Mugger’s Bullet Stopped By Student’s iPhone

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
I don’t know about you guys, but if someone pulls a gun on me over a laptop, I would give it up without a struggle.

Police said the victim was approaching the front door of his apartment near the California State University, Fresno at around 11 p.m. Monday when a gunman approached him from behind, pulled out a handgun and tried to grab the student's computer bag. During a struggle over the bag the gunman fired at the 24-year-old, but the bullet "skipped off" the iPhone in his pocket, police said.
 
They refer to the mugger as a "gunman"... as if that were some kind of occupation. They never refer to people as a "knifeman" or "brassknuclesman" or "hammerman". I suppose the Ministry of Truth is quite pleased with itself by now.
 
There's no way the bullet would simply "skip off" any phone like that, unless the shot was not actually at the person. More than likely, there was a struggle, the gun went off pointed down at the ground and happened to graze the phone. It's also doubtful that the phone saved his life. It's pretty hard to kill someone with a leg shot unless you hit the femoral artery.
 
Phoenix333 said:
They refer to the mugger as a "gunman"... as if that were some kind of occupation. They never refer to people as a "knifeman" or "brassknuclesman" or "hammerman". I suppose the Ministry of Truth is quite pleased with itself by now.
Click to expand...

HAhaHA

In Fresno, a promising extortionist attempted to use his talents as a close-quarters sniper in order to maintain his hard-earned monopoly in the Unlawfulship craft.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
There's no way the bullet would simply "skip off" any phone like that, unless the shot was not actually at the person. More than likely, there was a struggle, the gun went off pointed down at the ground and happened to graze the phone. It's also doubtful that the phone saved his life. It's pretty hard to kill someone with a leg shot unless you hit the femoral artery.
Click to expand...

Kinda hard to quantify deflection since most tests you can find on youtube are of bullet vs cell phones are straight on with higher than .22 caliber ammo.

Still the guy lucked out coming out unscathed. Really hope they catch the guy who robbed him.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
There's no way the bullet would simply "skip off" any phone like that, unless the shot was not actually at the person. More than likely, there was a struggle, the gun went off pointed down at the ground and happened to graze the phone. It's also doubtful that the phone saved his life. It's pretty hard to kill someone with a leg shot unless you hit the femoral artery.
Click to expand...


Probably stop a 22 short at angles off of perpendicular. Battery might stop one all together.


But who uses 22 shorts for criminal activity. Dude needs to watch goodfellas a few hundred times as he rots in the slammer.
 
the bullet hit at a very shallow angle of attack. the majority of damage was to the plastic case. the metal iphone has little damage. clearly the criminal's aim was "not holding it right."
 
So the robber shot at the guy's buttock where most hipsters keep their phone? Story smells fishy and contrived to detract from the bending issue due to use of cheap mass produced bleacher aluminum.
 
There is only one gunman and that is Sean Penn. It had to be him. Otherwise, it was a man with a gun.
 
Phoenix333 said:
They refer to the mugger as a "gunman"... as if that were some kind of occupation. They never refer to people as a "knifeman" or "brassknuclesman" or "hammerman". I suppose the Ministry of Truth is quite pleased with itself by now.
Click to expand...

Why bring that up now? I've been like hearing that term used by the news for a long time. Man with gun (since anyone brandishing a gun and shooting random people as a criminal act is typically male anyway) as gunman seems pretty accurate and neutrally honest terminology.
 
Is there a find and replace for the Internet? I want to change all references of "gunman" to "Sean Penn". :D
 
Megalith said:
I don’t know about you guys, but if someone pulls a gun on me over a laptop, I would give it up without a struggle.

Police said the victim was approaching the front door of his apartment near the California State University, Fresno at around 11 p.m. Monday when a gunman approached him from behind, pulled out a handgun and tried to grab the student's computer bag. During a struggle over the bag the gunman fired at the 24-year-old, but the bullet "skipped off" the iPhone in his pocket, police said.
Click to expand...

Someone pulls a real gun, sure they can have whatever. Someone pulls a .22 which is what this looks like, I'm fighting. Anyone who pulls a gun that is basically a glorified pellet gun clearly isn't competent with it. Plus it has little chance of actually killing you. What saved this kids life was the criminal was an incompetent moron.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Someone pulls a real gun, sure they can have whatever. Someone pulls a .22 which is what this looks like, I'm fighting. Anyone who pulls a gun that is basically a glorified pellet gun clearly isn't competent with it. Plus it has little chance of actually killing you. What saved this kids life was the criminal was an incompetent moron.
Click to expand...

A .22 is actually pretty deadly at close range. The bullet tents to tumble inside you and create all sorts of damage. That's why assassins use them.
 
Funny,every time someone like Mythbusters test these "bullet stopping" claims,they end up busted. Even with a .22,that iPhone is history.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Someone pulls a real gun, sure they can have whatever. Someone pulls a .22 which is what this looks like, I'm fighting. Anyone who pulls a gun that is basically a glorified pellet gun clearly isn't competent with it. Plus it has little chance of actually killing you. What saved this kids life was the criminal was an incompetent moron.
Click to expand...
Little chance of killing you? Tell that to Robert Kennedy.
 
michael.pa2 said:
Little chance of killing you? Tell that to Robert Kennedy.
Click to expand...

Little chance != no chance. It's still a gun and it's still deadly in the right situation. However the cheap .22 shorts most use, in a scuffle in the hands of someone who obviously isn't competent and the chances of them lining up a fatal shot is slim. Granted I don't recommend the average person fighting, I was just saying what I'm doing. I also have considerably more experience in self defense and gun handling than your average citizen. Sure this kid in this article got lucky, but saying the phone saved his life is a bit of a stretch.

To the other comment, bullets don't tumble in the body. That's a pretty common myth by people who don't understand how a bullet path is affected by bones and muscle.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Why bring that up now?
Click to expand...
I felt like it. Words interest me.

I've been like hearing that term used by the news for a long time.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's control over the language. Newspeak. You get used to hearing it, so you start thinking in those terms. Eventually it becomes so embedded in a person's thinking that they don't stop to think about what the words actually mean anymore. When you no longer question then you only do what you're told.

Man with gun (since anyone brandishing a gun and shooting random people as a criminal act is typically male anyway) as gunman seems pretty accurate and neutrally honest terminology.
Click to expand...
Except that he wasn't shooting random people. He was using a gun to mug one individual. As I said, if he was using a knife, would he be called a knifeman? If he were using a bat, would he be a batman? (Not THAT Batman). Think about the language. A policeman is called that because of what he does - he polices. A postman is called that because, again, it's his occupation. He delivers the post. "Gunman" would be a more accurate term for an artillery gunner in the military. It's psychological conditioning... focusing more on the tool than on the criminal act because the tool in this case is more of a problem to those doing the reporting than the criminal misuse of it. It's a coward's tactic. If someone can't have their position on an issue or an idea accepted by open discussion they resort to subtlety and cunning manipulation of thought. I find it utterly repugnant.

Now I know you personally dislike guns, so you may not see this as a problem in the sense that I do, but simply consider what I say as a generality. Forget that this has to do with the word "gun" for a moment, and focus instead on the lack of equal application to other terms as I stated above. The reason the word "gunman" jumps out at me - and why I bring this up - is precisely because of the lack of other terms used in this manner. It's the absence of all others and the singular focus on the one that stands out. Consider... if there were not a political element to this, would it be done in this way? That's what I am concerned with here. By all means, think what you will about guns and anything else for that matter. I would just ask that people would be sure that their thoughts are actually their own.
 
Phoenix333 said:
I felt like it. Words interest me.


Exactly. It's control over the language. Newspeak. You get used to hearing it, so you start thinking in those terms. Eventually it becomes so embedded in a person's thinking that they don't stop to think about what the words actually mean anymore. When you no longer question then you only do what you're told.


Except that he wasn't shooting random people. He was using a gun to mug one individual. As I said, if he was using a knife, would he be called a knifeman? If he were using a bat, would he be a batman? (Not THAT Batman). Think about the language. A policeman is called that because of what he does - he polices. A postman is called that because, again, it's his occupation. He delivers the post. "Gunman" would be a more accurate term for an artillery gunner in the military. It's psychological conditioning... focusing more on the tool than on the criminal act because the tool in this case is more of a problem to those doing the reporting than the criminal misuse of it. It's a coward's tactic. If someone can't have their position on an issue or an idea accepted by open discussion they resort to subtlety and cunning manipulation of thought. I find it utterly repugnant.

Now I know you personally dislike guns, so you may not see this as a problem in the sense that I do, but simply consider what I say as a generality. Forget that this has to do with the word "gun" for a moment, and focus instead on the lack of equal application to other terms as I stated above. The reason the word "gunman" jumps out at me - and why I bring this up - is precisely because of the lack of other terms used in this manner. It's the absence of all others and the singular focus on the one that stands out. Consider... if there were not a political element to this, would it be done in this way? That's what I am concerned with here. By all means, think what you will about guns and anything else for that matter. I would just ask that people would be sure that their thoughts are actually their own.
Click to expand...

Well, no thougts are really your own anyway since you got them from other people (including objecting to the idea of the word gunman). There are like a super small number of people who are lucid enough to take serveral ideas and combine them in novel ways, but we're so limited in numbers thanks to NASCAR and country music crushing rational thought left and right.

Anywho, I'm super supportive of the idea of engineering culture and society with loaded terms like gunman as long as they bring about the slow change necessary to get society to free itself from the idea of owning firearms. We really, really need that to ensure that intelligent people are kept safe from the miserable savages in their trailers that are hugging their real tree camo shirts and rifles as they insist they're "sportsmen" even though they have trouble stepping up high enough to get into their pickup truck thanks to the knee replacement caused by obesity.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
There's no way the bullet would simply "skip off" any phone like that, unless the shot was not actually at the person. More than likely, there was a struggle, the gun went off pointed down at the ground and happened to graze the phone. It's also doubtful that the phone saved his life. It's pretty hard to kill someone with a leg shot unless you hit the femoral artery.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're very right however that wouldn't make for a great click bait news story! DuH!
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Someone pulls a real gun, sure they can have whatever. Someone pulls a .22 which is what this looks like, I'm fighting. Anyone who pulls a gun that is basically a glorified pellet gun clearly isn't competent with it. Plus it has little chance of actually killing you. What saved this kids life was the criminal was an incompetent moron.
Click to expand...


I really hope that is a joke. You're seriously misinformed. A .22 will kill you dead if it hits you in the right spot, or if you're lucky it will just go through your gut and you'll be shitting in a bag the rest of your life. I'd highly advise not trying to fight someone who is pointing a loaded .22 at you.
 
But CreepyUncleGoogle, what if I like country music, have addictions, can combine ideas and picked up English from Cartoon Network as a child despite never being abroad?
 
michalrz said:
But CreepyUncleGoogle, what if I like country music, have addictions, can combine ideas and picked up English from Cartoon Network as a child despite never being abroad?
Click to expand...

It's clear that you're being controlled by super intelligent kittens and have no idea that one of them is living inside your head right now, operating tiny control levers and turning tiny dials to get your brain (the one that's been relocated to somewhere near your appendix) to do these strange, impossible things.
 
Why are the kittens occupying my head/heads? Why do I have to be the melting pot?
I never asked for any of this! I just liked Scooby Doo. I didn't know it was a gateway cartoon.

CreepyUncleGoogle said:
It's clear that you're being controlled by super intelligent kittens and have no idea that one of them is living inside your head right now, operating tiny control levers and turning tiny dials to get your brain (the one that's been relocated to somewhere near your appendix) to do these strange, impossible things.
Click to expand...
 
Converge said:
I really hope that is a joke. You're seriously misinformed. A .22 will kill you dead if it hits you in the right spot, or if you're lucky it will just go through your gut and you'll be shitting in a bag the rest of your life. I'd highly advise not trying to fight someone who is pointing a loaded .22 at you.
Click to expand...

I wasn't and I'm not. Read my next post. I already pointed out the "IF". I simply said it's a pretty big if with a .22. I never said it wasn't dangerous or couldn't kill you.
 
michalrz said:
Why are the kittens occupying my head/heads? Why do I have to be the melting pot?
I never asked for any of this! I just liked Scooby Doo. I didn't know it was a gateway cartoon.
Click to expand...

Kittens are cute and evil! :D What other reasons do they need for taking over your head? Actually...I think it has something to do with getting more snacks though, but I don't question the kittens because I don't wanna end up with one inside my head.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Well, no thougts are really your own anyway since you got them from other people (including objecting to the idea of the word gunman).
Click to expand...
That's a step in the right direction.

There are like a super small number of people who are lucid enough to take serveral ideas and combine them in novel ways, but we're so limited in numbers thanks to NASCAR and country music crushing rational thought left and right.
Click to expand...
Now where did that idea come from? Two steps backward.

Anywho, I'm super supportive of the idea of engineering culture and society with loaded terms like gunman as long as they bring about the slow change necessary to get society to free itself from the idea of owning firearms.
Click to expand...
Ends justifying the means? Where does it stop? We're in full reverse now.

We really, really need that to ensure that intelligent people are kept safe from the miserable savages in their trailers that are hugging their real tree camo shirts and rifles as they insist they're "sportsmen" even though they have trouble stepping up high enough to get into their pickup truck thanks to the knee replacement caused by obesity.
Click to expand...
The perfect example of stereotyping caused by the above cultural engineering. We're right back to square one... and you have so much potential to do better than this.

Don't you see that you've fallen into your own trap? That's the problem with accepting the means because you agree with the ends. It may be fine with you on this matter, but what about other issues? How much are you willing to cede control over your own ability to think what you want and say what you want? Once your end is finally achieved, how will you get any of it back? Remember... power is always given. It is never taken, but once given it is nearly impossible to recover.

As for those who claim to support your end... how can you be sure they're not simply using that to entice you to surrender more control? How pure are their motives? How honest are they with their information? How much do you question what they tell you? You've already accepted one untrue stereotype, much as the KKK accepts another untrue stereotype, and the Black Panthers accept yet another untrue stereotype. Can you see there is functionally no difference? You're thinking this because someone told you to think this. You're accepting a stereotype because someone provided it. I think you're more intelligent than this, yet emotion is making the stereotype appealing, even though intellectually you know it's untrue. Do you not realize that's how the game works? It is true that everyone is a pawn... but some are more aware of it than others, and some don't like being pushed across the board. Do you know who pushes you? Are you comfortable with that?
 
Phoenix333 said:
That's a step in the right direction.


Now where did that idea come from? Two steps backward.


Ends justifying the means? Where does it stop? We're in full reverse now.


The perfect example of stereotyping caused by the above cultural engineering. We're right back to square one... and you have so much potential to do better than this.

Don't you see that you've fallen into your own trap? That's the problem with accepting the means because you agree with the ends. It may be fine with you on this matter, but what about other issues? How much are you willing to cede control over your own ability to think what you want and say what you want? Once your end is finally achieved, how will you get any of it back? Remember... power is always given. It is never taken, but once given it is nearly impossible to recover.

As for those who claim to support your end... how can you be sure they're not simply using that to entice you to surrender more control? How pure are their motives? How honest are they with their information? How much do you question what they tell you? You've already accepted one untrue stereotype, much as the KKK accepts another untrue stereotype, and the Black Panthers accept yet another untrue stereotype. Can you see there is functionally no difference? You're thinking this because someone told you to think this. You're accepting a stereotype because someone provided it. I think you're more intelligent than this, yet emotion is making the stereotype appealing, even though intellectually you know it's untrue. Do you not realize that's how the game works? It is true that everyone is a pawn... but some are more aware of it than others, and some don't like being pushed across the board. Do you know who pushes you? Are you comfortable with that?
Click to expand...

I'm not really a control freak at all so I don't care who's in control or who I'm giving power to so whatever. If someone wants the stupid job of being in charge of everyone else; whatever, they can have it and deal with all the endless dumbness around them for all I care. Getting guns away from people who aren't responsible enough to have them is a perfectly okay thing even if it means everyone has less control. It works okay for the British and they have like almost zero gun-related crime in their nation. In fact, they have like a lot less murders in general and like a shooting rampage from someone who gun rights people will say is a law breaking person and not a "law-abiding citizen" (while leaving out the whole point that that person was a so-called law-abiding citizen right up to that whole freak out and kill everyone with their gun thing) just never happens there because the citizens and law enforcement work together on the idea that most people shouldn't own guns. It's like far closer to utopia there than it is in the US where pretty much ever single gun owner is one emotional overload from becoming the next mass shooting nutcase and is a lot closer than someone who doesn't feel the need to own a gun since buying one is largely a machismo, ego boosting, false sense of empowerment thing anyhow.
 
I was actually trying to steer the focus away from gun control and discussion of guns specifically and toward your thought processes regarding social engineering in general beyond that subject. I think I failed to do so. Either way... If you're comfortable with being less independent and accepting of others having control over your life... if you're going into that with your eyes open and fully aware then I can respect your decision for being a conscious one. It is a decision I do not pretend to understand, as I cannot understand how anyone could ever want to be ruled in any way, and I think it would take many long conversations for me to truly grasp your reasoning. I do not think this is the place for such discussion, nor do I wish to pry as I suspect there is a very personal element to all of this based on past postings, so I will simply leave it be as I intend no vexation.
 
Phoenix333 said:
I was actually trying to steer the focus away from gun control and discussion of guns specifically and toward your thought processes regarding social engineering in general beyond that subject. I think I failed to do so. Either way... If you're comfortable with being less independent and accepting of others having control over your life... if you're going into that with your eyes open and fully aware then I can respect your decision for being a conscious one. It is a decision I do not pretend to understand, as I cannot understand how anyone could ever want to be ruled in any way, and I think it would take many long conversations for me to truly grasp your reasoning. I do not think this is the place for such discussion, nor do I wish to pry as I suspect there is a very personal element to all of this based on past postings, so I will simply leave it be as I intend no vexation.
Click to expand...

The mindset is easy to figure out. It's the mindset of not wanting to accept personal responsibility or accountability for anything. So long as someone else is telling you what to do, then you have a means to shift blame. Now as to if cug actually thinks that way or if that is just the message he is trolling with, well one can only guess.
 
Phoenix333 said:
I was actually trying to steer the focus away from gun control and discussion of guns specifically and toward your thought processes regarding social engineering in general beyond that subject. I think I failed to do so. Either way... If you're comfortable with being less independent and accepting of others having control over your life... if you're going into that with your eyes open and fully aware then I can respect your decision for being a conscious one. It is a decision I do not pretend to understand, as I cannot understand how anyone could ever want to be ruled in any way, and I think it would take many long conversations for me to truly grasp your reasoning. I do not think this is the place for such discussion, nor do I wish to pry as I suspect there is a very personal element to all of this based on past postings, so I will simply leave it be as I intend no vexation.
Click to expand...

That's totally reasonable. Like I said, "not a control freak" and to add to that "guns don't offer control anyway, they just give people with reproductive organ-based insecurities the illusion thereof." It's not that confusing, but yeah, it's a little bit off topic so we can let it alone.

Dekoth-E- said:
The mindset is easy to figure out. It's the mindset of not wanting to accept personal responsibility or accountability for anything. So long as someone else is telling you what to do, then you have a means to shift blame. Now as to if cug actually thinks that way or if that is just the message he is trolling with, well one can only guess.
Click to expand...

Yeah, trying to pull of the responsibility-adverse argument. That's really not gonna hold water when presented by an e-sports *snerk* proponent.
 
Krenum said:
A .22 is actually pretty deadly at close range. The bullet tents to tumble inside you and create all sorts of damage. That's why assassins use them.
Click to expand...

How many assassins do you know, and how many people did you know that were assassinated by .22s?



Zero!
 
LOL, was the mugger using an airsoft gun?

images
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I'm not really a control freak at all so I don't care who's in control or who I'm giving power to so whatever. If someone wants the stupid job of being in charge of everyone else; whatever, they can have it and deal with all the endless dumbness around them for all I care. Getting guns away from people who aren't responsible enough to have them is a perfectly okay thing even if it means everyone has less control. It works okay for the British and they have like almost zero gun-related crime in their nation. In fact, they have like a lot less murders in general and like a shooting rampage from someone who gun rights people will say is a law breaking person and not a "law-abiding citizen" (while leaving out the whole point that that person was a so-called law-abiding citizen right up to that whole freak out and kill everyone with their gun thing) just never happens there because the citizens and law enforcement work together on the idea that most people shouldn't own guns. It's like far closer to utopia there than it is in the US where pretty much ever single gun owner is one emotional overload from becoming the next mass shooting nutcase and is a lot closer than someone who doesn't feel the need to own a gun since buying one is largely a machismo, ego boosting, false sense of empowerment thing anyhow.
Click to expand...

The problem in the US are primarily gangs. Extra restrictions on firearms won't change their culture. Fixing the problem areas is the cure, and it will do a lot more than minimize the murder rate.

As for the firearms = more deaths, we've done with before. Switzerland has a very low murder rate despite having similar laws to the US. In Australia mass murders have not slowed down, instead people have turned to other weapons with similar kill counts. Likewise, criminals tend to manufacture illegal firearms. In the case of Australia gangs are making full auto SMGs with suppressors, and recently a black market designed full auto pistol + suppressor was found being smuggled into Holland and the UK.

Fact is, the US has more violent sub cultures and people. Bikers, inner cities, whatever. Unless you fix the core issues you're putting a band-aid on a missing limb. The problem is that isn't easy, does not win votes and takes some researching/thinking which most people don't care about. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top