Unarmed versus Armed Victims

[JohnRich 4]

News:

2 electricians, bandit shot in robbery

Two men were shot Thursday afternoon in an elaborate robbery setup that ended with a would-be bandit in critical condition, police said. A crew of robbers broke into a home. While in the house, the bandits used the phone book and called electricians to the home. The first electrician to arrive to the home was ambushed and shot in the leg. He was tied up and placed in another room.

A second electrician came to the home, but fought back after he also was shot in the leg. "He was armed, and shot one of the perpetrators." While other members of the robbing crew escaped, the one shot was taken to Grady Memorial Hospital where he remains in critical condition.

Source: http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/2-electricians-bandit-shot-298597.html

Two robberies, one of an unarmed victim, and one of an armed victim. If the armed victim had been the first one, then there wouldn't have been a second. And he may have stopped there from being any additional victims, or even possibly murders. What a difference a gun makes.

[SpeedRacer 1]

OK, now kallend's going to post something in 3.....2.....1......

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

OK, now kallend's going to post something in 3.....2.....1......

No. Don't think so. He's just waiting a bit as JR surely will come along with a longer list of *his special posts*

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Skyrad 0]

So John, where have you been on holiday recently?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So John, where have you been on holiday recently?

Heading out on Thursday to spend nine days canoeing and hiking, on and around the Rio Grande River, in west Texas. Big Bend Ranch State Park, and Big Bend National Park.

And the new law, signed by Obama, allowing gun carry in National Parks goes into effect Feb. 22nd. So I'll no longer have to carry my gun in my car unloaded and out of reach. (Have to keep things on topic here, don't we?)

Attached: Aerial view of the landscape. The river can be hard to see in there, but it runs from the top left corner diagonally downward to the red star on the right, over the small town of Lajitas. The U.S. is above the river, and Mexico below.

I'd like to give christelsabine a long special post.

[hwt 0]

finally, a story with a happy ending.

[masterrig 1]

Be careful! They've been throwing rocks at folks on the river, from the Mexican side, lately. Especially Border Patrol boats. Have a good trip.


Chuck

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Be careful! They've been throwing rocks at folks on the river, from the Mexican side, lately. Especially Border Patrol boats. Have a good trip.

Thanks. Yes, I've heard about that. Rocks vs. a .45. Them banditos should be worried.

[georgerussia 0]

Man nearly shot in gem burglary

Just an example of one of those "armed victims" who nearly shot a bystander.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Be careful! They've been throwing rocks at folks on the river, from the Mexican side, lately. Especially Border Patrol boats. Have a good trip.

Thanks. Yes, I've heard about that. Rocks vs. a .45. Them banditos should be worried.

Isn't there something about bringing a rock to a gun fight?
At first, I didn't care too much for the idea of guns in National parks but, after some thought, I can really see the point. Especially in the Big Bend area. That park has well traveled drug routes. I'd be less fearful of the cats and bears!


Chuck

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I'd be less fearful of the cats and bears!

Having been to Big Bend a couple of times (not nearly as many as John), I'm with you on this one. Although its not nearly as bad as Glacier National Park was...damned Canadians...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I'd be less fearful of the cats and bears!

Having been to Big Bend a couple of times (not nearly as many as John), I'm with you on this one. Although its not nearly as bad as Glacier National Park was...damned Canadians...

I hear, they carry hockey sticks!
The bears are bigger there, too!


Chuck

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Man nearly shot in gem burglary
Just an example of one of those "armed victims" who nearly shot a bystander.

I know that in your fantasy world, people who carry around hundreds of thousands of dollars in precious gemstones, would not be allowed to be armed for self defense from bad guys who would kill them for their goods. Fortunately, 48 of the 50 states don't let you get your way.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

At first, I didn't care too much for the idea of guns in National parks but, after some thought, I can really see the point. Especially in the Big Bend area. That park has well traveled drug routes. I'd be less fearful of the cats and bears!

It's an issue that has been hyped-up by the anti-gun folks. All the new law says is that the national parks must adopt the same gun control laws as the host state. So what's already been happening in Texas with gun carry for over a decade, will now be allowed to happen in National Parks too. And since nothing horrible has happened elsewhere in the state where these laws have applied for a long time, there's no reason to believe that it will have any different effect when these same people now drive through a park gate. They won't magically transform into mass-shooting zombies, just because they drive past a sign that says; "Welcome to Big Bend National Park". It's been the usual gun-o-phobe tactics; all fear-mongering and no logic.

Here's a warning about the two-legged danger published in the Houston Canoe Club newsletter just last month: http://www.houstoncanoeclub.org/waterline/2010/february/article_7.html

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I know that in your fantasy world, people who carry around hundreds of thousands of dollars in precious gemstones, would not be allowed to be armed for self defense from bad guys who would kill them for their goods.

We can see it really well with how those people armed for self-defense brought the violent crime rate down to zero in Texas, and especially in Houston. Some of those "armed for self-defense" people like Cho also greatly contributed to overall world safety.
Indeed, that's you who lives in a fantasy world.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[loumeinhart 0]

this is my favorite from GeorgeRussia a few months ago:

crewkeith:
hmmm. December 5th 3:30 am las Vegas Nevada. route 108 bus stop man approaches ME demanding money and brandishing a knife. i politely draw my trusty handy dandy kimber .45 and put a red dot on his forehead. he changed his mind.

georgerussa:
You'd be alive as well if you just gave him your money, as he was not trying to kill you.

[captain1976 0]

Quote

News:

2 electricians, bandit shot in robbery



While other members of the robbing crew escaped, the one shot was taken to Grady Memorial Hospital where he remains in critical condition.

Thats another problem. Now we have to pay for the medical care and finally the caging of this garbage. Medical science can fix most shots to the body these days, thats why in a similar situation I aim for the face.

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Man nearly shot in gem burglary
Just an example of one of those "armed victims" who nearly shot a bystander.

Man charged in pawnshop slaying
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-cold-case-murder-charge-20100126,0,1219943.story

Just an example of one of those victims from a city where guns are not allowed in self defense.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Man nearly shot in gem burglary

Just an example of one of those "armed victims" who nearly shot a bystander.

I bet you're disappointed the round missed.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

We can see it really well with how those people armed for self-defense brought the violent crime rate down to zero in Texas, and especially in Houston. Some of those "armed for self-defense" people like Cho also greatly contributed to overall world safety. Indeed, that's you who lives in a fantasy world.

Gun folks have never claimed that owning guns will reduce crime to zero. That's a fantasy on your part.

And yes, sometimes, former good guys turn bad, and of course, bad guys get guns despite laws against that. No one in the history of the world has ever figured out a way to prevent that. We all anxiously await kallend's future crime prediction machine for that.

Meanwhile, this is where we differ:

You think the solution is to confiscate all guns, in the belief that this will somehow prevent the bad guys from getting them. Once again, no weapons confiscation scheme in the world has ever succeeded in doing that. Not even in the extremes of Nazi Germany. So that indeed is a fantasy. So what your idea would do is leave all the good guys defenseless, while the bad guys would continue to be armed. And that's a really bad combination for security, and returns society to a "survival of the fittest" mentality, where the strong can prey on the weak with impunity.

I, on the other hand, acknowledge the reality of the futility of trying to prevent bad guys from getting guns, and the imperfection of laws, and therefore think the best response is to ensure that the good guys can be armed to defend themselves. While there may be some regrettable incidents on the negative side, overall it is a positive influence on society, saving many people from becoming victims of crime, reducing crime rates, and driving criminals away from person-to-person crimes, where injury and death can occur, into less dangerous property crimes instead. I'd rather have someone steal my car at night, than to threaten me with a knife for my wallet.

Your example of Cho is one that actually reflects your solution - where one armed man can commit terror against as many people as he wishes, in a zone where no one is allowed to be armed. Cho was stopped only when good guys with guns arrived, to make him realize that his murder spree was over. So, although you presented this as a case against my beliefs, it's ironic that it's actually a perfect example against your theory. If we went your way, there would be far more Cho's out there.

A defenseless society is a bad idea. And while more guns than ever are in private hands, crime rates are at a 30-year low in America. Which goes to show that even if you think that guns don't reduce crime, it certainly shows that more guns don't automatically increase crime either. In fact, gun ownership and crime rates are unrelated, without correlation. Therefore, it's best to allow people to have guns for self defense, and crime rates do not suffer for that.

There you go - a nice factual, logical explanation, without personal insults. Let's see how many anti-gun folks can follow suit.

[kallend 2,063]

Quote

Quote

We can see it really well with how those people armed for self-defense brought the violent crime rate down to zero in Texas, and especially in Houston. Some of those "armed for self-defense" people like Cho also greatly contributed to overall world safety. Indeed, that's you who lives in a fantasy world.

Gun folks have never claimed that owning guns will reduce crime to zero. That's a fantasy on your part.

And yes, sometimes, former good guys turn bad, and of course, bad guys get guns despite laws against that. No one in the history of the world has ever figured out a way to prevent that. We all anxiously await kallend's future crime prediction machine for that.

Common sense says that mentally unstable people like Cho shouldn't have guns. No "future crime machine" needed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Common sense says that mentally unstable people like Cho shouldn't have guns. No "future crime machine" needed.

What criteria would you use to ascertain that someone is "mentally unstable"?

Would people who risk life and limb jumping out of airplanes at great heights be considered mentally unstable?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Just an example of one of those victims from a city where guns are not allowed in self defense.

2 killed in separate northwest Houston shootings

Charged in Girlfriend’s Death

Just an example of one of those victims from a city where guns ARE allowed in self defense.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

At first, I didn't care too much for the idea of guns in National parks but, after some thought, I can really see the point. Especially in the Big Bend area. That park has well traveled drug routes. I'd be less fearful of the cats and bears!

It's an issue that has been hyped-up by the anti-gun folks. All the new law says is that the national parks must adopt the same gun control laws as the host state. So what's already been happening in Texas with gun carry for over a decade, will now be allowed to happen in National Parks too. And since nothing horrible has happened elsewhere in the state where these laws have applied for a long time, there's no reason to believe that it will have any different effect when these same people now drive through a park gate. They won't magically transform into mass-shooting zombies, just because they drive past a sign that says; "Welcome to Big Bend National Park". It's been the usual gun-o-phobe tactics; all fear-mongering and no logic.

Here's a warning about the two-legged danger published in the Houston Canoe Club newsletter just last month: http://www.houstoncanoeclub.org/waterline/2010/february/article_7.html

I live not too far from the Big Bend region and have heard many similar tales as you posted. It's getting scarey. Especially with the increased drug traffic through the area. With all this in mind, I'm glad to see the change in the laws pertaining to the carrying of firearms in the Big Bend park and other parks.


Chuck

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

And yes, sometimes, former good guys turn bad, and of course, bad guys get guns despite laws against that. No one in the history of the world has ever figured out a way to prevent that. We all anxiously await kallend's future crime prediction machine for that.

And that is why most European countries which have guns restricted somehow tend to have less overall violent crime, and significantly less violent gun crime than USA.

Quote

You think the solution is to confiscate all guns, in the belief that this will somehow prevent the bad guys from getting them.

This is misinterpretation, but no surprise - so far you have never been able to read what I wrote without twisting things up.

Quote

Once again, no weapons confiscation scheme in the world has ever succeeded in doing that. Not even in the extremes of Nazi Germany.

This is very ignorant statement. Nazi Germany did not confiscate all guns. In fact they lowered the previously imposed restrictions, making it easier for everyone (except Jews) to own guns.

Quote

So what your idea would do is leave all the good guys defenseless, while the bad guys would continue to be armed.

Of course, and that's why we have much more violent crime in states like CA and NY than in gun-happy states like TX, NV or FL? All those defenseless guys in NYC should probably move to Houston where a lot of armed good guys maintain violent crime rate almost twice high comparing to NYC.

Quote

If we went your way, there would be far more Cho's out there.

Like in Europe, you mean? How many Cho's were there?

Your theory sounds good until you apply it to the real world.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *