Fresh from yet another mugging, Kirsty limps to the podium and starts to talk...

"Friends, yet ANOTHER mugging, but it has inspired me to come up with an idea that is somewhat limited in terms of practically and indeed sense, but would in a very real sense address an issue that isn't too prevalent.  

Many people seek to respect the wishes of others in terms of pick-pocketing.  For my part, I'd be quite contest to allow some people to shoot me if I mugged them.  And I imagine that I am not alone in this.  

Of course, what needs to be hammered out is how many shots could be taken, and the actions that the person shot at could take following the post-mugging shot being fired.

But these are merely details.

Certainly, I think the If-I-Mug-You-You-Can-Shoot-Me-Society could be a breath of fresh air for this community.

To recap, for a shooting to take place, both people would need to be members of the If-I-Mug-You-You-Can-Shoot-Me-Society.  

A mugging would have to take place.  And the person MUGGED would then be able to shoot the MUGGER.  

Maybe it could be time limited?

What do you think?

QuelleChris laughed after hearing the suggestion put forth fresh off the soapbox.

"From what I've read in my ancestor's journals, the laissez-faire approach of letting people decide their reaction has been working for us pretty well. And the concept of letting made men 'legally' discharge their firearms over a few benjamins, a couple bruises, and a missing gun seemed to be a quite lazy attempt at empowering our underworld's upper structure. Apparently, encouraging unnecessary bloodshed is supposed to be empowering for the people who have proven with their actions and most importantly, their character, that they are worthy of their buttons. Ironic, isn't it?" QuelleChris shrugs.

"While I don't condone such rash, violent behavior myself, I believe your suggestion is a step in the right direction. I do suggest tweaking something to make your society a bit more interesting. While the guiding principle with people who want to shoot muggers is 'the action is yours, the reaction is not,' I don't believe you would enter this society and rain lead on your assailants merely to protect your hard-earned money and the boomstick concealed in your holster. That would seem a bit too excessive. Perhaps society members enter in order to inflate their egos-I meant reputations and squeeze more fun out of this lifestyle of ours by living dangerously and not because of retribution or rank. In that case, wouldn't letting society members duel each other bring more fun and maximize the inflation of all the society members' egos? What do you say?" QuelleChris gazes at the man on the soapbox.

I may be interested in this group if you change the name to I -Set-Myself- Up- For -A -Beatdown- And -Now -I -Want-To- Cry -About -My- Choice.

HMM I am glad you see the point where I am coming from Hawk.

When I came to America from Japan, I had certain preconceptions on what I would find. Mostly, they were wrong. As Confucius said, 'When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it – this is knowledge' so there is nothing wrong with admitting what I thought to be true was in fact wrong. However, I decided to ensure that what I did not know would become smaller and smaller over time, so I read everything I could find. It turns out that not everything you can read gives you knowledge. Take Edgar Rice Burroughs. He is most famous for writing Tarzan. I find my situation oddly reminiscent of Tarzan. A man completely out of his element, struggling to find his place in the new world. Raising four boys certainly helped me adapt to american life. 

Recently though I picked up a new book by Burroughs-San, 'A Fighting Man of Mars'. It tells the tale of Humans on Mars, interacting with Martians and living wild and adventurous lives, and as such has absolutely no knowledge to impart, simply entertainment value. Now, I'm sure you are asking yourself, 'what the fuck does this have to do with my shitty idea?' Well how about this, what planet are you on? You are suggesting a group of people agree to shoot each other, if and when they mug each other. However, given the level of your protection, and the comment you sent me after I mugged your ass for failing to respect my wishes, all I see here is your desire to bring back the mugging rules of the Soviet state that your Great Grandfather abused so successfully. All I see happening here is you shooting anyone with insufficient Bodyguards to protect themselves, and not picking the pockets of anyone who you believe can shoot through your bodyguards.

Why would anyone volunteer to allow themselves to be shot if they use their God Given right to defend themselves from your rummaging hands? 

Hawk - I've covered the whiny bitch element.  What I'm proposing is actually making people ante up and take a chance.  A real chance.  Like my grandfather did when he arrogantly challenged anyone to a duel and got his fucking ass handed to him.  That was not how he saw that situation resolving itself.  For all his talk of not fearing death, I've heard he was actually quite upset when it came down to it.  Truth be told, it's had a lasting legacy.  You'll not find me shooting my mouth off challenging schlubs to duels.  No.  

Master_Splinter - You might think this is about you, but it isn't.  As I've explained, my bloodline is satisfied that we have extracted enough blood and treasure, and prestige, from your bloodline.  We have won.  And we are magnanimous in victory.  I have no intention of ever shooting you, unless my boss orders me to do so.  Then I'd have to, but I wouldn't like it.  Not one bit.

This was trialed before and it didn't end well. As a matter of fact I remember the gods almost had to get involved.

Actually... You do what you want, I would love to see the gods strike you down for lolz

This has not be trialed before, unless you can point me towards another opt-in arrangement that permits muggers to be shot via their own consent? 

As to the remainder of your comment, I would have thought it was obvious that public declarations of desire to seeing my people slain, particularly when you have not paid your dues and been Made, will be hazardous to your health. 

Right looks to his Left..

then to his Right, where Left, Right's associate, is standing.

Then he looks Left again, grins at Grin-07 and then says

Are you denying people of their freedom of religion now?

Then Right looks @Straight ahead, realizing there is no @Straight in this world, so he turns back to Left, on his Right, saying.. 

Maybe you did not bring it too tactful, I know, deep in your heart, you only mean it Right..

With that said Right turns Right, takes Left by the shoulder and makes him turn Right

This here.. is the Right path.. Towards the casino. It hopefully leads to being richer than God again..

On the original matter:

If you pick pockets, do it at least half decently and make sure you are stealthy.

But honestly, I really feel this whole suggestion is plain stupid. Of course, people can volunteer to become part of such an elite group, but why would anyone? To volunteer being shot? For not accepting something someone did to them?

If you don't like being mugged, don't pick pockets of other mafiosi.

In my limited, yet Right reasoning, I can't even think of how it would make sense that their actions (mugging) should have very severe consequences (death), whilst yours (pickpocketing) hardly have any (a black eye and a loss of money if you are stupid enough to keep it on hand only).

Madhatter was walking on the streets when he heard something crazy:

If-I-Mug-You-You-Can-Shoot-Me-Society 

But seeing the Madhatter was crazy he started listening to what people where saying. But after the words you need to be part of the society to shoot someone from the society he walked away. 

Madhatter was crazy some people even called him  bonkers, but he wasn't going to join a group of people that wanted to Pickpocket without getting mugged if they where bad at it. Mugging was the part of the Pickpocketing what made it fun, the trill. 

But shooting people for being able to see you and protecting there own money is just to strange for the Madhatter. 

So he walked away in his search for a white rabbit or his queen

Stoney laying low, gun in hand, gets in position to hit up a bank. While waiting for his que to enter the bank, he finds himslelf dealing with a pickpocketer. A silent shot hits his perp. He takes his wallet back and slides his bleeding victim under a nearby bush. 

I use this analogy because pickpocketing, although defined as less offensive than mugging, is not an excuse one cannot be shot dead or merely injured. Lifting cash out of someones pocket is not as violent as a mugging, yet it is equivallent to violating a mans space. 

I ask, lets say there is a mugging and one opts to shoot in retalliation. Would the mugger be able to fire back? 

Stoney has more questions but must proceed to locating his watch he thinks he lost at another gathering.

@Stony, I have written at length about violating men's "space" - some see it as that, others see it as something quite beautiful.

But what I am proposing is a contract entered into by a group of people, whereupon, with consent, they can shoot each other in certain circumstances. 

Well Stoney, there is a difference, is there not?

A mug, per definition, is the reaction on a pickpocketing, therefore it's always initiated by the pickpocketer.
So the person starting to do the offence, invading personal space, always also is the person shooting in this weird-club-thing. It simply makes no sense at all. Literally 0.
Your example makes more sense, shooting a pickpocketer directly.

Right, yes, that makes more sense.  If you are a fucking idiot.  Anyone shooting a pickpocketer will themselves be shot by their boss.

If someone shoots someone that mugged them, the shooter might get a pass.  But if two people join this society, and one shoots the other, then it's all OK.

I have tried repeatedly, using language appropriate for a small child, to explain this basic concept to you, but I seem to have failed.  The fault lies not with me, for I have dumbed down to your level, but with you, as you have either not the capacity, capability or ambition to understand a model of behaviour that even Teq could understand.

I wish you well.

Right, Right replied
For someone with a degree in psuchology, you are pretty bad at working out mechanics of action and reaction..
I actually thought I would spell it out for you, but as you are so highly educated, I will refrain from that.

A shooter might get a pass after he is mugged? Seriously?
Well.. I am glad you aren't leading a crew!

Oh wait.. Sorry, you are, you are renting your leadership, I forgot. Is it worth the 5 Million per week, you feel?

Right starts thinking

If anyone joins the If-you-pay-me-100-million-and-let-me-shoot-you-society I could get rich and shoot people.
But how stupid is that idea..? Probably just as stupid as the If-I-Mug-You-You-Can-Shoot-Me-Society.. So I will not bring that absolutely ridiculous idea to the streets, or I will look like an idiot, despite being Right.

Seeing the numb look on Kirsty's face, Right decides to react anyway
You have tried to explain, that is Right. But the idea is stupid. That is why I refuse to accept the idea as being Right.
You use child-like language? Are you sure you son't spell language 'T-H-I-N-K-I-N-G'?
You have dumbed down to my level? Right.. You can't even convince a child-like thinker and it's the child-like thinker's fault? You can't seperate action and reaction, nor can you handle it if someone opposes to an absolute ridiculous plan that your brilliant mind should have dismissed even before it entered your brain.
I don't have the capacity to understand a model of behaviour? We can't all have a degree in psychology, now, can we? What would it be worth if we all had? Oh wait.. Clearly it's not worth anything Right now, as clearly one currently does not have to have any brain functionality to get such a degree.
I don't have the capability to understand a model of behaviour? By assessing and rejected it, you could have seen, as you are so intelligent, that I understood and disagreed.
I don't have the ambition to understand a model of behaviour? By rejecting your idea, I propose the elimination of a terribly silly suggestion. The world would be a better place without such suggestions. Sheer ambition!

In short, I think that if The Streets could feel, they would be mortified by hearing someone like you self-proclaiming being their leader..
 

My degree is in psychology.

The rest of your babble isn't worth responding on, so I'll leave it there as a lasting testament to your educational prowess.

Right grins

You wouldn't say

So, if someone is being serially mugged enough that they feel the need to create a social club to get around the annoyance, then it reminds me of the tale of the hunter and the bear:

A hunter goes into the woods to hunt a bear. He carries his trusty 22-gauge rifle with him. After a while, he spots a very large bear, takes aim, and fires. When the smoke clears, the bear is gone. A moment later, the bear taps the hunter on the shoulder and says,

“No one shoots at me and gets away with it. You have two choices: I can rip your throat out and eat you, or you can drop your trousers and bend over.”

The hunter decides that anything is better than death, so he drops his trousers and bends over; and the bear does what he said he would do.

After the bear has left, the hunter pulls up his trousers and staggers back into town. He’s pretty mad. He buys a much larger gun and returns to the forest. He sees the same bear, aims, and fires. When the smoke clears, the bear is gone. A moment later the bear taps the hunter on the shoulder and says,

“You know what to do.”

Afterward, the hunter pulls up his trousers, crawls back into town, and buys a bazooka. Now he’s really mad. He returns to the forest, sees the bear, aims, and fires. The force of the bazooka blast knocks him flat on his back. When the smoke clears, the bear is standing over him and says,

“You’re not doing this for the hunting, are you?”

I posit that rather than being aggrieved by the muggings, you actually enjoying the attention it allows you to garner.  It gives you something to complain about and that really you want to shoot someone.

So, Right's point...is it the fault of the mugger that the mugging happened or was it the pickpocketer who initiated the process?  And his response was in reply to @Stony, yet once again you feel the need to once again, infer publicly that he is "a fucking idiot".  Given you have already said he isn't functioning cognitively you are saying I have an idiot for a right hand.  If you're saying I have an idiot for a right hand, then by extension you're saying I'm an idiot.

I do, at this point, have to ask...are you actually saying that my right hand is an idiot?