Imagine if all the minority residents of DC ( as well as Chicago ) were armed.
No more crime!
austin
at February 7, 2008 9:58 AM
LOL. Holy shit that was funny. It's probably the first good argument for circumcision I've ever encountered.
"circumcised with a .38" LOLOLOL
Jeff
at February 7, 2008 10:02 AM
that's what you get when you are not polite...
SwissArmyD
at February 7, 2008 11:25 AM
Love you guys, love you to death, but I think this is a very dumb blog post.
The video itself has problems... If this is such a poignant moment of righteousness, why can't this woman's own interview be heard? Why does the person who brought it to us have to turn up the comedy by putting words in her mouth? It reminds me of a joke website on the internet about what the life of a white Christian wife might be like. It was all stereotypes and stupidities. There was no actual information or examples from real human life. People who make things like this are so entranced by their own smarmy fantasies that they lock themselves within them and never come out.
Secondly, as was noted during the Lorena Bobbitt fracas a few years ago, guys with wounded genitals are always, always funny. But you'll never hear a joke about the sexual mutilation of women. (Most people are OK with that. How 'bout you?)
Yes; life-threatening violence is a horror that can and has been used by members of each gender against the other, as well as within the teams. It's a humanity thang. Why, suddenly, is that funny?
Crid
at February 7, 2008 11:50 AM
Crid, I usually agree with your posts, but where is your sense of humor today?
I am sure that woman's interview can be heard on the news website it was swindled from. Go visit a boring site if you want to be all ... bored.
As for your second point, I, personally, would have laughed just as hard if a crack-headed woman tried to rob that lady and got shot in the crotch.
"Life threatening violence is a horror... why suddenly is that funny?"
As explained by Plato (whom I wouldn't consider sudden or new), we find it funny, because we feel superior when someone or something is degraded. Further explained by humour expert Peter Marsh, the more extreme the incongruity (i.e. unexpected outcomes) the funnier it is. Like how we expected the guy to get shot, just not in the crotch.
Now that you have made me be all boring ... I will retire for the day. ;)
dena
at February 7, 2008 1:05 PM
Citing ancients doesn't enoble weak character, or disguise evasive responses.
Crid
at February 7, 2008 1:19 PM
I'm against violence against men or women, but for self-defense. I figured that this was considered within the bounds of that and I thought the subtitles were funny.
People who are afraid of getting shot shouldn't rob other people.
I can see that you just want to be grouchy today, so I won't provoke you.
dena
at February 7, 2008 1:32 PM
Too late!
> that woman's interview can
> be heard on the news website
> it was swindled from. Go
> visit a boring site
> if you want
I guess you got my point after all: If the actual personalities and events were being considered, it wouldn't be such a chuckle.
Crid
at February 7, 2008 1:41 PM
Interesting reaction here. Even more than, "this criminal got what he deserved," I see delight that his genitals were destroyed -- from both sexes. All you sick f*cks will be laughing when we see a woman who gets her tits blown off, right? ("Mastectomy by .12 guage!") Soon we'll be treated to seeing women in ads being viciously kicked in the crotch, I imagine. And it will be the woman who takes a swung golf club to the head ("Fools Gold") for our "entertainment." Just HILARIOUS!!
Jay R
at February 7, 2008 2:05 PM
It's best if you can disarm somebody without use of violence, but again, if you're a girl and you're holding somebody up, and you get your titties shot off, well, you shouldn't be holding somebody up.
if you're a girl and you're holding somebody up, and you get your titties shot off, well, you shouldn't be holding somebody up.
LOL See that's why I love Amy's blog. You will never read stuff like that anywhere else. The double intentions are so abundant. ROFLMAO
For the guys who are upset: part of being an educated man is to appreciate something called irony. Also there is a certain sublime satisfaction at someone getting their comeuppance.
We don't need to defend men who are assholes any more than women need to defend females who are insufferable bitches. If the women here (like Amy and Pirate Jo)are big enough to call women on their bullshit, we have to be willing to call men on their's too.
Pistol packing grandma' was put in fear of her life, and she gave better than she got. Let's all just enjoy a little righteous violence.
Besides, it's not all bad for the bad guy. By all accounts, the screaming, squirming bandit will enjoy a much improved personal hygiene from his recent circumcision. This can be important in modern prison life.
Jeff
at February 7, 2008 8:42 PM
This guy was such a big, bad criminal that he robbed...a middle-aged woman who was alone in a store and was pretty obviously not Sydney Bristow. In other words, he picked an opponent who was much physically weaker than he was. And he needed a gun to carry out a crime. The reason the shot that the woman took seems appropriate was that his crime was one committed by someone without the balls to go into a fair fight.
Note: I don't consider men in pain because they've been hit in their family jewels to be funny. Never have...okay, I didn't object to the recent Justin Timberlake ad during the Super Bowl, but that was a special case, because it's Justin Timberlake. (No, I didn't laugh at it; I just didn't have fundamental objections to it.) I also don't consider people falling down to be funny. "Psych" makes me laugh. Amy makes me laugh. This? Didn't make me laugh, but was funny in a macabre way, because this "big, tough" guy went after what looked like a relatively helpless victim and ended up literally emasculated as a result. I may not have laughed out loud, but I did consider it to be appropriate. And keep in mind that, where I live, it is considered perfectly appropriate to shoot and kill people who invade your property and attempt to steal from you. From that point of view, she was merciful to this guy - he lived.
I do think this story essentially sums up my view on gun control. If I thought that gun control policies could do a very, very good job at keeping guns out of the hands of the guy trying to rob that store, I'd be in favor of them, just as I'm in favor of laws that impose harsher penalties for the use of a gun in a crime. However, in my experience, "gun control" does a good job at keeping guns out of the hands...of the woman behind the counter. The guy sticking her up will ALWAYS be able to get a gun, because law-abiding citizens are easier to regulate than criminals.
And by the way, I would be just as much in favor of a man shooting a woman robbing his store after she called him "grandpa" insultingly. I agree with Amy. And yes, my approval of his actions would not change according to where he shot her. However, take note: While a shot in the crotch for a woman would be undeniably painful, it likely wouldn't be as incapacitating as a shot in the crotch is for a man. A shot in the boobs might be, but any shot in the chest area runs a high chance of killing someone. If you want to find a way to incapacitate a woman without killing her via gun, shoot somewhere else - the knee, perhaps?
A couple years ago in LA we had a case where a wackjob father tried to use an infant as a human shield when firing on police officers. Here are a few deets. As you might expect, it didn't end well. Afterward two individuals (in different contexts) from our inner-city African-American community told me that they thought the loss of the child's life was gratuitous; both suggested that the cops should have tried to merely wound the father.
I don't think so. First of all, cops represent taxpayers like me, and when someone fires on them, I want them to defend themselves with sufficient aggression that I won't have to make donations to the college funds of their orphaned children. Shooting at anyone should be a problem, but shooting at cops makes me a little less fussy about reading the reports of the incident all the way to the bottom and checking the spelling. There's no more antisocial behavior than firing on a law enforcement officer.
Secondly --and second and first was a tough choice here--- I think the real problem is television. People have seen hundreds of TV shows and movies where Don Johnson or Bruce Willis gets shot but "It's only a flesh wound!" People think pistols have a "stun" setting like on Star Trek which can be used on people who are annoying but might be redeemed.
Nope. I know little about firearms, but I remember the lesson of the nice state trooper who came to explain this to us in fifth grade: Firearms aren't about communicating serious intent, or slowing people down, or disabling them. If you shoot at someone, it's because you want them to die immediately.
Crid
at February 8, 2008 12:19 AM
On Thursday, Los Angeles lost a SWAT team member for the first time in response to a domestic dispute.
THAT was priceless! Spanks for that! o_O
Flynne at February 7, 2008 6:43 AM
Wow! Talk about emasculation!
Donna at February 7, 2008 8:19 AM
Damn good aim - or was it just good luck?
Norman at February 7, 2008 8:32 AM
This just warms my heart.
Imagine if all the minority residents of DC ( as well as Chicago ) were armed.
No more crime!
austin at February 7, 2008 9:58 AM
LOL. Holy shit that was funny. It's probably the first good argument for circumcision I've ever encountered.
"circumcised with a .38" LOLOLOL
Jeff at February 7, 2008 10:02 AM
that's what you get when you are not polite...
SwissArmyD at February 7, 2008 11:25 AM
Love you guys, love you to death, but I think this is a very dumb blog post.
The video itself has problems... If this is such a poignant moment of righteousness, why can't this woman's own interview be heard? Why does the person who brought it to us have to turn up the comedy by putting words in her mouth? It reminds me of a joke website on the internet about what the life of a white Christian wife might be like. It was all stereotypes and stupidities. There was no actual information or examples from real human life. People who make things like this are so entranced by their own smarmy fantasies that they lock themselves within them and never come out.
Secondly, as was noted during the Lorena Bobbitt fracas a few years ago, guys with wounded genitals are always, always funny. But you'll never hear a joke about the sexual mutilation of women. (Most people are OK with that. How 'bout you?)
Yes; life-threatening violence is a horror that can and has been used by members of each gender against the other, as well as within the teams. It's a humanity thang. Why, suddenly, is that funny?
Crid at February 7, 2008 11:50 AM
Crid, I usually agree with your posts, but where is your sense of humor today?
I am sure that woman's interview can be heard on the news website it was swindled from. Go visit a boring site if you want to be all ... bored.
As for your second point, I, personally, would have laughed just as hard if a crack-headed woman tried to rob that lady and got shot in the crotch.
"Life threatening violence is a horror... why suddenly is that funny?"
As explained by Plato (whom I wouldn't consider sudden or new), we find it funny, because we feel superior when someone or something is degraded. Further explained by humour expert Peter Marsh, the more extreme the incongruity (i.e. unexpected outcomes) the funnier it is. Like how we expected the guy to get shot, just not in the crotch.
Now that you have made me be all boring ... I will retire for the day. ;)
dena at February 7, 2008 1:05 PM
Citing ancients doesn't enoble weak character, or disguise evasive responses.
Crid at February 7, 2008 1:19 PM
I'm against violence against men or women, but for self-defense. I figured that this was considered within the bounds of that and I thought the subtitles were funny.
People who are afraid of getting shot shouldn't rob other people.
Amy Alkon at February 7, 2008 1:27 PM
I can see that you just want to be grouchy today, so I won't provoke you.
dena at February 7, 2008 1:32 PM
Too late!
> that woman's interview can
> be heard on the news website
> it was swindled from. Go
> visit a boring site
> if you want
I guess you got my point after all: If the actual personalities and events were being considered, it wouldn't be such a chuckle.
Crid at February 7, 2008 1:41 PM
Interesting reaction here. Even more than, "this criminal got what he deserved," I see delight that his genitals were destroyed -- from both sexes. All you sick f*cks will be laughing when we see a woman who gets her tits blown off, right? ("Mastectomy by .12 guage!") Soon we'll be treated to seeing women in ads being viciously kicked in the crotch, I imagine. And it will be the woman who takes a swung golf club to the head ("Fools Gold") for our "entertainment." Just HILARIOUS!!
Jay R at February 7, 2008 2:05 PM
It's best if you can disarm somebody without use of violence, but again, if you're a girl and you're holding somebody up, and you get your titties shot off, well, you shouldn't be holding somebody up.
Amy Alkon at February 7, 2008 4:45 PM
LOL See that's why I love Amy's blog. You will never read stuff like that anywhere else. The double intentions are so abundant. ROFLMAO
For the guys who are upset: part of being an educated man is to appreciate something called irony. Also there is a certain sublime satisfaction at someone getting their comeuppance.
We don't need to defend men who are assholes any more than women need to defend females who are insufferable bitches. If the women here (like Amy and Pirate Jo)are big enough to call women on their bullshit, we have to be willing to call men on their's too.
Pistol packing grandma' was put in fear of her life, and she gave better than she got. Let's all just enjoy a little righteous violence.
Besides, it's not all bad for the bad guy. By all accounts, the screaming, squirming bandit will enjoy a much improved personal hygiene from his recent circumcision. This can be important in modern prison life.
Jeff at February 7, 2008 8:42 PM
This guy was such a big, bad criminal that he robbed...a middle-aged woman who was alone in a store and was pretty obviously not Sydney Bristow. In other words, he picked an opponent who was much physically weaker than he was. And he needed a gun to carry out a crime. The reason the shot that the woman took seems appropriate was that his crime was one committed by someone without the balls to go into a fair fight.
Note: I don't consider men in pain because they've been hit in their family jewels to be funny. Never have...okay, I didn't object to the recent Justin Timberlake ad during the Super Bowl, but that was a special case, because it's Justin Timberlake. (No, I didn't laugh at it; I just didn't have fundamental objections to it.) I also don't consider people falling down to be funny. "Psych" makes me laugh. Amy makes me laugh. This? Didn't make me laugh, but was funny in a macabre way, because this "big, tough" guy went after what looked like a relatively helpless victim and ended up literally emasculated as a result. I may not have laughed out loud, but I did consider it to be appropriate. And keep in mind that, where I live, it is considered perfectly appropriate to shoot and kill people who invade your property and attempt to steal from you. From that point of view, she was merciful to this guy - he lived.
I do think this story essentially sums up my view on gun control. If I thought that gun control policies could do a very, very good job at keeping guns out of the hands of the guy trying to rob that store, I'd be in favor of them, just as I'm in favor of laws that impose harsher penalties for the use of a gun in a crime. However, in my experience, "gun control" does a good job at keeping guns out of the hands...of the woman behind the counter. The guy sticking her up will ALWAYS be able to get a gun, because law-abiding citizens are easier to regulate than criminals.
marion at February 7, 2008 9:47 PM
And by the way, I would be just as much in favor of a man shooting a woman robbing his store after she called him "grandpa" insultingly. I agree with Amy. And yes, my approval of his actions would not change according to where he shot her. However, take note: While a shot in the crotch for a woman would be undeniably painful, it likely wouldn't be as incapacitating as a shot in the crotch is for a man. A shot in the boobs might be, but any shot in the chest area runs a high chance of killing someone. If you want to find a way to incapacitate a woman without killing her via gun, shoot somewhere else - the knee, perhaps?
marion at February 7, 2008 10:36 PM
A couple years ago in LA we had a case where a wackjob father tried to use an infant as a human shield when firing on police officers. Here are a few deets. As you might expect, it didn't end well. Afterward two individuals (in different contexts) from our inner-city African-American community told me that they thought the loss of the child's life was gratuitous; both suggested that the cops should have tried to merely wound the father.
I don't think so. First of all, cops represent taxpayers like me, and when someone fires on them, I want them to defend themselves with sufficient aggression that I won't have to make donations to the college funds of their orphaned children. Shooting at anyone should be a problem, but shooting at cops makes me a little less fussy about reading the reports of the incident all the way to the bottom and checking the spelling. There's no more antisocial behavior than firing on a law enforcement officer.
Secondly --and second and first was a tough choice here--- I think the real problem is television. People have seen hundreds of TV shows and movies where Don Johnson or Bruce Willis gets shot but "It's only a flesh wound!" People think pistols have a "stun" setting like on Star Trek which can be used on people who are annoying but might be redeemed.
Nope. I know little about firearms, but I remember the lesson of the nice state trooper who came to explain this to us in fifth grade: Firearms aren't about communicating serious intent, or slowing people down, or disabling them. If you shoot at someone, it's because you want them to die immediately.
Crid at February 8, 2008 12:19 AM
On Thursday, Los Angeles lost a SWAT team member for the first time in response to a domestic dispute.
Crid at February 8, 2008 12:22 AM
How? Got link?
lujlp at February 8, 2008 1:28 AM
Here you go, lujlp:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23045755/
Flynne at February 8, 2008 5:50 AM
This situation sucks, too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23059784/
What the hell is wrong with people these days, anyway?!? o_O
Flynne at February 8, 2008 6:17 AM
There are too many and the wrong type have far more children then the right type
lujlp at February 8, 2008 8:55 AM
Well, that was a rhetorical question, lujlp. But I do believe you hit the nail on the head, as it were.
Flynne at February 8, 2008 9:01 AM
Leave a comment