Saturday, September 02, 2006

Crime Strike TV

I was flipping through channels today and happened to come upon a show with a woman being robbed at an ATM machine and subsequently kicking the guy in the balls until he fled. As she kicked him, her voice-over described how she had learned to defend herself in a class while working at a convenience store. She stated that if she had not fought back, she believes she would have been harmed or killed. She did not apologize or look frightened--she just stated what happened. At first, I was taken aback by a TV show that actually advocated fighting back as a way to avoid getting harmed: Most primetime shows usually show someone just acting scared, giving in, or feeling remorseful that they had to hurt someone.

However, I realized that I should not have been surprised by the positive portrayal of self-defense when I saw it was hosted by Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Rifle Association. The show, CrimeStrike "focuses on the people who have made life or death decisions that have ultimately put criminals behind bars. Crime Strike fills in the details where Cops and America's Most Wanted Fail." In a time when pantywaists like the UN try to say that self-defense is not a human right, it is refreshing to see that TV shows like Crime Strike realize that self-defense is the ultimate human right.

Take a look at the website--there is some good video of people defending themselves with weapons and it reflects guns and self-defense in a positive light. It's about time.

93 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is rather different since, it seems, the universal feeling of the government and the left is to "not resist" and be a victim. The hell with that.

7:16 PM, September 02, 2006  
Blogger Pete said...

Then you'll also like Clayton Cramer's Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog.

7:32 PM, September 02, 2006  
Anonymous Starhawk said...

If I recall not resisting was what they told airline crews to do before 9/11 and you see how well that worked out

7:58 PM, September 02, 2006  
Anonymous "Eric Blair" said...

Now THAT is what I call "empowerment."

Bravo!

8:30 PM, September 02, 2006  
Anonymous dorkafork said...

...kicking the guy in the balls until he fled.

Did they play that hilarious "boing" sound each time she kicked him?

8:38 PM, September 02, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Snitch said...

This is the difference between living in a densely populated ("urban") area or not. In a densely populated area, guns are a liability on the whole, because one guy with a gun can threaten thousands. He doesn't have to kill that many, he only has to kill a couple of them to disrupt the fabric of life and invoke fear.

A good example of this was 9/11. Only a very small segment of the Manhattan area died in the attack, but it gripped the entire city in fear, for months. People who had no contact with the attacks could not go about their daily business. (Conversely, this is also why the earlier bomb-in-a-van attack on the WTC was not taken seriously at all, and why terrorism is once again a non-issue for many New Yorkers. The reality of our vulnerability is too grim to contemplate.)

In non-urban areas, and even in some less-populated cities, guns are seen as self-defense. This is because, unlike the New Yorker, life is less about relationships and connections and more about self-reliance. (There are, after all, fewer people to rely upon.) Therefore, self-protection is everyone's business.

As many Western pioneer towns grew, proud gun-toters often were asked to 'check their gun' when they came into town. The balance shifts itoward 'gun control' when there are greater numbers of people involved.

New Yorkers (and Bostonians, etc.) want national gun control mainly because they figure those guns will find their way to them, and the sherriff can't check all visitors' guns any more. Of course, the sad fact is that even with national gun control, guns, like drugs, will still find a way into the wrong hands (something the NRA is quick to point out).

Unfortunately, New Yorkers (San Franciscans, etc.) think they are the only ones who matter. The rest of the country lives in 'fly-over' states. The flown-over notice the disrespect, and refuse to consider the New Yorker's POV.

And so it goes.

9:01 PM, September 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a liberal and you better believe I am gonna resist. No victimization here, if someone messes with me or my family, I am gonna defend myself. There are plenty of liberals that own guns, so let's stop the stereotypes.

9:15 PM, September 02, 2006  
Blogger Extreme Wisdom said...

Dear Liberal,

While I applaud your stance on self-defense, and agree that too many conservative stereotype libs, let's be honest - if liberal ideology ruled the state houses and Congress, your 'self defense' would be a limited judge's restraining order, a candlelight vigil, and an idictment (if you actually pulled a gun.

I'm all for busting stereotypes, but if you persist in being as rational as you appear, it won't be long before your liberal bretheren frog-march you off their plantation.

9:30 PM, September 02, 2006  
Blogger Wickedpinto said...

Here is what I love. You are educated, you are smart, you are lovely, and maintain yourself in a professional manner. You speak with clear words, you make rational points in a way that speaks of something akin to an essay rather than a random thought comment.

and though you have all this respectability you say:

woman being robbed at an ATM machine and subsequently kicking the guy in the balls until he fled.

You don't say groin, you don't weaken the meaning of the act, you used the word "balls" I just love that, it's like cindy crawfords mole. A small blemish that makes the rest of the beauty even more beautiful.

A bright rational, intelligent, educated and professional person making the decision to use urbane language rather than catering to sterile minimalism. I love it.

10:07 PM, September 02, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Snitch said...

Anonymous, you have no justification for your self-righteous stance (although you don't strike me as someone who would be stopped by that). Fact is, the majority of 'liberal' (leftist) voters want gun control, PERIOD. It's not stereotypical, it's just the fact. Why someone wants to come here and argue just for the sake of arguing is beyond me.

10:07 PM, September 02, 2006  
Blogger newc said...

A drop kick in the eye for the UN. I watched westerns all day. It made me just feel right. Self defence is a right.

10:10 PM, September 02, 2006  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

I live thirty-five miles from the nearest law-enforcement. I have guns. Enough said.

10:12 PM, September 02, 2006  
Blogger Atticus said...

The word "pantywaist" is an odd choice to decribe the United Nations. The UN is a collection of folks who want to protect despots, not a collection of passivists. They don't discourage self defense because they don't have the stomach for violence; they just don't have the stomach for violence that would encourage freedom.

10:30 PM, September 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mr. snitch-

This is the difference between living in a densely populated ("urban") area or not. In a densely populated area, guns are a liability on the whole, because one guy with a gun can threaten thousands. He doesn't have to kill that many, he only has to kill a couple of them to disrupt the fabric of life and invoke fear.

There tends to be concentrations of crime in urban areas, and that includes black market gun sales. So preventing law-abiding citizens from owning guns does nothing to prevent criminals, who don't follow laws anyway, from acquiring guns. You are also making helpless an already vulnerable law-abiding population.

This is because, unlike the New Yorker, life is less about relationships and connections and more about self-reliance.

What do you mean by this? How do "relationships and connections" make up for being defenseless in a high-crime area?

As many Western pioneer towns grew, proud gun-toters often were asked to 'check their gun' when they came into town. The balance shifts itoward 'gun control' when there are greater numbers of people involved.

The "check your gun" was also during a time when a small group of law enforcement personnel could monitor the comings and goings and activities of nearly everyone. And it was during a time of a lot of general lawlessness. As numbers increased even more things migrated back toward less gun control. So your premise and conclusion are false.

New Yorkers (and Bostonians, etc.) want national gun control mainly because they figure those guns will find their way to them, and the sherriff can't check all visitors' guns any more. Of course, the sad fact is that even with national gun control, guns, like drugs, will still find a way into the wrong hands (something the NRA is quick to point out).

And the NRA is right to point this out. You make your population less safe by disarming law-abiding citizens. And what's even more ironic is that even if the urban gun control advocates were able to confiscate all the guns from other areas, the illegal gun markets in their own backyards would still be there.

Unfortunately, New Yorkers (San Franciscans, etc.) think they are the only ones who matter. The rest of the country lives in 'fly-over' states. The flown-over notice the disrespect, and refuse to consider the New Yorker's POV.

It's not so much considering the New Yorker's point of view - it's that the New Yorker's point of view is very naive and mistaken. Confiscate guns from the law-abiding and you still have illegal gun markets - in fact they grow larger and more profitable. You just make an already vulnerable population in a high crime area even more valuable.

11:05 PM, September 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typo - last word in the post just above should be "vulnerable".

11:07 PM, September 02, 2006  
Blogger mike said...

Two points:

First, I don't understand why banks haven't been sued to hell and back for ATMs on the outside. Surely "attractive nuisance" laws or a general failure to provide security in an area they can reasonably be expected to know will endanger people would have flocks of lawyers out for a slice of the pie? Why aren't folks who are robbed and/or injured at ATMs -- and their shyster lawyers -- suing like gangbusters?

Second, I know why police and other criminal-control types don't advocate resistance. It makes their job harder! They want folks to be trained to be submissive when confronted by weapons and demands to comply.

And, if someone follows the advice of an organisation to "fight back," there is the chance that they get injured or killed. There can then be a lawsuit against that organisation seeking damages for harmful advice!

Fear of lawyers. There you go.

11:24 PM, September 02, 2006  
Anonymous Linda M2 said...

I also support the right of people to practice self-defense and for many, the use of a firearm is the most practical and efficient self-defense tool. But . . . in our rule-of-law-and-laywers society, we must not forget that even when someone is morally justified in using a gun, there are very, very serious potential liabilities.

When I took the required class for a concealed weapon permit, we were shown a great DVD which explains not only when you can legally use a gun in self defense but also how the police and the D.A. are going to evaluate your situation. I bought my own copy and have watched it a few more times: "Deadly Force: Fireams, Self Defense & The Law". I got it from www.projectile.com

12:22 AM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Rob said...

I want to address Mike's comment. If I, a person of free-will feel that it is safe to use a bank machine at 2:00 A.M. why on earth would that be the bank's fault? Did they force me to use it at that hour? Proximate cause and duty are undoubtedly still taught at Law school, but I wonder if they still mean anything.

I am a Prosecutor, and here in Indiana the right of self-defense is in our constitution. I feel it is well respected by our law enforcement officers. One night a drunk tried to invade a home in my county and got blasted (lucky for him, not killed) by a shot gun through the door. I was asked if I was going to take any action against the homeowner and my answer was an indignant "Of course not!" Lucky for the homeowner he did not live in Tony Blair's domain.

Anonymous, if you really want to see the flaw in your position, compare the rate of "hot" burglaries in Indiana and in Great Britain. Then ask yourself, what are the burglars afraid of? My anecdote should give you a clue.

Rob Ives
Flora, IN

12:39 AM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm amused by the comments praising gun ownership by "law-abiding citizens," and how it protects us on the streets.

Why do I then read of so many tragic incidents where people are killed by "law abiding citizens" and their guns who flip out and shoot up their workplaces or lay in wait for their ex-spouses at courthouses, or who go on rampages shooting children at McDonalds or Philipino postmen walking their rounds?

These so-called "law abiding citizens" are only law abiding until they flip out and kill someone.

Frankly, if I were being mugged on a city street, the last thing I'd want would be some macho asshole walking down the sidewalk pulling out his concealed weapon and blasting away in my direction.

2:08 AM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Sick C said...

the sad truth is that most of the time the only people getting killed with homeowners guns are homeowners kids.

2:35 AM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Kev said...

I want to address Mike's comment. If I, a person of free-will feel that it is safe to use a bank machine at 2:00 A.M. why on earth would that be the bank's fault?"

Great point. I'm not in an urban area all that often (in the 'burbs, we have well-lighted, drive-up ATM's at most branches of my bank, or one can go inside a grocery store to use one as well), but if I am, and I have to use an ATM, I won't do so unless a friend who "has my back" is standing behind me. It's all about common sense...

3:06 AM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger AST said...

Wow. A psychologist who champions self-defense!

I watching reruns of Homicide-Life on the Street, and finding Kay Howard pretty hot. Then there's Jordan Cavanaugh.

3:23 AM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My favorite was the Hardy bit: "A report (pdf format) submitted by Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur, whatever that is, to the UN Human Rights Councils's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, whatever that is." I love a guy who can be proud of being ignorant, don't you?

3:38 AM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like Greg Kuperberg is back, anonymously!

5:42 AM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Linda M2:

I'm extremely interested in the manner in which law enforcement personnel and the DA Office will evaluate my self-defense actions - both with a gun and with any other weapon.

Can you provide a summary of the key points so I can know whether or not it will be worth it to purchase a video that provides more detail?

For example, if I wake up hearing someone breaking into my home, are there any constraints on how I defend myself and repel the invader? Also, what are the constraints on defending someone else on the street who is suffering an assault?

7:32 AM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous JoeBob said...

You give no indication of the implied threat this woman was reacting to. You give no information about the alleged robber, except that he was male. You give us no information about the alleged victim, except that she reacted violently. You give us no information about the statistical likelyhood that what she did was inherently dangerous, even deadly (i.e. suicidal). You give no indication that what the UN actually said is there is no human right to use firearms as self defense.

In other words, through omission and commission YOU LIED. Wayne LaPierre would be proud.

8:33 AM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Beth said...

JoeBob -

The UN is hardly the body to be determining what human rights are or should be. The UN is made up of a ton of third world countries where dictators reign, and they wouldn't know a human right other than their belief that humans are too stupid to have rights.
Self Defense is so very basic in life, and guns are the most effective way to defend yourself. You don't have to be a black belt to protect yourself with a firearm.
You don't have to be strong or young.

Fortunately, in my state, we can defend ourselves and our families with firearms.

9:06 AM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Richard said...

JoeBob

At the top of page 9 of the report you linked to, is section 20. Which says in part, "Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation."

So actually you're nit-picking between "no human right" and "inadequate legal support for it to be a right". A distiction without a practical difference.

9:23 AM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see it this way.....Whether the UN decides I have the right to defend myself with a firearm is irrelevant. If some idiot comes into my house in the middle of the night, he KNOWS he is not in his house. He KNOWS he isn't supposed to be there. So I'll shoot the bastard. It will give the other idiots food for thought.....

And Kofi can kiss my ass.

9:32 AM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

joebob - humans have a basic right not to be murdered. Anyone advocating differently is not worth debating with. Given this right, they then have the right to prevent said murder by directing at the attacker any manner of force necessary; hands, stick, knife, gun.

"You give us no information about the statistical likelyhood that what she did was inherently dangerous, even deadly (i.e. suicidal)."

Not relevant. Being attacked is inherently dangerous, even deadly. Not reacting is inherently suicidal. She was already there, bud.


AC - 2:08 AM

I'm amused by the comments praising gun ownership by "law-abiding citizens," and how it protects us on the streets.

Point to where someone said it protects us on the street. You might check crime rates in states, though.

Why do I then read of so many tragic incidents where people are killed by "law abiding citizens" and their guns who flip out and shoot up their workplaces or lay in wait for their ex-spouses at courthouses, or who go on rampages shooting children at McDonalds or Philipino postmen walking their rounds?

These so-called "law abiding citizens" are only law abiding until they flip out and kill someone.


Um... What part of "law abiding" do you not get? Those folks are not behaving that way and should be prosecuted as the criminals they are.

Frankly, if I were being mugged on a city street, the last thing I'd want would be some macho asshole walking down the sidewalk pulling out his concealed weapon and blasting away in my direction.

Noted. Don't complain later. Should we also not call the ambulance or pull the knife out?

AC - 7:32 AM

Can you provide a summary of the key points so I can know whether or not it will be worth it to purchase a video that provides more detail?

For example, if I wake up hearing someone breaking into my home, are there any constraints on how I defend myself and repel the invader? Also, what are the constraints on defending someone else on the street who is suffering an assault?


Probably, you should do your own research, as laws vary from state to state.

9:47 AM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Karl Steel said...

Per the UN Report:

Doesn't look as though you read it. Or, if you read it, you mischaracterized it. It doesn't say that self-defense is not a right. It says that states should implement gun control. Essentially, what it's advocating is what most Americans already advocate and what was advocated by political theorists like Max Weber (i.e., the state survives to the degree it monopolizes licit violence).

I'm not sticking around to argue the theoretical points of whether or not there should be gun control. My point is more about reading comprehension and bad faith characterization to uphold prejudices, as it's always been strange to me to see rightwing grousing about the UN's interventionalism in internal state affairs combined with rightwing enthusiasm for so-called 'regime change,' so long as it's not regime change in US allies (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, chief among them).

10:26 AM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous drago said...

Love it. Love it.

Specially the guy who's gone all tingly because of the way you look and the fact that you use the word "balls".

Guns, guns, guns. Love it. Love saying it, love holding one, love pulling the . . . ah, christ - too much.

10:58 AM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Snitch said...

Anonymous (can't you even come up with a temp name?) said:

"What do you mean by this? How do "relationships and connections" make up for being defenseless in a high-crime area?"

Your basic connection is wrong: Relationships don't 'make up for' being defenseless. Relationships are considered the defense. Densely-packed urban dwellers think differenetly than those who live in less densely populated areas. In fact, if you were to take New Yorkers and transplant them en masse to, say, New Mexico, and the reverse, you'd eventually begin to see a change in philosophy. Not complete, of course, but you'd see the shift. And note that the basic prevailing 'liberal' (leftist) approach and more conservative approach associated with these geographic areas does not change much over time. The situation/environment affects behavior, although few hard-core urbanites can bring themselves to acknowledge how the presence of so many others affects them, and how dependent they really are.

What's the suburban dweller's first instinct? I must take care of this situation. What's the urban dweller's first instinct? Someone [else whose responsibility this is, maybe a cop or a Guardian Angel or a good Samaritan] should do something about this situation.

A gun is a considerable responsibility. So is self-defense. It's not surprising, if you study urban behavior, that urbanites want to lay these responsibilities at someone else's feet. Subruban dwellers are not necessarily more noble, but they are at least resigned to the need for more self-reliance. Some grow into their responsibilities.

Turn back the clock, place Helen at age 8 or so in New York or Boston to be raised there, and you have a very different person with different views today. (Not that anyone wants THAT.)

"check your gun"... A numbers increased even more things migrated back toward less gun control. So your premise and conclusion are false.

It's a fair observation up to a point. Towns that never became truly urban eventually saw some relaxation of the rules (besides, as you say, the sherrif couldn't pragmatically disarm an entire town, forever). However, my point is that under certain circumstances people will lay down their right to bear arms. Those circumstances exist today in urban areas, and those inhabitants believe that the world would be better off following their lead. As I have said, they do not understand the roots of their own behavior, and they are wrong. Not that merely wrong never stopped anyone from believing they are right.

11:03 AM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In responsible self-defense and martial arts programs, one of the first things they teach you if you find yourself in a situation in which you are being threatened -- especially if the person threatening you has a knife or other weapon -- is to put up your hands (inf front of you, prepared to defend or attack), and shout "I don't want to fight!" . And then , scream and run. It might not be as macho as Dr.Helen or Wayne would like it to be, but the point is to get yourself out of a life threatening situation -- and the best way to do that is to flee!

Actually engaging in hand to hand combat must be the absolute last resort in any situation. Advocacy or celebration of any other kind of response to a threatening situation is irresponsible.

Dr Helen's "CrimeStrike TV" is a very foolish post -- a celebration of gunplay, a gratuitous swipe at "the un" -- I must wonder if she really was just "flipping through channels" and "happened to come upon" this show - it is more likely that she got a promo email from big Wayne himself and went with it.

Also, the crimestrike website is crap -- looks like the show has even worse production values than cops if that is possible.

11:11 AM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous DD said...

I don't consider myself a "liberal," but I'm no fan of the NRA either.
What I don't like are the phony arguments the NRA makes. I own two guns, neither being a handgun. Here in Texas, I can walk into any sporting goods store and buy a rifle or a shotgun, on the spot, without a background check, thus nullifying the false NRA argument that I can't defend my home if I have to wait 7 (pick a number) days for a background check. I'll take a 5 shot, semi-automatic 12 guage over a pistol any day.
Break into my home and see what good your pistol is against dozens of flying buckshot.
I don't believe people should be able to buy bullets that pierce kevlar vests, etc., ad infinitum (re: NRA's platform).
Is it too much to ask that arguments/positions are logical and reasonable?

And by the way, why are you all getting your panties in a wad over anything the UN does or says? The US has always supported the UN when it agrees with it, and ignored the UN when it doesn't agree with it. This is just another phony/empty issue to get people stirred up, and judging by the posts here, "Mission Accomplished!"

11:51 AM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Snitch said...

put up your hands (inf front of you, prepared to defend or attack), and shout "I don't want to fight!" . And then , scream and run.

This, of course, assumes there is a place to run, that your assailant (and his comrade?) does not have you cornered. It also assumes that you're willing to take a chance of being shot while fleeing. Even handing over your wallet/purse assures you of nothing. Example: Jersey City, like a number of cities, is currently in the grip of gang initiations, in which the goal is to harm or kill some innocent civilian. Not to rob them, which is incidental, but to cause harm or death.

Fighting back has to be considered as a legitimate option, as logical as any other. Having the means to defend oneself and being well-prepared to use it is not so blithely dismissed as 'anonymous' claims. If a certain percentage of the citizenry is prepared to fight back, that's a terrific deterrent to crime. If, however, victims ALL run away, as 'anonymous' says they must, assailants merely learn to prevent that. If they ALL scream, they may get their jaws broken immediately. But if potential victims pull out a gun instead of a wallet, that gives cause for pause. In every other scenario, where the victim simply leaves, where exactly is the deterrent to violent crime?

This was noted in recent years, during which police and the FBI had advised bank tellers to simply hand over their money when threatened with robbery. This became official policy in many banks, especially in New York City. Well, this got around, and guess what - NYC bank robberies soared. I mean, through the roof. (This was noted in the New York Times.) Finally, new policies were instituted that presented would-be robbers with more resistance.

I must wonder if she really was just "flipping through channels" and "happened to come upon" this show - it is more likely that she got a promo email from big Wayne himself and went with it.

Still more assumptions, leading to increasingly nasty accusations, based on even less factual evidence than the rest of this one's argument. Not even worth acknowledging, really.

11:55 AM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Fotd said...

I am a liberal, why do people automaticly assume that because your a liberal your a pansy? If I were attacked I would more than likely have to give the guy a beat down, weight lifting does come in handy. Also, the way I see it, if liberals controlled the house and senate there would be less violent situations in the first place. This is because people would actually get rehabilatated and their would be a good economy so people would'nt have a reason to steal.

12:53 PM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Fotd said...

Why is it that people automaticly assume that liberals are pansies? If i were assaulted I would more than likely have to give the guy a beat down, weight lifting comes in handy. Most people would be afraid if they had a gun, I would be scared too but I know that alot of people who carry them are not willing to use them. Also, if liberals controlled the senate and house there would be no need for such violence. Sick people would more than likely be rehibilatated and with the great economy sure to follow, noone would need to steal form others. Unlike the economy and mindset under this administration and the republican party.

12:57 PM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Fotd said...

Whoops... sorry for the double post, my internet got messed up and I wasn't sure if it went through.

12:59 PM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous JKB said...

It is good to see that self defense is no longer verboten. Hollywood has become enamored with society as victim and only the "proper" authority can act to save the victims. Only the police can come to the rescue of the crime victim, only the lifeguard can save the drowning swimmer. And yet when push comes to shove the "proper" authority fails in their duty. Not from lack of diligence but from lack of presence. In the end, the only people who truly cares whether you live or die is you and yours and you must be able to fend for yourself until the "proper" authorities arrive, whether that be the police responding to crime or FEMA responding to disaster.

That being said, it is preparation that allows a measured response. An individual trained in self-defense will have the skills and confidence to match the threat. They can run and scream, maneuver and strike or, if armed, draw and engage depending on the situation. It is the untrained who are dangerous as they react out of fear. In contrast to the common misperception, most incidents where an individual with a carry permit intercede where someone has "flipped out" such as a recent store clerk stabbing and chasing people from the store, they do not draw and start firing. In actuality, they held the murder at bay until the "proper" authorities arrived. In the incident described, those running and screaming would only have ended up dead in the parking lot without the CCW permit holder.

Hollywood is in love with the society as victim story line. It fits the literary hero premise and increases the drama. I recently downloaded a commercial where a sexy woman is home alone when the phone rings. It's a stalker who then cuts the power. She calls the police who will be there in a few minutes. "I don't have a few minutes" she replies while a knife is dragged over the bricks outside. The stalker appears outside the French doors trying to get in. At the height of tension, she opens up on the stalker. A voice over informs us, that horror movies don't have to last 2 hours.

Victims make good drama but do you really need that much drama in your life?

1:53 PM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Jonathan said...

In responsible self-defense and martial arts programs, one of the first things they teach you if you find yourself in a situation in which you are being threatened -- especially if the person threatening you has a knife or other weapon -- is to put up your hands (inf front of you, prepared to defend or attack), and shout "I don't want to fight!" . And then , scream and run. It might not be as macho as Dr.Helen or Wayne would like it to be, but the point is to get yourself out of a life threatening situation -- and the best way to do that is to flee!

The main problem with this kind of boilerplate advice isn't the advice itself -- attempting to flee might be the best tactic in many situations of this type (though not all of them). The problem is the moral presumptiveness in the assumption that we, who aren't there, don't have first-hand information about the risks and won't bear the consequences of whatever happens, have any standing to tell you what to do. There is also in much advice of the "run away" type, particularly when it comes from government functionaries, a strong whiff of an agenda in which maintaining government's authority is a priority and the welfare of crime victims is secondary.

Self-defense as a concept gets under the skin of statists because it is the quintessence of personal autonomy. It is something that must be left to individual discretion or it is worthless. Statists try to constrain it by insisting that individuals follow safe-n-sane rules for submitting or running away, never fighting back. But these rules get people killed on the margins. My mother, confronted by two or three strong young guys who are intent on harm, cannot run away. For her to submit to them is to allow them to enslave her and yet trust that they will not do worse. It is unacceptable both morally and as a matter of personal risk-taking. It may be the least-bad course of action under the circumstances, particularly if she choses not to be armed, but that choice should be hers. For a third party to say "You, elderly person confronted by thugs and unable to escape, must submit, because whatever happens to you is less bad than what might happen if you fought back with a gun" is obscene hubris.

2:16 PM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Tom Hilton said...

Unfortunately, New Yorkers (San Franciscans, etc.) think they are the only ones who matter.

As a San Franciscan, I have to protest--this is completely wrong.

We don't think New Yorkers matter.

3:17 PM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...

The first rule of self defense:

Don't present yourself as a target. Too many people are stupid about this. Think in a military way. Maneuver. Don't go into dangerous areas unprepared for violence.

The more capable you seem, the less likely you are to be a target. Better, avoid these spots altogether if you can. If you can't, make it obvious that anyone who wants to splash on you is likely to become a grease stain. People comport themselves with great civility when they expect you might be able to harm them if they attack you.

The second best deterrent to violence:

Destroy your enemy. Make certain you have the skills, equipment & know-how to survive in a hostile environment. This is not nice. This is not just war. If you're half a human being you'll pitch your lunch on the pavement after taking apart another human being.

Violence isn't cool. It isn't an action movie (and I like action movies, thank you much).

But if it's you or the other guy with no alternative & you are trying to defend and/or protect, do no hesitate, use every weapon at your disposal, use the territory, see the weapon-value in everything & everyone.

The right to throw a punch ends where the face begins. At this point the assailant and the defender are not fighting for justice or the American Way. They're fighting for the next breath.

Neutralize the threat by whatever means are necessary. If you have superior projective power & are certain of your assailants abilities, you may pull your punches. Neutralize instead of destroy.

But it's best to err on the side of survival.

4:59 PM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Harry Eagar said...

LaPierre also stands up for any citizen's right to hunt kindergarteners with a machine gun -- as happened in California not so long ago.

Guess he didn't have videotape of that to show, eh?

There's probably a middle way, but you won't find it through the NRA.

5:12 PM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...

I've just read through this thread again...

I've just about had it with this "Republic." Left, right, center. All of it.

Give me an honest despot any day. At least I know who to blame and who to draw on.

Idi Amin, where art thou?

5:17 PM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Snitch said...

"We don't think New Yorkers matter."

Well, poor phrasing on my part. I stand corrected.

6:52 PM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm disturbed that a self-described Forensic Psychologist is so willing to 1)manufacture straw man arguments to support 2)factless stereotypes (wimpy liberals-see Bartcop.com for liberals with plenty of guns) and 3) paranoid delusions about the UN and faceless "statists" as well as 4) nod-and-wink racism (urban is a codeword for n#%#*!, is it not?). I hope you are not an officer of the court, although it would not surprise me.
The stereotypical "liberal" you and your coterie of internet warriors rail against is a bizarre mental construct not unlike the Boogeyman. Think for a minute-the liberal you are afraid controls your government is simultaneously powerless (passive, pacifist) and yet powerful enough to control your very life. What this tells me is that here we have a batch of people locked into fear, isolation, and a self-reinforcing social group (mob, if you will) whipping each other into a frenzy of irrational paranoia. Ann Coulter, for example, loves to point out who is a liberal in her mind that day and then propose that someone (never her; important people don't get their hands dirty) should shoot, stab, poison, or bomb them.
The UN is likewise pretty powerless, and it is ironic that Southerner Ted Turner paid the United States' back dues some years ago. We OWN the UN, pretty much, and the bizarre theories about what it does and how it goes about it are the same fear-mongering paranoia that set pitchfork and torch bearing mobs to burning witches. Of course it supports dictators because the US prefers dictators and always has. Try reading a Joseph Conrad novel. Kermit Roosevelt (secret agent man, not frog muppet) et al make no bones about this aspect of our national policy through decades of both parties' governments. We made Saddam, we made Osama, we support the Saudi Royal Family, all the right wing murderers in Central America. We have had no problem as a nation interfering in the elections of allies like Canada, Australia, Britain, Italy, and Greece. We as a nation make the monsters that bite us; it is our unwillingness as citizens to see this fact rationally that makes this state of affairs go on (e.g. the myth of American exceptionalism).
Liberal has as its root the word liber-latin for free. Our nation was founded by liberals for liberal people. If you hate liberalism, you hate freedom, pure and simple. Freedom requires accountability of its citizenry, which is why the current right wing coalition hates it so much. Authoritarians hate freedom and prefer license-allowing the wealthy and well connected access to endless free passes for bad behavior, like deserting the National Guard, accepting bribes, or losing 9 billion dollars in cash in the course of fighting a war based on a cloud of lies, fearmongering, and personal fortune building.
Liberal government requires fearless, informed, and rational citizenry. Your fear and paranoia keeps you from joining your neighbors to fix our democracy because they might be the Boogeyman. Your fear perpetuates injustice by demanding obedience to your protectors. Your fears keep them in power, whatever their political label. Your fears rule you whether you are armed or not, as your posters gripe about the liberal courts imprisoning them for self-defense, in effect hamstringing your ball kicker or thug shooter. Your irrational fear neutralizes you as a citizen and therefore your freedom has already been surrendered.

8:10 PM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good grief. I'm a great big "pantywaist" liberal and I also head up the local Glock club (Glocks Rock!). I'm pretty sure that I've got bragging rights on having more lead in my bloodstream than just about anyone here (my wife and I practically live at Front Sight during our vacations). But I loves me some liberal values! I also love the pantywaist U.N. (who, for the moment, are keeping me from being drafted into fighting yet another war on Israel's behalf). I'm not quite sure where I fit into the conservative (are you guys still calling yourselves that?) idea of liberals but the last thing I would flinch from is self-defense. All the same, I think that criminals are sick people who need treatment (which ought to be paid for by the taxation of a civil society...geez, you look like I just kicked you in the balls!). That, of course, wouldn't stop me from damaging someone who is threatening my safety or deceasing someone who's trying to take my life!

9:01 PM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Linda M2 said...

Anonymous #1 asked:

"I'm extremely interested in the manner in which law enforcement personnel and the DA Office will evaluate my self-defense actions . . .
Can you provide a summary of the key points so I can know whether or not it will be worth it to purchase a video that provides more detail?"

It has been a long time since I've had to write a book (DVD) report but I can tell you that the Deadly Force DVD goes into great detail about what the cops and the D.A. will be looking for to decide if you were or were not legally justified. There are many interviews with D.A.'s and cops about all this.

They even answer the question about the old idea that "if you shoot them outside, drag 'em back inside." (A bad idea!)

The DVD also shows scenarios -- real and staged -- in which the use of a gun is or is not legally justified. There are some really interesting interviews with criminals, too. I learned much really useful information.

Thats's about all I can tell you. Take a look at the website. I just checked and there is more information there: http://www.projectile.com

9:50 PM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger newsbeat1 said...

Erin Weed has some thoughts on this....

http://girlsfightback.com/html/aboutus.html

10:35 PM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

I was talking to my daughter about "rights" the other day in response to some in school converations she had. In that discussion I realized that we do not get our rights from the law, we get our rights by dying and killing. Our rights in America were established in The Revoloutionary War, protected in the War of 1812, Second World War, and now in the War against Terrorism.

Rights for Black Americans were won through people who paid the ultimate sacrifice like Dr. King. Rights are purchased and maintained with blood. There are exceptions, but I wonder how many people died in the Women's Sufferage movement. It was a sobering thought. But it gave me some comfort to realize that the UN did not have the ability to kill enough of us to take away our right to bear arms and protect ourselves.

Trey

10:53 PM, September 03, 2006  
Blogger Jonathan said...

Anonymous 8:10:

That seems like an awful lot of name calling, paranoia inferring, racism accusing, strawman building, and plain old sophistry ("If you hate liberalism, you hate freedom, pure and simple") for one comment. Got some issues?

11:38 PM, September 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mr. snitch-

(I'm the anonymous that had the other lengthy response to you.)

Your basic connection is wrong: Relationships don't 'make up for' being defenseless. Relationships are considered the defense. Densely-packed urban dwellers think differenetly than those who live in less densely populated areas. In fact, if you were to take New Yorkers and transplant them en masse to, say, New Mexico, and the reverse, you'd eventually begin to see a change in philosophy. Not complete, of course, but you'd see the shift. And note that the basic prevailing 'liberal' (leftist) approach and more conservative approach associated with these geographic areas does not change much over time. The situation/environment affects behavior, although few hard-core urbanites can bring themselves to acknowledge how the presence of so many others affects them, and how dependent they really are.

I don't find this argument convincing and there's a lot of data to bear me out. There are a number of cases of people being assaulted and murdered for extended periods of time in public and even in the hallways of their own buildings. It's nice to have other people that might help you but its even better to be prepared to defend yourself AND have other people that might help you.

What's the suburban dweller's first instinct? I must take care of this situation. What's the urban dweller's first instinct? Someone [else whose responsibility this is, maybe a cop or a Guardian Angel or a good Samaritan] should do something about this situation.

A gun is a considerable responsibility. So is self-defense. It's not surprising, if you study urban behavior, that urbanites want to lay these responsibilities at someone else's feet. Subruban dwellers are not necessarily more noble, but they are at least resigned to the need for more self-reliance. Some grow into their responsibilities.

Turn back the clock, place Helen at age 8 or so in New York or Boston to be raised there, and you have a very different person with different views today. (Not that anyone wants THAT.)


I disagree with this. I think it's mainly a matter of education, experience, and conditioning. There are large cities in the US that allow gun ownership, so its not just an urban phenomenon. People in the gun control cities are usually brought up to see guns themselves as dangerous and to only see them in the hands of police and criminals, so they take on a sort of fearful, taboo aspect to them. They don't see guns owned by family members or neighbors and they aren't educated about them so this also adds to the taboo or mystique. So they often tend to perceive them as dangerous in and off themselves rather than tools for hunting or self-defense.

And it's weird, but there seems to be this odd paternalistic dynamic - those raised in a gun control environment don't seem to see themselves as responsible enough to own a gun or be responsible for their own defense. It's weird, because they know that the police and criminals that own guns in the gun control areas aren't much different from the average person, but yet there's this perception that the average person shouldn't be able to exercise their rights and provide for their own defense.

So if Dr. Helen was raised in a gun control area and didn't have any relatives or friends to educate her about gun ownership and gun rights she might have a different opinion. But it is possible to come to a pro-gun rights position just by careful thinking and analysis.

It's a fair observation up to a point. Towns that never became truly urban eventually saw some relaxation of the rules (besides, as you say, the sherrif couldn't pragmatically disarm an entire town, forever). However, my point is that under certain circumstances people will lay down their right to bear arms. Those circumstances exist today in urban areas, and those inhabitants believe that the world would be better off following their lead. As I have said, they do not understand the roots of their own behavior, and they are wrong. Not that merely wrong never stopped anyone from believing they are right.

Well as I stated above I think its largely a function of education and how the issue is framed. "Reducing Gun Violence" is how the issue is framed so it sounds like you're a wacko if you oppose it. It's not framed as "Making Law-Abiding Citizens Unable to Defend Themselves".

2:43 AM, September 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous 2:08AM-

Why do I then read of so many tragic incidents where people are killed by "law abiding citizens" and their guns who flip out and shoot up their workplaces or lay in wait for their ex-spouses at courthouses, or who go on rampages shooting children at McDonalds or Philipino postmen walking their rounds?

These so-called "law abiding citizens" are only law abiding until they flip out and kill someone.


Yes, unfortunately there are some tragedies. And with 5+ 24-hour news channels you get to hear about it again and again with no relation to what percentage of the time these rare incidents actually occur. If it bleeds, it leads, as they say in the industry. And if nothing in particular was bleeding that day they replay something that was bleeding last week, last year, or last decade.

But if someone really wants to hurt other people there are other ways they can do it. Witness the guy who ran over a bunch of people in CA recently. (San Francisco, I think.) And even if guns were banned someone could just buy a gun on the black market that would expand exponentially the day after guns were banned.

2:53 AM, September 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the UN as being harmless:

I wouldn't be so sure. As the economy and various other factors make things more global it is very likely that international laws and rules may creep up in the wake of globalization. The UN and similar bodies are infatuated with the UK's gun prohibition model and would like to see it imposed world-wide. So I wouldn't be surprised if certain parties try to slip gun prohibition initiatives into various free-trade agreements or the like and then tried to get them enforced.

Also realize that there will be other methods that people will try to use as a back-door way to implement gun prohibition. The mental health establishment is one likely avenue - try to get more and more people "diagnosed" with some kind of condition so they can claim that they shouldn't own a gun. The insurance industry might be another - claim that gun ownership is a prohibitive liability. Emergency situations is another - they tried it with Katrina but there was a backlash so they sort of backed off. My bet is if there is another terrorist attack they may try again - for your "safety".

3:06 AM, September 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous 8:10-

No, urban is meant as urban, meaning not rural or suburban. And I wasn't using it as a code word for the n-word or any other racial, ethnic, and/or relgious slur. Personally, I find that implication pretty insulting. And for your information I am a libertarian, not a conservative. And yes - there are big differences. I also happen to disagree with the current administration on a number of major issues. So cut the crap, not everyone here is a neocon, or even a conservative. And not everyone that supports the 2nd Amendment and gun rights is a conservative.

You might want to do some reading into how private gun ownership played a role in the civil rights movement in the south. That's illustrative of how gun ownership rights are important rights for everyone.

3:18 AM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Cham said...

All I have to say on the issue is my dear friend, Marvin, was held up at gun point a few years ago. He fought back and now he's dead. I don't need my wallet with my $20, driver's licence and one lonely credit card that badly.

Go ahead, be hero but don't expect to live long.

6:56 AM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Cham,

The sad truth is that your friend could have acted passively etc. and still been killed anyway--there is no 100% sure way to stay alive during a robbery--fighting back is one option that sometimes works (but is many times actively discouraged when it may be the right thing to do) acting passively or running is sometimes an option and sometimes, there are people in the world who just want others dead, for no other reason then a few bucks, a good laugh or to show off. I am sorry about your friend.

7:07 AM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...

If someone wants your wallet or purse & presents a credible threat, give them your wallet and/or purse.

You're job here, like I said before, is to survive.

Best way to avoid these situations is to acquire enough savvy to know your environment well enough that you may, within reason, accurately gauge whether you're likely to have your wallet stolen by violent, unpredictable and aggressive people & take precautions.

If you must travel through a hazardous environment, stick all your ones in your wallet & keep larger denominations in your shoe.

I know a lot of other tricks. Comes from being a reporter in not-so-nice neighborhoods (and an occasional resident).

Domestic violence is probably a greater threat then stranger-inflicted violence for both men and women.

As for stranger violence...hmmm...I'd say that the biggest threat most folks are likely to face is a drug addict (coke/meth addicts especially) on the downside of a serious crash. They tend to be unpredictable and violent even they get what they want.

So stay away from coke-heads. Honestly, if you watch your background, use your head & are not connected in some way to a hostile organized criminal organization, you really don't have much to worry about as far as stranger-violence is concerned.

8:27 AM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Out of Step in Kfar Saba said...

I think that the US (or at least urban US) could learn a little from those of us in the mideast.
Two examples - I was walking near the bus station in my home town and saw a suspicious looking man pulling a heavy brief case on wheels. Then I saw he had a gun and realized he was one of the good guys.
My 13 year old twins were shocked when I told them that no one in NYC walks around with a gun.
Self defense as a right starts with the individual and moves up to the nation. If an individual has no right, then why would a nation?

9:56 AM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Jonathan said...

Graham Strouse: Who the hell are you (or anyone else) to tell me what I should and shouldn't do when it's my life at stake? You are in no position to tell me what my dignity is worth to me. You are in no position to protect me if I give them my wallet and they start beating, knifing or shooting me anyway. Do what you think is right for yourself but don't presume to know what's right for everyone in all situations.

10:35 AM, September 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, isn't gun control just part of keeping the Constitution "flexible, fluid, and protean"? I mean, shitting on the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments seems to be the Republican thing these days; why not take an equal-opportunity dump?

11:56 AM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Snitch said...

From Anonymous: "There are a number of cases of people being assaulted and murdered for extended periods of time in public and even in the hallways of their own buildings."

I didn't say the relationships WOULD protect anyone, just that this was the social perception in urban settings. I went on at some length about the shifting of responsibility for self-defense. The fact that people are assaulted in and around their own homes, in fact, makes the case for self-defense.

" I think it's mainly a matter of education, experience, and conditioning."

That's not dissimilar from my meaning. Living in tightly-packed urban situations affects behavior and thinking (I'm talking about 'big' cities here - New York, Chicago, LA, a few others). Yes, there are cities that allow gun ownership, but that does not mean the average person living in them either knows how to defend themselves, owns/knows how to use a gun, or thinks it's his/her job to provide his/her own safety in the first place.

"those raised in a gun control environment don't seem to see themselves as responsible enough to own a gun or be responsible for their own defense. "

The dynamics of these situations seem to be self-perpetuating. I don't expect NYC to ever become a gun-totin' sort of town, no matter how bad things might get (remembering the 70's here, a desperate time when there was still no big movement toward handguns... though there were a lot more self-defense classes offered as I recall).

"So if Dr. Helen was raised in a gun control area and didn't have any relatives or friends to educate her about gun ownership and gun rights she might have a different opinion. But it is possible to come to a pro-gun rights position just by careful thinking and analysis."

Anything's possible for the individual. For the masses, no. I make no claims at being 'expert' but I have created communications for a good number of winning local political campaigns. I know that an approach that works for one locality won't work in another, and I have a pretty good estimation of why.

This is a particularly interesting subject to me and I am inclined to run on about it. I'll limit myself (this time) to noting that modern political campaigns conducted nationally break sensistive messages up by area. This gets fine-tuned by a number of factors, but overall the urban audience gets a message different than the exurban one. That reflects different values and thinking when people are packed into close proximity. One could write a book on why this is so, and some people probably have.

I think you contend that nurture at a sub-local level (family, friends) counteracts macro-local factors. I submit that most families tend to be not much more than a subset of the local culture. Here in lovely Hudson County, NJ, we have what's known as a 'culture of corruption'. Does this mean that everyone is corrupt? Well, I'd hesitate to say 'yes'. But I would say that if you examined each person's actions who claims NOT to so contribute (and you better believe, everyone says just that), you would find myriad ways in which they enable the kinds of theft that has made this area notorious.

From another commenter: "my dear friend, Marvin, was held up at gun point a few years ago. He fought back and now he's dead."

Yes, I feel badly about Marvin as well. But as Helen said, there's no guarantee in being passive, either. Also, I can't assume Marvin fought back for the $20. Maybe he did, but maybe he was fighting for his right NOT to be violated in this way. For a good many people, just giving in is rather like saying 'I acknowledge that I have no rights here'. I've had my house broken into and robbed a couple of times through the years. It's not like being raped, but it is a personal violation as far as I am concerned.

2:37 PM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...

Jonathon,

I don't think you're pickin' up what I'm puttin' down. I used to deal with violent people pretty frequently when I was freelancing & later just living below the line in the Sarasota/Bradenton area.

I've finished enough fights. Enough that I'd rather not have to finish another.

What I was saying was that some street smarts can keep you out of situations where you're likely to face violent confrontations. It's an incomplete list, to be sure. I just ran off a couple thoughts off the top of my head.

You go lookin for fights, bubba, you'll find em.

As for "fighting for your life," hell yeah, make use of every weapon available on the battlefield. It helps to think of everything as a potential weapon.

I dislike guns personally because I'm not very good with them & they end up getting pointed in the wrong direction a lot. I've had a heavy resvolver misfire about 5-10 feet from my face at point blank range while I was interviewing a guy for a $75 story. I did some unpleasant things to the fellow & got the hell out of there.

If you get trapped in a situation where it's fight or die, you fight. You don't obey the niceties & you see to it that whoever is coming after you will either be unable or unwilling to harm you in the future.

All I was saying was that this is an undesirable outcome, that there are certain situations where it is smarter not to fight (can you run faster then a bullet? I can't...) & that there are a lot of things you can learn to reduce the likelihood of finding yourself in a violent confrontation.

I'm not telling anyone to do anything. So knock it off.

9:27 PM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...

Incidentally, Folks:

I STRONGLY support the 2nd Ammendment, for the same reasons, I suspecy, that the founding fathers did. They didn't trust the government, even when they were the government. And they certainly didn't trust each other. Why should we?

Also, I know a lot of conscientious gun owners. Sportsman, mostly, or military, or both. And to a man (and a couple women), they'll preach gun safety & they get just as nervous as I do when they're around some nervous, trigger-happy clown who has no business carrying a gun.

This latter category includes a disturbingly high number of cops, btw. They use over-sized weapons (9mm, .38s, sometimes something larger) that they carry in clasped holders on the wrong side of their body--that is to say the side that includes the hand they shoot with.

A light automatic in an open holster (preferably reversed, even though it looks silly, it allows you to draw more quickly & efficiently and move at the same time. A reversed shoulder holster is more traditional, and works just fine. Either fashion makes a lot more sense if you actually expect a firefight.

But it's still foolish to get in a fight with someone who has a gun when you don't when what's at stake is your wallet. I spoke briefly on my feelings regarding crack-heads in an earlier post. They get squirrly and irrational when they're on a Jones--this sort of situation, you might need to fight. Probably not, if you handle it well, but people who are out of their skull are more dangerous then simple thugs.

Some more thoughts:

As my ex-gf used to say to me, admiringly, "You see the weapon value in everything."

She's former IDF, among other things, so I take this as high praise.

If you're dealing with a real attacker, know you're abilities and limitations, especially if you're a woman. The stuff they teach in most women's self-defense courses--and most formal martial arts "dojos", is of marginal utility at best.

If you're a woman, you have to remember that you're likely dealing with someone who has twice your upper body strength (or more) more), 50% or more lower body strenth and in all likelihood better kinesthetic/spatial awareness--although this may not be a factor if the guy is indeed cracked out.

In any event, and this goes for men and women, the first thing you need to do in a fight is get armed.

A ballpoint pen is an excellent weapon. So is a utility knife. Car keys are okay if it's what you've got--they become more formidable if you can get them into your car, which you shouldn't think of as a car in these situations. Think of it as a reusable ground-bound guided missle.

Mace and pepper spray are VERY effective. And you can keep them on your car keys.

Don't try to be cool. Aim for vulnerable spots. The groin would not be my first choice--men have a VERY fast reflex in that region. likely as not you'll end up with your foot trapped and an angry man enraged with pain staring you down.

The instep is an excellent target--where boots, not sandals, in high-violence areas.

The knee is also a very good target. High kicks are not smart.

The old forehead smash is always popular, and usually quite effective.

Guy trying to rape you? let him think he's getting what he wants...until the pants come down. An unzippered man has severely diminished freedom of movement. On a similar note, and this works better for women, if a man wants your wallet, say it's in your purse...right next to your car keys, the ring with the pepper spray on it.

Scream. That goes for everyone. Make as much noise as possible.

Hmmm...what else...

The eyes are a pretty good target, but they can be hard to get at unless the fight ends up on the ground, which is highly likely. The lower back is a good place to kick. Stay away from high kicks.

Ladies, avoid going to ground if it all possible. Any advantage in quickness and flexibility you possess is instantly nullified. Men and women who end up fighting an attacker on the ground, especially a strong one, would be well-advised to scream even louder and to try to maneuver into a position where you can counter upper-body strength with lower body strength. That moves the odds back towards your favor. Legs scissor an arm or the neck if you can get to it and leverage your body for maximum torque.

That discourages people.

I'd reccomend against guns in these situations unless you're properly trained. Again, this is not a philosophical issue, it's a practical one. If you are trained, get a concealed weapon permit & stick to the light automatics.

Travel in packs. This also discourages attackers.

Gentlemen, one trick you can use to avoid violent situations in ghettos is to make yourself look like a potential customer. Dress down for the occasion. Also, be nice to drug dealers...but not to nice. They're businessmen. Not educated, maybe, but not stupid. And businessmen don't shoot someone who looks like a potential customer.

Remember that most violence in this country is intra-racial, not inter-racial. A white man is pretty safe in south central LA if he watches his background, looks the part, doesn't give lip & doesn't buy. Asians & hispanics, don't share this advantage. South central is an extreme example, but I've rarely had problems in The Neighborhood (granted, I'm talking about lower-grade ghettos, speaking in terms of violence.)

But I'd still give up my wallet if faced with a projectile weapon. A knife...maybe not. Knives are hard to wield properly. But then, I'm a very strong guy who has a certain amount of experience in this field.

That enough truth to suit you?

10:26 PM, September 04, 2006  
Anonymous triticale said...

LaPierre also stands up for any citizen's right to hunt kindergarteners with a machine gun -- as happened in California not so long ago.

Untrue on several counts.

1)The NRA is perfectly happy with the current laws regarding machine guns. Acquiring a legally transferrable fully automatic weapon requires a signoff by local law enforcement and a Federal background check. There are a quarter million legal machine guns in private hands and only one case of one being used to commit a murder using one in the last fifty years.

2) The kindergarten shooting in California did not involve a machine gun, legal or otherwise. It involved a semi-automatic AK47, a scary looking badass weapon no more powerful than a 30-30 deer rifle, but popular with criminals partly because of negative publicity. The deer rifle might actually have increased the death toll, as the shooter did a "spray and pray" and half his shots hit the wall over the children's heads.

3) The NRA supports locking up criminals. The shooter in this case had a record ranging from prostitution to armed robbery but the California courts repeatedly refused to lock him up. Comments made before the shooting suggest that he was testing their limits, and had come up with something they couldn't ignore.

10:40 PM, September 04, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...

I DO also support more rigorous requirements for legal gun ownership, for whatever that's worth. And I'd be a bit suspicious of anyone who licensed an AK-47 for, say, dear hunting.

12:07 AM, September 05, 2006  
Blogger Jonathan said...

Graham Strouse: I take your points and acknowledge that I misinterpreted you and responded with unjustified harshness. Sorry for that, and thanks for your gracious response.

12:36 AM, September 05, 2006  
Anonymous Richard Aubrey said...

I suspect Harry Eager knew exactly what happened in California.

Why he misrepresented the issue is a question.

12:03 PM, September 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Helen asked why men resist going to therapy.

Part of it is related to this.

When a woman says, "We need to talk" she really means "I need to complain about you."

When a woman says, "We need to talk to a counselor" I think she really means "I need someone to back me up in complaining about you."

2:26 PM, September 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 2:26:

Which is why I don't bother to try to discuss relationship issues anymore. I try to be as patient as I can for as long as I can. Then, when I've had enough and I see things are not going to change, I leave. No discussion.

Is that preferable?

Andrea

3:24 PM, September 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea,

Yes.

Rusty

4:52 PM, September 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why aren't women encouraged to learn how to use and then carry weapons? It used to freak me out when my sisters lived in dangerous sections of Philadelphia.

11:30 PM, September 06, 2006  
Blogger TestSubjectXP said...

Reading these comments and the Learning To Shoot entry makes me think everyone lives simply to beat up bad guys these days.

2:58 AM, September 08, 2006  
Blogger Masked Menace© said...

Cham,
Backing up what Helen and Snitch said, I had a high school friend who did exactly what you're advocating. He gave them his money and keys.

The thug put my friend on his knees and shot him execution style in the back of the head.

He didn't live long that way either.

4:03 PM, September 13, 2006  
Blogger serket said...

fotd said: "Also, the way I see it, if liberals controlled the house and senate there would be less violent situations in the first place. This is because people would actually get rehabilatated and their would be a good economy so people would'nt have a reason to steal."

What is wrong with the economy? How will raising taxes and more government spending help?

anonymous @ 11:56 am said: "So, isn't gun control just part of keeping the Constitution "flexible, fluid, and protean"? I mean, shitting on the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments seems to be the Republican thing these days; why not take an equal-opportunity dump?"

What have Republicans done to the 1st Amendment? It seems like it's the Democrats who don't care about it with deciding which words are acceptable to use and defining which religious beliefs are acceptable. Plus there was probably more damage done to the 4th amendment during Clinton's term than at any time during Bush's term.

3:00 PM, February 26, 2007  
Blogger look said...

情趣用品,
性感睡衣,
免費視訊聊天,
視訊交友網,
美姬圖影,
情境坊歡愉用品,
花美姬情趣用品,
成人圖片,
臺灣情色網,
嘟嘟情人色網,
色情網站,
情境坊歡愉用品,
徵信,
徵信公司,
徵信,
外遇,
徵信,
徵信,
抓姦,
徵信,
外遇,
徵信,
徵信社,
徵信社,
抓姦,
徵信社,
徵信社,
徵信社,
,
,
整型,
視訊聊天,
視訊交友,
AV女優,
色情,
A片,
A片,
情趣用品,
情色,
A片,
色情影片,
情趣用品,
A片,
AV女優,
視訊聊天室,
聊天,
情趣用品,
情惑用品性易購,
情侶歡愉用品,
A片,
情趣,
情惑用品性易購,
辣妹視訊,
自慰套,
情侶歡愉用品,
寄情築園小遊戲,
aio交友愛情館,
美女視訊,
色情A片,
情趣用品,
徵信社,
情趣用品,
A片,
美女視訊,
色情A片,
AV女優,
A片,
辣妹視訊,
自慰套,
情侶歡愉用品,

12:28 AM, March 15, 2009  
Blogger mmbox said...

2008真情寫真aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室080影音視訊聊天室38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室520情色聊天室QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族080上班族聊天室6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片

7:41 AM, March 22, 2009  
Blogger mmbox said...

本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區momokoko同學會視訊kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風 成人 論壇kiss文學區taiwankiss文學區

7:41 AM, March 22, 2009  
Blogger nini said...

85cc免費影城 愛情公寓正妹牆川藏第一美女 成人影片 情色交友網 美女視訊 美女視訊 視訊情人高雄網 JP成人影城 383成人影城 aa片免費a片下載 a片線上看aa片免費看 ※a片線上試看※sex520免費影片※ aa片免費看 BT成人論壇 金瓶影片交流區 自拍美女聊天室 aa片免費a片下載 SEX520免費影片 免費a片 日本美女寫真集 sex520aa免費影片 sex520aa免費影片 BT成人網 Hotsee免費視訊交友 百分百貼影片區 SEX520免費影片 免費視訊聊天室 情人視訊高雄網 星光情色討論版 正妹牆 383成人影城 線上85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 免費視訊聊天室 85cc免費影片 85cc免費影片 080苗栗人聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 免費a片下載 免費a片 AA片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 日本av女優影片 av女優 av女優無碼影城 av女優 av女優 百分百成人圖片 百分百成人圖片 視訊情人高雄網 電話交友 影音電話交友 絕色影城 絕色影城 夜未眠成人影城 夜未眠成人影城 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 免費色咪咪貼影片 免費色咪咪貼影片 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 影音視訊交友網 視訊交友網 080視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊聊天室 成人影音視訊聊天室 ut影音視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊ukiss聊天室視訊ukiss聊天室 視訊交友90739 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 視訊美女館 視訊美女館 免費視訊美女網 小高聊天室 小高聊天室 aio交友聊天室 aio交友聊天室 交友聊天室 交友聊天室 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 免費線上a片 免費線上a片 嘟嘟成人網站 成人漫畫 情色文學 嘟嘟成人網 成人貼圖區 情色文學成人小說 微風成人區 情色貼圖區 免費視訊聊天 免費成人圖片區 愛情公寓 愛情公寓聊天室 寄情築園小遊戲 免費aa片線上看 aa片免費看 情色SXE聊天室 SEX情色遊戲 色情A片 免費下載 av女優 俱樂部 情色論壇 辣妹視訊 情色貼圖網 免費色情 聊天室 情人視訊聊天室 免費a片成人影城 免費a片-aa片免費看 0204貼圖區 SEX情色 交友聊天-線上免費 女優天堂 成人交友網 成人情色貼圖區 18禁 -女優王國 080視訊美女聊天室 080視訊聊天室 視訊交友90739 免費a片 aio 視訊交友網 成人影城-免費a片※免費視訊聊天※85cc免費影片日本線上免費a片 免費色咪咪影片免費色咪咪影片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看成人影城免費色咪咪影片

2:20 PM, April 05, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

免費視訊聊天
ut聊天室辣妹視訊
kk777視訊俱樂部
UT影音視訊聊天室
吉澤明步
85cc免費影片
立花里子無碼
aaa片免費看短片
美女視訊
台南視訊,080情人網
日本免費視訊
aa片免費看
視訊網愛聊天室
影音視訊交友
咆哮小老鼠分享論壇
sex520免費影片
aio辣妺視訊
百事無碼a片
jp成人影片
免費av成人 情色
免費視訊美女色美眉部落格
168論壇視訊辣妹
免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友
s383視訊玩美女人
34c高雄視訊聊天
yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
aaa俱樂部
jp成人
Show-live視訊聊天室
免費視訊辣妹
QQ美女視訊秀
live173影音視訊聊天室
真人視訊交友
辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
倉井空免費影片
UT視訊美女交友
視訊美女 寫真
視訊情色網
亞洲東洋影片avdvd
ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊
激情網愛聊天
秘密情人影音視訊網
av無碼,一夜情,偷拍,免費影片下載
色漫畫帝國sex888免費看影
拓網視訊交友
34c視訊網愛聊天室
xxx383美女寫真迷愛聊天
sex999免費影片兼職援交
辣妹視訊網
免費視訊78論壇
情色香港論壇
我愛78論壇情色情趣 商品
美女show-live視訊情色
美眉共和國080情人網
s383情色大網咖視訊
aaa免費看影片
kk777視訊俱樂部
小魔女影城
sexy diamond sex888入口
104免費成人情色文學小說
免費成人影片,g點
彩虹無碼av女優
成人免費視訊 完美女人
美女短片免費試看
tw33 影片交流
南台灣視訊網愛聊天室
sex888movie影城
18 禁亞洲名模瘋情
洪爺免費線上歐美A片段觀看
情人辣妹影片視訊直播
QQ美女視訊秀
hi5 tv免費影片sex貼片網
新浪視訊
日本視訊小魔女自拍
美女交友影音視訊聊天室
domain hilive.tv限制級
sex888免費看影片波霸美女寫真
love104影音live秀
甜心寶貝直播貼片自慰
捷克論壇
桃園援交小魔女自拍天堂

4:53 AM, April 06, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

免費視訊聊天
ut聊天室辣妹視訊
kk777視訊俱樂部
UT影音視訊聊天室
吉澤明步
85cc免費影片
立花里子無碼
aaa片免費看短片
美女視訊
台南視訊,080情人網
日本免費視訊
aa片免費看
視訊網愛聊天室
影音視訊交友
咆哮小老鼠分享論壇
sex520免費影片
aio辣妺視訊
百事無碼a片
jp成人影片
免費av成人 情色
免費視訊美女色美眉部落格
168論壇視訊辣妹
免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友
s383視訊玩美女人
34c高雄視訊聊天
yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
aaa俱樂部
jp成人
Show-live視訊聊天室
免費視訊辣妹
QQ美女視訊秀
live173影音視訊聊天室
真人視訊交友
辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
倉井空免費影片
UT視訊美女交友
視訊美女 寫真
視訊情色網
亞洲東洋影片avdvd
ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊
激情網愛聊天
秘密情人影音視訊網
av無碼,一夜情,偷拍,免費影片下載
色漫畫帝國sex888免費看影
拓網視訊交友
34c視訊網愛聊天室
xxx383美女寫真迷愛聊天
sex999免費影片兼職援交
辣妹視訊網
免費視訊78論壇
情色香港論壇
我愛78論壇情色情趣 商品
美女show-live視訊情色
美眉共和國080情人網
s383情色大網咖視訊
aaa免費看影片
kk777視訊俱樂部
小魔女影城
sexy diamond sex888入口
104免費成人情色文學小說
免費成人影片,g點
彩虹無碼av女優
成人免費視訊 完美女人
美女短片免費試看
tw33 影片交流
南台灣視訊網愛聊天室
sex888movie影城
18 禁亞洲名模瘋情
洪爺免費線上歐美A片段觀看
情人辣妹影片視訊直播
QQ美女視訊秀
hi5 tv免費影片sex貼片網
新浪視訊
日本視訊小魔女自拍
美女交友影音視訊聊天室
domain hilive.tv限制級
sex888免費看影片波霸美女寫真
love104影音live秀
甜心寶貝直播貼片自慰
捷克論壇
桃園援交小魔女自拍天堂

4:54 AM, April 06, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

免費視訊聊天
ut聊天室辣妹視訊
kk777視訊俱樂部
UT影音視訊聊天室
吉澤明步
85cc免費影片
立花里子無碼
aaa片免費看短片
美女視訊
台南視訊,080情人網
日本免費視訊
aa片免費看
視訊網愛聊天室
影音視訊交友
咆哮小老鼠分享論壇
sex520免費影片
aio辣妺視訊
百事無碼a片
jp成人影片
免費av成人 情色
免費視訊美女色美眉部落格
168論壇視訊辣妹
免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友
s383視訊玩美女人
34c高雄視訊聊天
yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
aaa俱樂部
jp成人
Show-live視訊聊天室
免費視訊辣妹
QQ美女視訊秀
live173影音視訊聊天室
真人視訊交友
辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
倉井空免費影片
UT視訊美女交友
視訊美女 寫真
視訊情色網
亞洲東洋影片avdvd
ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊
激情網愛聊天
秘密情人影音視訊網
av無碼,一夜情,偷拍,免費影片下載
色漫畫帝國sex888免費看影
拓網視訊交友
34c視訊網愛聊天室
xxx383美女寫真迷愛聊天
sex999免費影片兼職援交
辣妹視訊網
免費視訊78論壇
情色香港論壇
我愛78論壇情色情趣 商品
美女show-live視訊情色
美眉共和國080情人網
s383情色大網咖視訊
aaa免費看影片
kk777視訊俱樂部
小魔女影城
sexy diamond sex888入口
104免費成人情色文學小說
免費成人影片,g點
彩虹無碼av女優
成人免費視訊 完美女人
美女短片免費試看
tw33 影片交流
南台灣視訊網愛聊天室
sex888movie影城
18 禁亞洲名模瘋情
洪爺免費線上歐美A片段觀看
情人辣妹影片視訊直播
QQ美女視訊秀
hi5 tv免費影片sex貼片網
新浪視訊
日本視訊小魔女自拍
美女交友影音視訊聊天室
domain hilive.tv限制級
sex888免費看影片波霸美女寫真
love104影音live秀
甜心寶貝直播貼片自慰
捷克論壇
桃園援交小魔女自拍天堂

4:54 AM, April 06, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

"免費視訊美女520sexy girl
sogo論壇aa片免費看
免費線上 aa 片試看85CC
情色18 禁sex520免費a長片
av女優影片情色文學
日本av淫蕩人妻免費漫畫帝國
777美女dvd無碼av女優
視訊辣妹girl5320 貼片貼圖區
本土自拍影片qq 美美色網漫畫
百分百成人圖片avdvd
視訊辣妹找援交
dodo豆豆聊天室
成人影片下載免費線上a片
sex999日本美女寫真集
色情漫畫777美女dvdav
小護士免費 aa 片試看
網路自拍美女聊天室天堂
080聊天網桃園天堂
雪之深戀 080聊天網水之浪漫
sex888入口免費性影片觀賞
高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
aa 片試看免費卡通
百分百成人情色圖片
嘟嘟情人網影片
內衣模特兒寫真成人圖貼
免費視訊78論壇
拓網學生族視訊777美女
辣妹有約辣妹no31314視訊
dudu sex免費 aa 片試看
成人a影片論壇
"

3:01 AM, April 07, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

免費視訊聊天
ut聊天室辣妹視訊
kk777視訊俱樂部
UT影音視訊聊天室
吉澤明步
85cc免費影片
立花里子無碼
aaa片免費看短片
美女視訊
台南視訊,080情人網
日本免費視訊
aa片免費看
視訊網愛聊天室
影音視訊交友
咆哮小老鼠分享論壇
sex520免費影片
aio辣妺視訊
百事無碼a片
jp成人影片
免費av成人 情色
免費視訊美女色美眉部落格
168論壇視訊辣妹
免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友
s383視訊玩美女人
34c高雄視訊聊天
yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
aaa俱樂部
jp成人
Show-live視訊聊天室
免費視訊辣妹
QQ美女視訊秀
live173影音視訊聊天室
真人視訊交友
辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
倉井空免費影片
UT視訊美女交友
視訊美女 寫真
視訊情色網
亞洲東洋影片avdvd
ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊
激情網愛聊天
秘密情人影音視訊網
av無碼,一夜情,偷拍,免費影片下載
色漫畫帝國sex888免費看影
拓網視訊交友
34c視訊網愛聊天室
xxx383美女寫真迷愛聊天
sex999免費影片兼職援交
辣妹視訊網
免費視訊78論壇
情色香港論壇
我愛78論壇情色情趣 商品
美女show-live視訊情色
美眉共和國080情人網
s383情色大網咖視訊
aaa免費看影片
kk777視訊俱樂部
小魔女影城
sexy diamond sex888入口
104免費成人情色文學小說
免費成人影片,g點
彩虹無碼av女優
成人免費視訊 完美女人
美女短片免費試看
tw33 影片交流
南台灣視訊網愛聊天室
sex888movie影城
18 禁亞洲名模瘋情
洪爺免費線上歐美A片段觀看
情人辣妹影片視訊直播
QQ美女視訊秀
hi5 tv免費影片sex貼片網
新浪視訊
日本視訊小魔女自拍
美女交友影音視訊聊天室
domain hilive.tv限制級
sex888免費看影片波霸美女寫真
love104影音live秀
甜心寶貝直播貼片自慰
捷克論壇
桃園援交小魔女自拍天堂
裸體高雄援交妹
gogo2sex桃園視訊妹
85cc情色視訊交友
視訊妹迷愛聊天
34c情人視訊網愛聊天室
南台灣視訊貓貓論壇
視訊美女
21sex美女視訊交友
34c美女寶貝視訊
免費a片線上觀看s383視訊
視訊交友90739,限制級,777美女dvd
免費成人影片,日本美女寫真集
080情人網,本土自拍貼圖
ut同志交友網
禁地論壇比基尼辣妹
dvd線上aa片免費看
show-live名模視訊
情人小魔女自拍
視訊自拍美女聊天室

3:01 AM, April 07, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

85cc免費影城aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片aaa免費看影片aaaaa片俱樂部影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片aa影片下載城微風成人av論壇免費a片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片小魔女免費影片免費視訊聊天 a片免費看a 免費影片觀賞免費視訊聊天室微風成人85cc免費影片85cc成人影城免費成人視訊亞洲禁果影城aa的滿18歲影片A片-sex女優王國aaaaa片俱樂部免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看A片-sex女優王國情色偷拍免費A片免費A片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片aaa影片下載城日本免費視訊av俱樂部後宮0204movie免費影片免費 a 片ut聊天室辣妹視訊情色美女視訊聊天室免費卡通影片線上觀看 ut交友成人視訊免費A片av1688影音視訊天堂aaa的滿18歲卡通影片s383情色大網咖視訊美女館aaaa 片俱樂部免費a片卡通aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片 杜蕾斯成人UT影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊78論壇免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片aa影片下載城色漫畫帝國kk777視訊俱樂部美女視訊5278論壇ut聊天室aio交友愛情館免費視訊聊天成人a圖片區小說頻道彩虹頻道免費影片jp成人小魔女免費影城免費 aa 片試看情色文學A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道亞洲東洋影片gay片免費下載卡通aa片免費看成人影片分享小魔女免費影片視訊高雄情人聊天室34c卡通美女a片免費試看av免費影片,視訊聊天go2av免費影片情色 網站sex女優王國高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片plus論壇080情人網免費av影片免費a片卡通浪漫月光論壇免費aa片avdvd無碼影音視訊交友 免費視訊辣妹情人視訊網免費視訊辣妹 免費視訊78論壇台灣kiss情色貼圖區sex免費看影片彩虹論壇免費視訊聊天室 咆哮小老鼠分享論壇月宮貼圖色妹妹嘟嘟情人色網日本美女寫真集,kk視訊成人情色 視訊21sexsexy辣妹視訊百分百成人情色圖片ut辣妹哈啦視訊聊天室 素人自拍免費影片線上觀賞論壇男人的最愛中國性愛城avdvd無碼aaa免費看影片bt電影下載,免費成人片免費a片卡通dudu sex

3:02 AM, April 07, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

"免費視訊美女520sexy girl
sogo論壇aa片免費看
免費線上 aa 片試看85CC
情色18 禁sex520免費a長片
av女優影片情色文學
日本av淫蕩人妻免費漫畫帝國
777美女dvd無碼av女優
視訊辣妹girl5320 貼片貼圖區
本土自拍影片qq 美美色網漫畫
百分百成人圖片avdvd
視訊辣妹找援交
dodo豆豆聊天室
成人影片下載免費線上a片
sex999日本美女寫真集
色情漫畫777美女dvdav
小護士免費 aa 片試看
網路自拍美女聊天室天堂
080聊天網桃園天堂
雪之深戀 080聊天網水之浪漫
sex888入口免費性影片觀賞
高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
aa 片試看免費卡通
百分百成人情色圖片
嘟嘟情人網影片
內衣模特兒寫真成人圖貼
免費視訊78論壇
拓網學生族視訊777美女
辣妹有約辣妹no31314視訊
dudu sex免費 aa 片試看
成人a影片論壇
"

3:02 AM, April 07, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

免費視訊聊天
ut聊天室辣妹視訊
kk777視訊俱樂部
UT影音視訊聊天室
吉澤明步
85cc免費影片
立花里子無碼
aaa片免費看短片
美女視訊
台南視訊,080情人網
日本免費視訊
aa片免費看
視訊網愛聊天室
影音視訊交友
咆哮小老鼠分享論壇
sex520免費影片
aio辣妺視訊
百事無碼a片
jp成人影片
免費av成人 情色
免費視訊美女色美眉部落格
168論壇視訊辣妹
免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友
s383視訊玩美女人
34c高雄視訊聊天
yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
aaa俱樂部
jp成人
Show-live視訊聊天室
免費視訊辣妹
QQ美女視訊秀
live173影音視訊聊天室
真人視訊交友
辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
倉井空免費影片
UT視訊美女交友
視訊美女 寫真
視訊情色網
亞洲東洋影片avdvd
ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊
激情網愛聊天
秘密情人影音視訊網
av無碼,一夜情,偷拍,免費影片下載
色漫畫帝國sex888免費看影
拓網視訊交友
34c視訊網愛聊天室
xxx383美女寫真迷愛聊天
sex999免費影片兼職援交
辣妹視訊網
免費視訊78論壇
情色香港論壇
我愛78論壇情色情趣 商品
美女show-live視訊情色
美眉共和國080情人網
s383情色大網咖視訊
aaa免費看影片
kk777視訊俱樂部
小魔女影城
sexy diamond sex888入口
104免費成人情色文學小說
免費成人影片,g點
彩虹無碼av女優
成人免費視訊 完美女人
美女短片免費試看
tw33 影片交流
南台灣視訊網愛聊天室
sex888movie影城
18 禁亞洲名模瘋情
洪爺免費線上歐美A片段觀看
情人辣妹影片視訊直播
QQ美女視訊秀
hi5 tv免費影片sex貼片網
新浪視訊
日本視訊小魔女自拍
美女交友影音視訊聊天室
domain hilive.tv限制級
sex888免費看影片波霸美女寫真
love104影音live秀
甜心寶貝直播貼片自慰
捷克論壇
桃園援交小魔女自拍天堂
裸體高雄援交妹
gogo2sex桃園視訊妹
85cc情色視訊交友
視訊妹迷愛聊天
34c情人視訊網愛聊天室
南台灣視訊貓貓論壇
視訊美女
21sex美女視訊交友
34c美女寶貝視訊
免費a片線上觀看s383視訊
視訊交友90739,限制級,777美女dvd
免費成人影片,日本美女寫真集
080情人網,本土自拍貼圖
ut同志交友網
禁地論壇比基尼辣妹
dvd線上aa片免費看
show-live名模視訊
情人小魔女自拍
視訊自拍美女聊天室

3:02 AM, April 07, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

85cc免費影城aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片aaa免費看影片aaaaa片俱樂部影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片aa影片下載城微風成人av論壇免費a片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片小魔女免費影片免費視訊聊天 a片免費看a 免費影片觀賞免費視訊聊天室微風成人85cc免費影片85cc成人影城免費成人視訊亞洲禁果影城aa的滿18歲影片A片-sex女優王國aaaaa片俱樂部免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看A片-sex女優王國情色偷拍免費A片免費A片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片aaa影片下載城日本免費視訊av俱樂部後宮0204movie免費影片免費 a 片ut聊天室辣妹視訊情色美女視訊聊天室免費卡通影片線上觀看 ut交友成人視訊免費A片av1688影音視訊天堂aaa的滿18歲卡通影片s383情色大網咖視訊美女館aaaa 片俱樂部免費a片卡通aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片 杜蕾斯成人UT影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊78論壇免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片aa影片下載城色漫畫帝國kk777視訊俱樂部美女視訊5278論壇ut聊天室aio交友愛情館免費視訊聊天成人a圖片區小說頻道彩虹頻道免費影片jp成人小魔女免費影城免費 aa 片試看情色文學A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道亞洲東洋影片gay片免費下載卡通aa片免費看成人影片分享小魔女免費影片視訊高雄情人聊天室34c卡通美女a片免費試看av免費影片,視訊聊天go2av免費影片情色 網站sex女優王國高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片plus論壇080情人網免費av影片免費a片卡通浪漫月光論壇免費aa片avdvd無碼影音視訊交友 免費視訊辣妹情人視訊網免費視訊辣妹 免費視訊78論壇台灣kiss情色貼圖區sex免費看影片彩虹論壇免費視訊聊天室 咆哮小老鼠分享論壇月宮貼圖色妹妹嘟嘟情人色網日本美女寫真集,kk視訊成人情色 視訊21sexsexy辣妹視訊百分百成人情色圖片ut辣妹哈啦視訊聊天室 素人自拍免費影片線上觀賞論壇男人的最愛中國性愛城avdvd無碼aaa免費看影片bt電影下載,免費成人片免費a片卡通dudu sex

3:02 AM, April 07, 2009  
Blogger 123456 said...

广州托盘复合托盘食品托盘天津木托盘胶合板托盘蜂窝纸托盘塑木托盘熏蒸木托盘木制托盘广东塑料托盘钢托盘钢制托盘栈板塑料栈板木栈板垫仓板托盘包装求购托盘天津托盘温州托盘山东托盘北京托盘上海木托盘塑胶托盘卡板纸卡板塑料卡板手推车推车机场手推车好孩子手推车液压手推车超市手推车医用手推车康贝手推车不锈钢手推车平板车电动平板车老虎车静音手推车平板手推车小推车模具架置物架堆垛架巧固架整理架物料整理架挂板架整理柜零件柜零件整理柜文件整理柜仓储笼仓库笼料箱塑料箱钢制料箱货箱整理箱塑料整理箱周转箱塑料周转箱防静电周转箱求购周转箱物流箱物料盒零件盒塑料零件盒卡板箱周转筐塑料周转筐周转箩登高车物流台车台车密集架档案密集架文件柜办公文件柜北京文件柜广州文件柜上海文件柜南京文件柜深圳文件柜钢制文件柜铁皮文件柜档案柜文件柜厂底图柜档案柜鞋柜储物柜更衣柜防火防磁柜防磁柜防火防磁文件柜图书架资料柜工具柜

5:02 AM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger 徵信 said...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇


外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇

外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇

外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿

4:42 AM, April 20, 2009  
Blogger 1314 said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

10:57 PM, May 19, 2009  
Blogger 1122 said...

情趣 用品 店aa片免費看本土自拍自拍貼圖aaa片免費看短片自拍美女聊天室 s383微風成人線上成人影片本土自拍性感辣妹成人網站成人光碟成人影城a片下載免費卡通a片成人光碟18成人成人聊天室85cc成人片成人電影成人圖片0204免費影片分享成人貼圖免費試看av成人影片

11:39 PM, June 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home