I found it interesting looking back after I was attacked, that when I was on the ground and he was standing over me I had a very very hard time kicking him "you know where."     I don't know why other than the fact that I'm not a physically abusive person towards another.  I'm a very physical person when it comes to my well-being most of the time but that manifests itself in disciplining my body or exercise; not attacking another.   It's foregin to me.   It was very hard for me to take those kicks.  I believe they were not nearly as hard as I was capable of.    In the end it did nothing, because he managed to get me to my feet and into a headlock. 

In my mind I would agree with you and would have said I would bite off his ear, kick him, twist a finger breaking it etc, but when it came down to it my only goal was to get out of there by running away from the situation as fast as I could. 

If my children were there...now we're talking a whole nuther ball game. 

I'm sorry but that's the most retarded quote I have ever read. I don't know if I would consider my self a womens libber, but I am for equality. That being said I like my men and men in general to be men. There isn't a one way or the other and I'm pretty sure it isn't why those men were pussies. They just were.

Who knows why Ginger acted and the men didn't. I would want to go out fighting too.

I kicked a guy who attacked me in the jewels.  He laughed in my face, and I used my strongest kick.  Who knows maybe he was ball-less...lol, that's probably why he was picking on a girl...it's not the cure all most women think, the eyes are probably the most vulnerable place, but while he was strangling me, I didn't have the arm reach to scratch the eyes.  Sometimes, even fighting, you lose.  But like Kelly, I'd rather fight and lose than sit and wait to die.

I've been violently attacked twice, both times I fought, even though I knew there wasn't much chance of winning.  I've also seen sheeple watch as an old man was beaten while I screamed and screamed for people to help him, and finally ran to find help since no one watching wanted to get involved. 

The old "no one knows until it happpens to them" is true, but not absolute.  I always figured I fight, and when I was attacked, I did. 

I agree.

One thing I learned over the years training young soldiers...most folks who grow up in civilized neighborhoods and never experience the kind of street violence that is common in some of our urban areas, or who have never had any training in a dojo, ring, or mat will have the kind of aversion that KFC mentioned built into them.  It is that reluctance and hesitation that the bad boys count on to stay on top of a situation.  I have witnessed bullies harass and cow fellas lots bigger than themselves by sheer aggression and willingness to get it on.  

As for the reaction under fire...a lot of it has to do with mindset and environment.  But again, I have seen brave men cower and wimps get mad and get with it.  Some folks, like purse-lady in FLA, are just naturally "do it" kind of people.  I salute it but prefer a little thought.  The "hero" of the story went out to his car and donned his vest and armed up before he ran in to harms way...

There may be an article up-coming related to this...thanks for the mental shove, T.

Well Ginger just lost a little bit more credibility in my eyes today. She is selling her "weapon", the infamous hand bag, on e-Bay. Opening bid $500 (mow over 9K). I guess that's the price she puts on her "bravery".

http://www.11alive.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=169056&catid=166

She's selling it for charity.  She's not keeping the $.  Now THAT makes her a hero imo.

My pleasure!  Can't wait to read it.

Maybe it's just my disdain for eBay. I also take issue with the importance places on objects. I'm happy for the charity, but would she have done better to ask everyone interested just to donate to that cause? I believe it would have been better if everyone that bid would have just sent their money to that charity (perhaps some will) in her name. Did they really need to get an ol lady purse as a consolation prize? I can almost bet someone bidding on this believes it has some value. Oh well only, I suppose only the winning bid is what matters. Maybe now I'm being too harsh in these days of minor celebrity status "cash ins" (For good or bad). At least the kids win.

Lol, I dunno....it is an ugly purse, but I think it is the symbolic nature that makes it valuable.  I think focusing on an object is kind of a human nature type thing.  Look at all the iconic symbols around us...

This purse symbolizes something to people, and each person would probably have their own twist. (As we've seen here.)

For me it is kinda funny that something so ugly, so clunky, so woman-ish, was used to try and bring down a man with a gun in a room full of sitting ducks. 

And then there is the charity.  It's a double wammy.  Lots of people can't resist that.

Interesting concept. Guess this throws the whole equality argument out the window. I am curious, in a society where some believe men and women are equal how come men are the ones still expected to give up their lives for women? I thought women made a big deal out of them doing what would normally be expected of men yet this arguments seems to points to the contrary.

I don't know how I would really react in that kind of situation but I am not ashamed to admit I would be totally scared. That I may risk my life to save others is possible but I won't discount the idea that I too may make a run for my life too. I don't think my manhood should be defined by the amount of women I am willing to give my life for. I would risk my life if need be if it were a man, woman or child.

BTW, in my opinion, a hero is a person who risks their lives to save others not to make a dumb decision that could not only put their lives at risk but everyone else's even more. This lady's actions may seem heroic but considering the odds of her succeeding were slim at best of stopping him (the whole knife to a gun fight thing or in this case a purse) it was more of a stupid decision where she did not take other peoples lives into consideration when she acted. That is how I see it.

I don't disagree totally.  I believe a hero needs to actually accomplish something (besides making a bunch of men look like wimps), but not always.  For instance, I would call a firefighter who knows a building is gonna go any minute, but runs into the fire (not away from it) and ends up dying, a hero.  The intent to save someone was there.  Though some might argue it isn't too bright to run into a burning building, even with training.

I'm not sure how she did anything worse than the guy (John) who shot the shooter.  He winged the guy in the friggin leg.  Watch the video.  So what does the shooter do?  He turns and shoots toward the youngest guy (who by this time is hiding under the desk) and lets off a couple rounds determined not to go down alone.  Why aren't you calling John stupid for winging him and not going for a kill shot?

Technically John boy didn't exactly take the other lives into account either, since he winged the gunman, leaving him free to kill.

The only person who can define that for you is you, and maybe your wife.

And that's good because Ginger wasn't willing to give her life for women either.  She was the only one in the room, remember?  She was trying to help her friends. 

We'll agree to disagree.  I absolutely judge one aspect of manhood in terms of protection.  If I can't count on my man to protect my family then I cannot see him as a man.  That doesn't mean he has to act stupid, but he does have to act.   

I think you'd be crazy not to be scared.  No one said she wasn't scared.  Maybe she was scared and acted anyway.  She was scared and acted.  The men were scared and froze.

Charles, equality does not equate to physiology.  It equates to rights and freedoms. 

Men are generally made larger, with more muscle mass, larger lungs and heart etc.  It is why women race women in the Olympics, not men.  The male runners have a physiological advantage over the women.  It is also why the military adapts different standards for men than women, like how much one must lift, height, weight, etc.  Come on, you know this.  No one (sane) believes men and women are physiologically "equal."

Very good point. The smartest move for her would have been to quietly move for the exit so she could help summon security and become one less potential casualty. Shes lucky he didn't kill her.. that would have been really tough on her family right in time for the holidays. I guess CS Lewis was right... experience can be a brutal teacher.

I love how you guys condemn her for not thinking, but are perfectly ok with men who did the same thing.  Because running away and freezing are just full of intellectual plotting. 

CS Lewis was a great man. 

Which men are you talking about?  The ones at the table who tried to reason with him? 

I used to watch Flashpoint which was a show about these types of situations.  In it, these specially trained men and women would go into a hostage type situation and after securing the area they would then try to reason/talk down the agitated gunman.  They would get personal trying to find something that they could use as leverage to get the agitated person to calm down.  They never went in there blazing their weapons although they had them at the ready and would do so if necessary.  But that was NOT the first step in every show. 

That's what I saw the men at the table doing.  They were trying to calm the man down by trying to help him think about other alternatives getting personal with him inquiring about his wife.  Most of the time that's all that is needed to diffuse the situation.

Also I only heard the gunman say he was going to die that day.  I'd have to watch it again, but I don't remember him saying he was going to kill anyone.  According to the newspaper his wife said he had no intention in killing anyone and if he had he could have easily since he was an excellent marksman.   

Merry Christmas Tonya!  (((((((((((((T)))))))))))

Those are exactly who I mean.  Talking the man to death doesn't seem like a viable option to me.  A man walks in with a gun and we're supposed to "trust" that talking to him will curb his intention?  That he is "really" not there to harm anyone?  Then why not let everyone go but one person?

Of course he went there to kill people.  Why else conceal a weapon, write a V on the wall, and then pull the weapon out and point it at someone, later FIRING at someone. 

Why not just kill himself at home then?

As for being an expert shooter, we only have his wife's comment about that.  Doesn't make it true.  And when he was shot, he turned and tried to shoot the guy sitting on the end.  Doesn't sound like someone who was intent on not hurting someone to me.

Those men weren't "trained" to re-act in a hostage situation any more than trained in a more violent response.  Yet they chose the former.  Weak.  Sorry.  It just is.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! 

I have nothing to add to this, just wanted to say BOOYAH!