armed man to patrol his neighborhood "looking for trouble" without being labeled a vigilante? A vigilante is defined as one who "takes the law into their own hands" but also as one who "administers his own form of justice." Hmmm, perhaps "vigilante" shouldn't be such a bad word, since most acts of modern vigilantism do not entail the administration of personal justice, which I assume would be considered summary execution, excessive force, or torture. A citizen, perhaps on patrol, who stops a crime and hands the criminal over to the police is not a vigilante, is he? He is actually a good citizen in the traditional sense of the word.
I am going to make this a new thread for further discussion, here:
What is a vigilante? Is that a good or a bad thing?
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Eccl. 10:2