Monday, November 13, 2006

Self Defense, Tennessee Style

Last night while watching the local Knoxville news, the lead story was a triumph in self defensive gun use. Greg "Lumpy" Lambert, a Knoxville commissioner was robbed at gun point at his car dealership. Even though the robber had the draw on Lambert, that did not stop him from protecting himself and his business:

Lambert, who is a strong gun rights activist and member of the National Rifle Association, reached into his pocket and pulled out his gun.

"I did a more proper draw out and up, and of course at that point I said, 'Drop it,' Lambert said. "He said he didn't want any trouble. He just wanted to leave. I said, 'You're not leaving with that gun.' Of course, I was using some profanities. I have to confess in a tense situation I can have a potty mouth."

Lambert says Stackhouse dropped his gun on the floor and fled. He left his driver's licence at the business.

Knox county authorities arrested him several hours later.

I love the picture of "Lumpy" drawing his gun here--I wonder how many news stations would feature such a positive gun story like this outside of Tennessee or the South?


Blogger amy said...

I think is a great story, Dr. Helen. I'm not a huge advocate for carrying weapons, but I think Lumpy had a right to protect his business. This is what I miss about living in Knoxville: the real personalities that live there!

7:39 AM, November 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A spectacularly cool-headed approach given the situation.

Yet another vote in the "move out of NYC" column.

8:14 AM, November 13, 2006  
Blogger SFN said...

Always good to hear about that sort of thing - but I hope the gun in the picture was pointing in a safer direction than it looks. I occasionally use firearms as props in photo shoots and think it's important to maintain the safety rules even in a model shoot and even if the gun is internally disabled in some fashion.

11:53 AM, November 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even in the south, it depends on the news outlet. A D/FW paper recently had a headline about a local "student" who had been shot. The headline inferred that this was an innocent victim of gun violence.

If you actually took time to read the article, you would find that he was killed by a 63 year old homeowner, completely unknown to him, after having kicked the man's door in and entered the house at 4:30 a.m. The article also noted, further down, that the young man had a long criminal record.

People must have complained, because I noticed that the headline was changed on the website today.

12:24 PM, November 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, the old man's experience didn't follow the MSM's template of "criminal takes gun from foolish gun-owner and shoots him with it," so they had to use a fall-back template: "tragic death of promising young man who was forced into a life of crime by the injustices of society."

There's a template for every occasion...

12:38 PM, November 13, 2006  
Blogger Pat Patterson said...

Shouldn't the question be how many media outlets outside of the South would even use the name "Lumpy" on its pages or over the airwaves?

3:39 PM, November 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" mace, pepper spray & stun guns are better street deterrents--easier to conceal prior to weapon discharge & instantly disabling."

Nope. Around 2-5% of the population (don't recall exact figure) is nearly immune one or the other... and exposure over time can help build up resistance as well. Mace & pepper spray are eye jab in a can--nothing more and nothing less. Stun guns can be blocked at least partially by the right clothing, and tasers (same thing but ranged) are known to be ineffective in some situations as well.

4:05 PM, November 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While in the navy we had to get maced, part of the training to carry them for the VBSS (Visit, Board, Search and Seizure) team (not that we ever ended up carrying any). While it is rather annoying, it is no where near as bad as CS gas. The only thing it is sure to do is really piss of whoever you use it against. I know if anyone uses mace on me the only thing I'll be thinking about is hurting them very badly. Wearing glasses also really reduced the effectiveness of mace.

Stun guns and tasers are actually quite different. While both produce electric shock the frequencies and voltages are different. A taser will pretty much shut down all voluntary muscle action for the whole body while stun guns will only interfere around the area in contact. Heavy clothing will also stop stun guns and some tasers. One of my friends in 6th grade has a stun gun and we use to shock each other, painfull but nothing you cant push through with a little adrenaline.

5:16 PM, November 13, 2006  
Blogger Ill Tempered Cur said...

As I recall, the Beltway snipers were using an AR15-pattern rifle, not your classic American hunting rifle. Definitely a different animal, depending on your opinion of "assault rifles" of course.

Nice to hear of another example of a firearm being used to peacefully thwart a criminal's actions. Not crazy about the photo though. Smacks of a bit more bravado than I'm comfortable with. But that's me.

8:01 PM, November 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn good job that car dealer didn't live here in the UK or he'd be Lumpy and holey by now.

8:41 PM, November 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh my gosh, I can't believe nobody was harmed without bringing some sort of go9venment official into the scene. Guess they got luucky!

10:27 PM, November 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hm. That picture reminds me of that picture of John Scalzi's wife. You didn't seem to care for that one much.

3:44 PM, November 15, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Anonymous 3:44:

Lumpy was protecting himself from a severe threat, a robber, with a gun. Scalzi's wife (from the pic and original description given) was putting a man in his place for being schmucky. There's a difference--if you do not know the difference, you know nothing about the boundarires of how and when to use violence/self-defense.

7:42 PM, November 15, 2006  
Blogger kentuckyliz said...

I've seen news articles and blog entries about Muslim gangs raping Scandinavian women (in Scandinavian countries)--what they need is to quit their fetish with victim disarmament and get a Second Amendment and have the right by natural and positive law to defend oneself, person and property.

Why must Scandinavian infidel women pay the price for Euroweenieness peacenikism? All the Euroweenie nonvictims can cluck in their superior way about the sorts of people who carry uncivilized! Perhaps, but they ain't VICTIMS.

7:54 PM, November 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


No, the photo was not of Lumpy protecting himself from a severe threat. He was posing, as was Scalzi's wife. There's a difference--if you do not know the difference, you know nothing about, uh, portraiture.

8:07 PM, November 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You fool. There is a clear distinction between an armed robber and a drunk.

9:25 PM, November 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, of course I don't disagree with that statement. But that's got nothing to do with the photos. The photos are just posed shots that have nothing to do with the facts of the incident. Helen likes the use of a gun in the Lumpy case but doesn't like strong-arm tactics in the Scalzi case, fine. But she made a big deal about the photo which again had nothing to do with the indicent.

7:53 AM, November 16, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Lumpy's picture shows him demonstrating how he protected his life and his property--not his "dignity." He has no caption indicating that he "beats the crap out of people if they do not respect him" as Ms. Scalzi's pic does. If he did have such a caption and he bragged about putting his arm to men or women's throats at a bar who came on to him, I would have a problem with that, just as I did with the pic caption, and actions of Ms. Scalzi.

8:15 AM, November 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it sad when liberals lose their nuance?

8:33 AM, November 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Strouse - let me tell you something about you. Based on what I've read here...with all of your bragging and macho chest beating crap, you are probably a homosexual. Probably pretend to be big and scary and macho so that no one will find out. Listen, I am a gun owner as well, so I won't fault you for that, but you really need to read your forensic data on the impact a .22 caliber round has on soft tissue and hard tissue like bone. I have known of 15 people (some friends of mine) that have been shot with a .22 and lived. The .22 once it strikes hard tissue will not penetrate but rather ricochet off. But let me simplify this for you, because you sound like a simpleton to me. .22 in the skull, most likely will follow the line of the skull (under the skin) until it pops out the skin somewhere else. Leaving the guy that was shot a little bloody and a lot angry. Shot in the chest the bullet might never reach the organs due to being stopped by the sternum or a rib. This is as simple as I can make it. Large wound channel = more blood lost = person dead faster. The bottom line is you never know how someone will react once they are shot. Some will die if you shoot them in the arm from the shock of it, while others will keep fighting you with 4 .38's or 9 9mm's in their chest. That being said... bigger is always better in gun calibers, and I would never stake my life or someone's life that is under my protection on the power/stoppage of a .22. By the way, with how insecure you sound, I really hope you never get in a life and death struggle (with or without your .22 gun). Keep lifting the weights Mr. Tough man, you definitely need them. Just hope you don't ever meet someone like me.

11:06 PM, January 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more comment for the guy that is "nightmare to deal with in close combat. I'm too strong for little guys & too quick for big guys & too mean for God". I know that you have no idea you are talking about. Case in point, I have seen little guys practically kill much larger and stronger opponents (moral - size and strength don't mean anything if you know what you are doing.) For your other comment, I have seen fat greasy 300 pound truck drivers knock the total hell out of semi-pro boxers (well one anyway. So there goes your other theory). Thirdly, Don't blaspheme against GOD, one day (judgement (look it up!)) you will see if you are too mean for him, but I can assure you right now that this is not the case. P.S. I don't think I will have any nightmares over you.

11:28 PM, January 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


11:56 PM, June 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home