Personally, if it came time to defend my property from an unruly, violent, and destructive mob of thugs, I would probably reach for something a bit more… capable… than a bolt-action rifle with all of five rounds in the magazine, but it obviously worked:
Roger MacBride says that he’s used to looking out for trouble in his old Northeast neighborhood. But usually the problems involve prostitutes or drug addicts, and he says that he wasn’t ready for what he calls a mob of young troublemakers who threatened his home and family.
[...]
MacBride says the teens surrounded his house, picking up rocks and throwing them at him. That’s when he says in his eyes, the mob stopped being a bunch of kids and became a big threat. He says the teens were reaching for his door handle when the the sight of his Soviet rifle had an instant reaction.
"I grabbed this and literally just came straight out the porch, came out just like this, and was like now, get the (expletive) out of here," said MacBride. "I literally come out that side door, and these two kids are like, hey, he’s got a gun. And then everybody just woosh, they just dispersed totally."
… and if it worked, it probably was not the wrong answer.
This news story is interesting from a variety of angles… First, it will probably be recorded nowhere as a "defensive gun use" despite obviously being one – no one was killed, no one was wounded, but a man’s life and his property was unquestionably defended, and that defense was greatly facilitated by the presence of a firearm. When anti-rights cultists start trotting out the number of fatalities due to people killing other people with firearms compared to the allegedly (at least according to them) low number of DGUs, remember stories like this (and remember that if Mr. McBride had killed one of the thugs in self-defense, that number would be added to the anti-rights cultists’ tally, stupidly enough). How many incidents like this transpire without even a whisper from the news?
Second, Mr. MacBride did not have to fire the rifle to disperse the mob – just the presence of it, and his visible willingness to use it, was enough to convince them to ply their violent trade somewhere else. Granted, we are talking about a few dozen thugs, if even that, as compared to the potentially-hundreds in the mob in Milwaukee, so displaying a firearm may not always be the defusing action you desired, but, not to belabor the obvious, no one wants to be shot. Some of the discouraging influence may have been the size of the firearm (if nothing else, Mosin-Nagants make handy war clubs), the attitude of the person wielding it, the threat of actually being shot, or any combination of the above, but, again, the simple truth is that it worked.
In a similar vein, open carry has discouraged crime in the past, with no way of determining how many other crimes were deterred by the open display, but not necessarily brandishing, of firearms.
Third and finally, Mr. MacBride was wearing some kind of skirt-ish thing and a welder’s apron, sporting a tattoo, and flying a Gadsden flag – screwing with him was a failure in the victim selection process of the mob.
Now, imagine how this situation would have transpired differently if the anti-rights cultists had their way with America decades ago – private ownership of arms would be outlawed, which would have left Mr. McBride the choice between hiding in his home while the violent thugs tore apart his neighborhood, or confronting a stronger enemy with a lesser force-multiplier, and probably ending up in the hospital – if not morgue – for his troubles. Why do "gun control" supporters want to leave potential victims defenseless? Why do "gun control" supporters want to empower these pernicious mobs of destructive bullies by disarming their targets? Why do "gun control" supporters aid and abet criminals?
I have no good answers to those questions, but I am very happy that Mr. MacBride found an appropriate answer – however temporary it might be – to the illegal demolition mob that was afflicting his neighborhood. I would suggest, should his budget permit it, that he and his neighbors consider up-arming, though – mobs like those tend to have a dim view of folks who stand up to them, and may be back to balance the score.
(Courtesy of Gun Free Zone.)
Mobs are dumb.
But they ain’t stupid.
I believe this calls for a victim selection FAIL label!
Also to note the Mosin Nagant, which I instantly recognized for some reason, was not an assault rifle.
It wasn’t an evil black rifle with a 30 round magazine.
It was a rifle that could have been mailed straight to his door way with the proper paperwork.
And it did the job.
Seventy year old rifle — technology anyone can replicate in a half decent machine shop –saved a man’s life.
So is it just me or are these mobs occurring more often, or are they just getting more media attention lately?
No need, look at what’s happening in England. People are being forced to strip in the street robbed of everything since the mob has absolutely nothing to fear. Gun control does nothing more than guarantee the safety of the criminal. No one want’s to get killed or injured over “stuff”, however the deck is stacked in their favor.
As for the mobs, they seem to be happening more often as criminals are figuring out that with a large enough group is hard to get caught. If victims are armed though, they can still end up just as dead.
I’m convinced that at least part of the reason people engage in mob behavior is they think they’re anonymous, and can’t be held accountable. (Kind of like trolls on the internet.) But a bullet doesn’t care if you’re anonymous; it’ll hurt you all the same. Firing near a mob will put a lot of the participants to flight. Not that I condone firing randomly or firing warning shots, but firing on one person who is a clear threat lets the rest of the mob know the rules have changed.
I’m glad McBride was able to defend his home without bloodshed, but I also give him credit for being willing to do so if that’s what it took.
@ Brick: Every mob’s total intelligence is that of the stupidest member divided by the number of members. Thankfully, this one does not appear to have reacted critically fatal levels of stupidity.
@ Bob S.: M-Ns are fairly distinctive rifle, especially if you have ever had to de-cosmoline the bastards…
But, yeah, that rifle’s brethren were used to defend the Motherland before anyone alive was born, and it still gets the job done even today. Some things never change…
@ Pyrotek85: Yes to your latter two counts, so it is hard to say which is actually happening more, especially given the vicious cycle of news (mobs are getting popular, so we need to find more to report on!).
@ Barron Barnett: You will get no disagreement from me – I have been pointing out that anti-rights cultists / “gun control” supporters have been aiding and abetting criminals for years now. And you are exactly right – London is giving us a perfect view of where those policies end up… and this incident in KC shows just how much of an equalizer firearms can be.
@ Dave H: Mobs are damned tricky things to strategize or plan for… They have an annoying tendency to not do what you expect them to do, and while some of that has a lot to do with the number of folks in them, a lot is also just animalistic, crowd behavior. Low profile seems to be the best tactic for individuals or small crowds (especially when not equipped with actual riot gear), but always being able to effectively defend yourself should the need arise goes without saying.
@Linoge: No argument here. I agree about keeping a low profile. I commented on another blog that someone facing a mob like the one in Wisconsin, even armed, should be looking for an escape route. Use the weapon to clear it if necessary, but GTFO. McBride’s situation was a little different, since he was defending his home and the gang was smaller. Fortunately that mob did the math and realized the odds of each of them not going home was too high.
I wonder if he had his bayonet fixed. A mad Scot with a spear is the last thing I want to see in the middle of the night.
Yeah, fixed positions against mobs can go entirely different than being on foot, though it gets a lot more complicated when there is just one of you.
Thankfully, no one in this particular mob seemed to have a lick of strateigic planning, so it would appear as though Mr. MacBride came out on top, for which we are all thankful, I believe.