Woman Pulls Gun on Knife Wielding Attacker

In December, a Milwaukee man attempted to rob a corner market only to be stopped by a female store clerk with a firearm.

The incident, which occurred on December 14, was caught on surveillance video and shows a white man pulling a knife on a female clerk as she began to ring him up for a small purchase.

After the attempted robber pulled his knife and began to yank at the cash register, the female clerk pulled out a handgun from under the counter causing the attacker to cower to the floor, then run out of the store in haste leaving the cash behind.

Milwaukee police are looking for a white male, 25-35 years old, weighing 165 pounds.

Anyone with information about this crime is asked to call Milwaukee police at 414-935-7360.

A recent study by the CATO Institute found that during an 8-year period, some 5,000 incidents where guns were used to stop a crime were reported in the media.

Authors of the study warn gun-control advocates that if they “are truly interested in harm reduction, they should pause to consider how many crimes — murders, rapes, assaults, robberies — are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns.”

Gary Kleck, Ph.D., a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee, found in a study he conducted in the early 1990′s that 2.5 million crimes are prevented each year by guns in the hands of private citizens.

Larry King: That Piers Morgan is Awfully Self-Absorbed, Isn't He?
Cincy TV News Calls Out PIers Morgan's False Anti-Gun Stats
  • jim_m

    2.5 million crimes are prevented each year by guns in the hands of private citizens.

    Obviously, guns are destroying the economy. If we didn’t have gun rights, then we would need more police, more police uniforms, more office staff, more lawyers for all the criminals apprehended, more prisons, etc, etc. If we can only encourage more criminality we would have a booming economy.

  • jim_w

    that’s funny. pls don’t give the left any ideas though, the sarcasm could get missed.

  • GarandFan

    Milwaukee police are looking for a white male, 25-35 years old, weighing 165 pounds.

    With shit in his pants.

    FIFY

  • LiberalNightmare

    No one on the left would complain about this if he was trying to taker her birth control away.

  • jim_m

    Here’s a gun control law everyone should be able to get behind:

    Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them

    Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.

    After all, if we are supposed to be safer this way why shouldn’t they be safer? I’ll believe these fascists when they start actually doing stuff like this.

    • jim_m

      Then again the Chicago Police Commissioner just declared what amounts to be open season on CCW permit holders in Chicago once the new law is passed.

      It isn’t about protecting the people. It is about protecting the political class and preserving their power over a defenseless public. It’s obvious in Chicago where guns are banned and police are routinely caught beating female bartenders for refusing to serve their drunk asses or beating wedding guests to death.

      Police brutality has cost Chicago tens of millions of dollars. Even so the left wants to preserve this little slice of despotism and expand it to the entire US. The reason is to make the public easier to victimize. Gun control has nothing to do with public safety.

  • Pingback: Woman Pulls Gun on Knife Wielding Attacker | _

  • Par4Course

    Gun control is not about making us safer. It is about using the public outrage over the Newtown massacre to increase the power of the federal government and decrease the individual rights of citizens. This is the liberal agenda, fueled by the urgency of never letting a crisis (or a tragedy) go to waste.

    • herddog505

      I agree that gun control doesn’t make us safer. But I’m willing to give (most) lefties the benefit of the doubt: I don’t think they want to take away rights, give more power to the government, or explicitly plan to take advantage of tragedies to do these things.

      I suggest, rather, that gun control is a reflexive, ingrained policy choice that they’ve pursued for so long that the need for it is (to them) self-evident, a matter of faith. When a tragedy occurs, it is natural for them to say, “AHAH! As we’ve always told you! NOW are you ready to talk about the wise policies that we’ve been advocating for years?” Everybody likes to say, “I told you so.”

      I suggest that there’s also a certain element of spite: “Wingers like guns, so we’ll show THEM who’s boss by taking them away!” We’ve seen that attitude nakedly expressed here.

      What lefties don’t understand (they aren’t the brightest bulbs in the box) is the effect of their policies. Again, they’ve been pursuing the goal for so long that it’s become an end to itself: the effects don’t matter. Winning is all that counts.

      • jim_m

        I think two things play into that. First is a naive belief that a left dominated government will never oppress them. And the second is a willingness to sacrifice rights that they do not actively exercise and particularly the rights of others they dislike.

        No one sets out to be a tool of an oppressive government. But the ends justify the means mentality of the left results in a willingness to sacrifice everything for short term gains without any consideration for what precedent is set for the future.

        The left does not believe in precedent. They believe that like David Gregory, they will get preferential treatment before an authoritarian government. They believe that they can remove our constitutional rights and retain their own. They believe that laws will be selectively enforced to their benefit. They have reason to believe that they are correct given the left wing government’s willingness to do exactly that. We are faced with a runaway government that no longer believes in equal protection under the law and every lefty supports that.

        • jim_m

          Here’s a good comment on the whole David Gregory thing:

          What the decision to not prosecute Gregory while simultaneously insisting that the magazine ban law that he violated is important means is that there is absolutely no moral component to our legal system.

          The only reason to not violate the law is from a reasonable fear of getting caught if you don’t have enough juice to get out of it. This also has interesting implications for the jury system.

          Let’s see how well this new way of organizing society works out.

          The left is deliberately establishing a lawless system of government and replacing our old system with a system based in bribery and corruption.

          • herddog505

            David Gregory, Jon Corzine, Maxine Waters… If one is a well-connected lib, the laws really don’t apply.

      • Par4Course

        I agree that many well meaning people want gun control out of a reflexive, ingrained policy choice, a dislike of guns and a distaste for those who own guns. I do NOT believe this benign, naive attitude applies to liberal leaders such as B. Hussein Obama, Joe Bite-Me, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or many of their followers. These people want more government and fewer individual rights. Gun control is just one aspect of their overall statist agenda.

        Further, if any gun control law is passed, the first time there is another Aurora or Newtown type tragedy, they will say it’s only because their program was not enough – they need more controls. Like every liberal program, the fault is never in the concept, it’s always in the fact that it was not taken far enough. This is a slippery slope that we should avoid.

        • jim_m

          That’s the way the left is with all their policies. Their policies are never wrong they just weren’t far enough left. The stimulus didn’t fail, it wasn’t big enough, Communism didn’t fail, they weren’t sufficiently dogmatic in their communism.

          Gun control won’t fail, it will be because they didn’t ban enough guns or because they didn’t have no knock raids on suspected gun owners. The real issue is allowing a population that is willing to stand up against lefty authority.

        • herddog505

          Par4CourseThis is a slippery slope that we should avoid.

          I agree. It occurs to me that many of us fall into the trap of negotiating on the left’s terms: we “engage in dialogues” about “common sense solutions”. This is a tacit admission that guns ARE a problem, that gun control of some sort is the answer, and that the federal government has the power to do it.

          It seems to me better to focus on crime control: attempting to eliminate the causes of crime (poverty, ignorance, lawlessness) and also removing career criminals from society permanently.

          • jim_m

            attempting to eliminate the causes of crime (poverty, ignorance, lawlessness)

            Hey! If you eliminate ignorance and lawlessness, who is going to be left in the democratic party?

          • herddog505

            Oh, I’m sure that the rich white liberals will find SOMETHING to wring their hands over. What else is global warming all about?

  • Paul Hooson

    Some crazy guy threatened my customers in a business I owned with a machete one day. Some insane crazed guy walked into a house I was renovating after a fire another time. I didn’t need a weapon in either case. Both guys backed down, because I’m a biker. Weapon or not, many guys don’t like a good beatdown and will back off. Having a weapon usually proves that they aren’t that much of a man and tells you where they’re at in their headspace. I see a weapon, and I see a sissyass. That means stand up to them and they’ll wilt and run in most cases.

    • Vagabond661

      Biker? Schwinn?

      • Paul Hooson

        Nope, Big Mike’s Chopper(1648cc) and a chopper trike among other bikes I own. (Check out my photo on my Facebook page for some of the bikes I own).

        Tell me about the military. Men in my family represent all four branches of military service since WWII. My own grandfather was taken prisoner by the Japanese. He was a ship captain, another close relative died when a kamizaze pilot smashed his Zero into his gun. My dad’d brother is a Purple Heart winner. His other brother was a Marine, etc.

        The fact of the matter is that when something goes down a guy is either ready to defend himself or not. I see a lot of big blowhard talk by some guys about guns. But, big talk doesn’t do so much when some whack job walks in the door of a business I owned and threatened my customers with a machete. I stood up to him and he backed down and left. Owning a gun blowhard talk is no real substitute for not being able to defend yourself in a sudden situation where you have an obligation to defend your customers and make them safe.

        Look at some of the bullshit kids responsible for some of the recent gun shootings. None of them are much of a man at all. They’re all just bullshit kids with mental health issues and just a gun. Look at George Zimmerman, another sissy with a gun. I see an awful lot of pathetic guys with guns like this, who get themselves into a lot of trouble. They feel weak and powerless and a gun must give them some sense of power. But, that’s pretty pathetic.

        • Vagabond661

          When I read your first post, I thought you were trying to be comical or maybe even trying to piss off gun owners with your over the top chest thumping.

          Let’s look past all of your blowhard machismo bs mentality for a minute. Replace that machete with a gun and you would be dead. And how safe would your customers feel then? By your own description he was a crazed man so who knows just what that guy would have done? Chopped the person next to you? Lopped off someone’s head?

          You said it yourself: “when something goes down a guy is either ready to defend himself or not.” You were not ready. You were lucky.

          • herddog505

            It ties in with some of the lefty comments we’ve seen over the past few weeks to the effect that only nerds and wimps want sooper-deadly assault weapons (or any guns, for that matter).

          • Vagabond661

            Apparently even the President thinks guns are necessary since he’s got free protection for life now. Guess Paul wants Obama just to use his fists.

          • Paul Hooson

            No. Look at the post. The author views some woman who pulled a gun on some guy with a knife as a hero. But, a lot of guys and gals have done this one better when push came to pull. Some idiot walks in a business I own and starts to threaten my customers with a machete, so I run over from behind the counter and act as a human shield to protect my customers and stand up to the guy who soon wilts and beats it out the door because he’s merely a wimp with a machete. He’s got nothing else going for him. Am I hero? No. Just a much tougher mother fucker than he’ll ever be. Period. He picked a fight with the wrong guy and backed down. A lot of guys who pull crime crap are pretty pathetic and many will back down and run. Not all of them will, but a lot will. My mother was robbed at gunpoint working at JC Penney once before, but this gun seemed a lot more hardcore. My mother played this one right and survived. Some guys will wilt, some won’t. You need to read them to choose what to do and you have to be right if you want to live and survive the incident.

          • Vagabond661

            The woman in the post is a hero. Instead of panicking and shooting wildly at the crook with a knife, she held the gun on him and didn’t fire. She assessed the situation and decided deadly force was not needed.

            Personally I would take her with a gun over you and your chest thumping any day of the week.

        • herddog505

          Yes, these kids are not manly: they are nuts.

          Personally, I’m not thrilled by the idea of taking on a lunatic with my bare hands. I’m especially not too keen on the idea of my wife, my mother, or my niece doing so.

          I recently read a good point about this:

          We know what a world without guns is like because we’ve been there: it’s called the Middle Ages.

          Do we REALLY want a world where the weak MUST knuckle under the the strong, the small to the large, the few to the many, because we’ve robbed them of the greatest equalizer devised by man?

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            “Do we REALLY want a world…”

            Some do. Because they think by political maneuvering they’re going to be at the top of the heap, telling the vast unwashed they so despise and think need to be controlled to do what THEY think is proper, and they’ll have the means to enforce their wishes.

            They don’t understand that their status depends on them being ‘useful’ to those who support them in the their quest for power, who see the social pyramid they’re attempting to install themselves at the peak of as a means of making sure those underneath don’t have the ability to say ‘no’ to any demand that might be made.

            It’s not about guns – it’s about control. And you can’t control someone who says ‘no’ and can refuse with force your attempts.

          • Paul Hooson

            Let me tell you a story about a 1800′s Western city called Tombstone, Arizona, so named because it was the murder capitol of the world. Everyone had guns in that town, and murder was off the map. But, business was great for the town undertaker.

            Some of the talk around here remind me a lot of former VP Dick Cheney. The guy could sure talk tough, but when he had a chance to fight in Vietnam, he sought a few draft deferments by staying safe and going to college. That’s one heck of a lot different than WWII where many guys joined up and didn’t even wait to be drafted. Guys like Cheney are called “chickenhawks”. They talk a good game, but the talk don’t match the walk.

            I didn’t run out the door like some sissy when some whack job threatened my customers with a machete one day. I stood up to the guy and he backed down. I had a duty to protect my customers, so I walked up to the plate and stood this guy up. Maybe other situations require different actions. But, I called this one the right way.

    • Vagabond661

      You realized you called all cops and our military men and women a sissyass, didn’t ya?

    • retired.military

      what a load of baloney. Oooohhh you are a biker so you scare people. What about the 70 year old granny. What should she do when confronted by someone with a knife? Pull out her harley registration and wave it at them?

      What a load of horseshit.

      You dont like guns because some 98 pound weakling , or a 70 year oild grandmother, or 21 year old girl can have a gun and make your asshole pucker along with shriveling up your pathetic biker penis.

      • Paul Hooson

        Most people were smart enough not to pull shit down at our business. One drunk punk pulled crap one night after he was asked to leave, tried to pull an assault and beat us with a chain…. We asked him to leave. He should have left. Won’t say more here. But, police agreed he was in the wrong for attacking us with first a chain and then a heavy bicycle lock. We asked that charges not be brought against him. His good ass whippin’ in self defense was punishment enough for his violent drunken bullshit. The punk needs to grow up and realize that some old guys know a lot more about self defense than he’ll ever know.

        Someone having a gun in their hand is only good until the moment that it’s taken away from them by someone stronger. Then it’s no good to them.

        I have good relations with the police. They know that I don’t like drug criminals and other riff-raff. My brother’s a reformed former felon and we’re business partners. We’re both good citizens who doesn’t look for trouble. But, we’ll defend ourselves in a bad situation. We’re not the ones going out the door on an ambulance stretcher.I don’t have doormat written on me.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          “I don’t have doormat written on me.”

          But you want others to be a doormat, unable to even attempt to protect themselves if they need to. A 90 lb woman vs a 200 lb thug? There’s one thing that’ll save her from rape, and it’s not sticking her finger down her throat to make herself puke, or trying to gouge out his eyes with her keys.

          Your reasoning why people shouldn’t have guns simply doesn’t make sense.

          You reek, Paul, of smarmy “better than thou’ hypocrisy. No amount of Axe or Old Spice can disguise that.

          • Paul Hooson

            If people want to own guns, then fine with me. I fully support the 2nd
            Amendment. But, if a guy isn’t ready to defend himself when a sudden situation arises, then he isn’t. Some bad guy isn’t going to stand around and wait for you to go and get a gun. They use the element of shock and surprise to their advantage, so I guy needs to be able to overwhelm that is he wants to win the confrontation. I told me brother when we started the store we’ll be dealing with a few rotten drunks or even robbers, but I’m a veteran of few barroom fights and my brother’s a veteran of a few prison fights. So we felt ready for whatever comes better than most guys.

          • Paul Hooson

            Christ my typos, here. Trying to write something in between doing some mechanical work doesn’t work.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Not a problem.

            I’d argue that simply knowing that folks MIGHT be armed serves as a deterrent to some. Look what happened in Kennesaw, GA when a law was passed mandating gun ownership – home burglaries pretty much zeroed out. No teeth to the law, no punishment if you didn’t have anything – but what thief looking to keep his hide whole would take the chance when he could find safer pickings elsewhere?

  • SteveCrickmore075

    Kleck’s survey was awfully skewed and self’serving by the respondents The Contradictions of Kleck

    “Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias.

    Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. One question asked: “Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?” 10% of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, “Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?” and 6% answered “Yes.”

    By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets.”

    • jim_m

      So your response is to trash Kleck by citing the weakness of someone else’s surveys. That is probably one of the most dishonest posts I have ever seen here. I knew that being a warmist you were of diminished capacity but I didn’t think you were dishonest.

      Your argument is that because people will say something wierd in one survey then any survey you disagree with is therefore inaccurate. You could have taken the same argument against election polling data. Funny how you don’t have a problem with that.

      Like I said, your argument is deeply dishonest.

      • Vagabond661

        Try it with voter fraud too.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        Okay, continuing from the previous link “Kleck’s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses. Kleck’s Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household. Males from the South and West were oversampled.”

        Plus from anther link “In 1992, Kleck and Gertz conducted a national random-digit-dial survey of five thousand dwelling units, asking detailed questions about self-defense gun use. Their estimates of civilian self-defense gun use range from 1 million to 2.5 million times per year. The 2.5 million figure is the one they believe to be most accurate and the one Kleck has publicized, so that figure will be discussed in this paper

        K-G derive their 2.5 million estimate from the fact that 1.33% of the
        individuals surveyed reported that they themselves used a gun in self-defense during the past year; in other words, about 66 people out of 5000 reported such a use. Extrapolating the 1.33% figure to the entire population of almost 200 million adults gives 2.5 million uses.”

        So from just 66 people out of 5000 people on a telephone survery…i think you would find 66 people out of 5000 people who will say just about anything in justification of their ownership of handguns, whether it was really self defense and from what, if you phone them.

        • jim_m

          You can try to dig yourself out of your dishonesty if you like. The fact of the matter is that you wouldn’t understand statistics if they walked up to you on the sidewalk and slapped you in the face. Much in the same manner that science is a total stranger to you as well.

          Crimes that are avoided because people demonstrate the possession of guns are largely unreported. You have no data that would demonstrate the falsity of Kleck’s assertion.

        • jim_m

          i think you would find 66 people who will say just about anything in justification of their ownership of handguns, if you phone them.

          Screw you. I think you could find 10 out of 10 leftist a-holes that would say anything they thought necessary to ram their fascist agenda down everyone else’s throats. You included.

          If you polled 5000 leftists and found 66 who weren’t pathological liars I’d be surprised.

          I think it’s repulsive that you think that even from a poll of 5000 people that you are offended that 1.3% have found themselves in a situation where they used a gun in self defense. While it may shatter you leftist sensibilities, your ideology has nothing to do with the truth. Stop substituting what you think is true for the actual data collected. If you don’t like the data go find a study contradicting it (one with real data and not just ideological assertions backed up with bullshit). Just like your religious affection for warmism, you substitute your beliefs for the truth of data collected.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            to reach the 2.5 million extrpolated figure,the kleck study includes use when in the military and police, and self defense against animals, (I suppose animals can commit crimes according to Huston).
            “Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually. The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crimes: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, non-business larceny, and motor vehicle theft. That accounts for the discrepancy in the two results. A National Research Council report said that Kleck’s estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that “some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others”.
            There is a big difference between 65 thousand and 2.5 million DFGs defensive gun uses (DGU’s) per year by “law-abiding” citizens in the United States as the projected results in the two studies. They both seem wildly off the mark.

          • herddog505

            OK, let’s assume that Kleck is talking out of his hat, that the figure 2.5 millions IS a gross exageration, and that the actual value is closer to 65,000. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that THIS number is also grossly exagerated, say by a factor of two.

            Therefore, every year in the United States, 32,500…

            — Store clerks are NOT murdered

            — Women are NOT raped

            — Homes are NOT robbed

            — And (dare I write it?) schoolchildren, theatre-goers, and college students are NOT massacred.

            32,500 times.

            We’re having a “national discussion” about curtailing the rights of millions of Americans because of a handful of tragedies, but nobody wants to discuss the tens of thousands of times that tragedies are averted because a law-abiding citizen used his gun.
            Something doesn’t add up.

          • jim_m

            Hey if we can save one life by banning assault rifles it’s worth it, but if 32,500 lives are lost because we ban all guns then that is just the price we have to pay for our safety. Don’t ask Steve’s ideology to make sense, it doesn’t. Don’t ask him to recognize that fact, he can’t.

          • herddog505

            Within limits, I understand where many lefties are coming from: after a lifetime of “the gunshow loophole!” and “assault weapons!” and “blood in the streets!”, it’s no wonder that they reflexively take as an undeniable fact that criminals stroll into gun shows and buy machineguns that they turn right ’round and use to mow down squads of school children. MiniTru is pretty bad about conveying facts on just about any subject, and they are especially bad about doing so where guns are concerned.

        • Vagabond661

          take a peek:
          http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

          There were 386 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2011. That’s just violent crime. There’s also property crime:

          http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/property-crime/property-crime

          That figure is higher. 2900 per 100,000.

          More stuff:
          http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense-data

          I am not good with math but with 10 million acts of violent crime and property crime alone would it not be reasonable to think some people had concealed weapons and thwarted a crime?

  • jim_m

    This is why the left wants to ban guns:

    In November a record 2 million guns were sold in America. This was followed up by another record in December. 2.7 million guns were sold in America in the last month of 2012.

    To put this in perspective… Chinese and Indian Standing Army Numbers:

    China
    - There are 2.29 active members in the Chinese Army.

    India
    - There are 1.13 active members in the Indian Army.

    There were enough guns sold in the US in November and December to outfit each active member of the Chinese and Indian armies with a brand new gun.

    Make no mistake. Gun control is not about guns. It is about people. It is people control. The left ifs afraid of a public that can protect itself and stand up to them. In order to do what the left wants they require a disarmed and helpless public.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE