In James Bond movies, hundreds of men with machine guns shoot thousands of bullets at Bond and his girlfriend and every one misses them. Usually Bond defends himself by throwing a handy empty barrel at several of the closest assailants, but when things get a bit hectic, he squeezes off a round from his Walther PPK and, although he is diving and rolling, his bullet finds its mark.
That is the kind of infantile delusion that animates concealed carry advocates. Real life is different.
Not much detail has been released about this robbery and gunfight at a Rhode Island gun shop -- the kind of place, the gun nuts tell us, nobody ever tries to rob. But the event is common enough that we can run through the possible scenarios.
In the one that is most conformable to gun nut delusions, the robbers intended to kill every possible witness, and the shop owner saved himself (unless he dies, which seems possible still) by using his gun and wounding two of the robbers.
Unluckily, there were three robbers and one of them also shot him, and he was later found bleeding by the mail lady.
This is possible, although nowadays with cameras everywhere shooting witnesses is not as productive a strategy as it used to be.
In most robberies (including other robberies of gun shops, videos of which have been linked here at RtO), the robbers do not plan to shoot anybody, instead using their guns to intimidate witnesses into stillness and compliance. I have talked with several people who have been robbed at gunpoint in gun shops, and they all say they did everything they could to show they were complying.
A typical robbery lasts a minute or less, so the advantage is all with the robber or robbers. Surprise plus intimidation is usually enough to prevent resistance.
But one way to change a robber's mind about shooting is to pull a gun on him. In an example a couple of months ago in Houston, the robbers charged in shooting, and the owner shot back, killing one of them.
What happened in Providence is yet unknown. It may have been like the Houston holdup (without the car crashes that may have alerted the pawnbroker to get his gun ready).
More likely, the robbers would have left the Providence man unhurt had he not decided to shoot it out.
There are 300,000,000 guns in America. Maybe sometimes a good man with a gun can defeat a bad man with a gun, but there's nothing to stop the bad man from bringing along his bad friends, like in the scene in "Jurassic Park" when the human hunter is ambushed by the velociraptor's friends..
What happened to the Providence businessman is regrettable. It would be even worse if it happened because (primary cause) bad men have unlimited access to firearms and (secondary cause) the storekeeper bought in to gun nut fantasies.
This is the perfect example of why we won't ever possibly agree on this issue. You consider this incident a failure, I consider it a success. You consider risking one's life to stop armed thugs from intimidation and robbery foolish, I consider it nearly imperative. You consider being walked over by thugs of all sorts, from government bureaucrats to armed marauders, a small price to pay to cling to a pathetic life, I consider it simply being pathetic and not really living, but existing, and a poor one at that.
ReplyDeleteLet the "gun nuts" stand up for their rights and die. They'll be happy doing so and so will you. You think they're nuts, they (and I) think you're nuts. I think this guy's a hero.
What rights was this guy standing up for?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.waff.com/story/30330423/2-transported-to-hospital-after-shooting-at-griners-supermarket
I think your comment proves my point about free marketers: they value stuff above human life. So the robbers come in and steal some stuff. Bad. But having someone killed is even worse. At least in my pathetic view.
It was a freakin' pawn shop. It wasn't even new stuff.
Harry:
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't prove your point, because you completely missed Bret's.
If society wants more armed robberies, then it needs to do exactly what you advocate: minimize the risk to robbers.
Some people, Bret and I, for example, consider that a supine society suffers much greater long term societal costs far greater than your anecdotes could possibly amount to.
Interesting how you never seem to square the much greater prevalence of guns in the US with plummeting crime rates.
Not much detail has been released about this robbery and gunfight at a Rhode Island gun shop -- the kind of place, the gun nuts tell us, nobody ever tries to rob.
ReplyDeleteReally? I haven't heard that from anyone except you.
Hmmm. That must make you a gun nut. Whodathunkit.
Not much detail has been released about this robbery and gunfight at a Rhode Island gun shop -- the kind of place, the gun nuts tell us, nobody ever tries to rob.
ReplyDeleteReally? I haven't heard that from anyone except you.
Hmmm. That must make you a gun nut. Whodathunkit.
There are many facts here, Harry.
ReplyDeleteYou might want to avert your eyes.
I got as far as that idiot saying mixing suicides and homicides together "is lying." No point wasting my time on idiots.
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason to think that more guns means fewer armed robberies. Hawaii, for example, has strict gun lawsand very few armed robberies.
Then there is this:
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/sean-smith-fatally-shot-little-sister-florida-gun-storage/
"There are around 110 fatal shootings involving children under 14 each year, according to a new study. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that at least another 1,000 are shot but survive. The incidents generally happen during the summer, many the result of idle kids, especially boys, left with hours to fill and homes to explore. “It’s clear to everyone that it must be a very traumatic event for the children,” says Lindsay Nichols of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “Among those who survive the shooting, and either shot themselves or shot somebody else, it certainly can be life-changing.” Yet there is little research on those after effects. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was recognized by the psychiatric community in 1978, but the special case of child trauma wasn’t recognized until 2000, when Congress passed the National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative to fund studies on the debilitating mental and emotional impact that violence has on young people."
I got as far as that idiot saying mixing suicides and homicides together "is lying." No point wasting my time on idiots.
ReplyDeleteYou are the idiot. There is a perfectly good reason not to mix suicides and homicides together: the suicides will happen via different means. Which you would have noticed had you kept going. You would also have learned that suicide is culturally correlated. South Korea has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, and virtually no guns. Then you should conclude that getting rid of guns will have absolutely no effect on suicide, which is why mixing suicides with homicides to fluff the number is some toxic combination of lying and stupidity.
No wonder journalists do it so often -- seems to come naturally.
There is no reason to think that more guns means fewer armed robberies. Hawaii, for example, has strict gun lawsand very few armed robberies.
I have an idea. Why don't you look for the correlation between crime rates and gun prevalance.
And what else does Hawaii have few of?
There are around 110 fatal shootings involving children under 14 each year ...
How many drownings?
Oh, about 700
I'm waiting for your call to ban swimming pools.
You have flogged the idea that suicides will get the job done anyhow, but that isn't true.
ReplyDelete' minimize the risk to robbers.'
So we have the highest ratio of prisoners in the world (except maybe Fernando Po), which does not argue that the risk to robbers is low. I think of avoiding gunplay as minimizing the risk to robbery victims.
You have flogged the idea that suicides will get the job done anyhow, but that isn't true.
ReplyDeleteBollocks. Shenanigans.
I have provided plenty of data to demonstrate that confiscating guns has no effect on the suicide rate.
To which you provide vacuous nonsense.
In contrast, the link which you so cavalierly rejected, provides many reasons to know that confiscating guns will make no difference in the suicide rate.
Which is why zealots who conflate homicide and suicide are either liars or fools.
So we have the highest ratio of prisoners in the world (except maybe Fernando Po), which does not argue that the risk to robbers is low.
Of all the truly stupid things I have read on the internet in the last, oh six months, and that includes every global warming article in the NYT, that has to be in the top ten.
Covering the shameless assualts on logic would take an hour.
I'm waiting for your call to ban swimming pools.
[crickets]
Pools are regulated for safety, and if someone drowns anyway the consequences can be severe.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am a confiscationist, the active movement is for gun control on par with pool or car control. Contrast that with the constitutional carriers.
'confiscating guns will make no difference in the suicide rate'
Except that suicide rates correlate pretty well with gunownership in this country.
You know all those moans about gun-free zones? Where do the majority of firearms deaths and injuries occur? In the home with the family firearm.
Pools are regulated for safety, and if someone drowns anyway the consequences can be severe.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't seem to be working, does it? Lot's fewer pools than guns, four times as many drownings. So the question remains: if dead children is a justification for confiscating guns, then four times as many dead children means you need to focus your energy on turning pools into planters.
Unless, of course, that isn't your justification at all.
… the active movement is for gun control on par with pool or car control. Contrast that with the constitutional carriers.
What, exactly does registering (control, per se, is nonexistent) pools and cars accomplish? Besides making them suitable for taxation, that is.
What, exactly, would registering guns accomplish?
'confiscating guns will make no difference in the suicide rate'
Except that suicide rates correlate pretty well with gunownership in this country.
Whenever a progressive makes a reference to statistics, there is almost always legerdemain, or ignorance, involved.
Start with the last three words: … in this country.
Perhaps you remember this:
Suicidal acts with guns are fatal in 85 percent of cases, while those with pills are fatal in just 2 percent of cases, according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
…
The national map of suicide lights up in states with the highest gun ownership rates. Wyoming, Montana and Alaska, the states with the three highest suicide rates, are also the top gun-owning states …
Courtesy of the NYT, and a perfect example of agenda journalism, or pig-ignorance.
Suicide rates, in this country, in addition to being somewhat correlated with guns, are perfectly correlated with gender. Instead of imitating that crappy NYT journalist, why don't you determine the correlation in this country between suicide and testosterone?
Then, step outside this country and determine the correlation between suicide rates, and guns, and rates and societies?
Then look at suicide rates among countries that have banned guns?
Your putative correlation is rubbish: it explains nothing (except the obvious and irrelevant: gun ownership is correlated with men, and liberal gun laws.)
Where do the majority of firearms deaths and injuries occur? In the home with the family firearm.
Do you think even a little bit before you type this stuff?
How about, in that sentence, replace the word "firearms" with: ladders, ropes, axes, power tools, cars, riding lawn mowers, steak knives, pet tigers, and pools.
That sentence is perfectly circular, and therefore, completely meaningless.
Congratulations.
You are a confiscationist zealot because of sloppy thinking and immunity to inconvenient facts.
News report:
ReplyDeleteAnxious Woman calling 911: There's a man walking down the street wit a rifle!!
911 Dispatcher: Calm yourself, dear lady. This is Colorado. The Legislature has determined that a man carrying a weapon intended for shooting long distances down a congested city street should make you safe.
[call ends; a few seconds later, a new call]
Anxious Woman: It's the man with the gun. He just shot a boy on a bicycle 3 times!!
* * *
For the purposes of our discussion, the timing was worthy of Abbott & Costello.
Link?
ReplyDeleteReally, it isn't that hard.
Oh, and I can't help but noticed you moved the goal posts again.
ReplyDelete"Is this person exercising their rights or about to start a very serious situation in which someone is going to be killed?" said Jacki Kelley, spokeswoman for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office. "We just don't know the difference."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29064963/open-carry-becomes-focus-after-colorado-springs-shooting
How about returning the goalpostsl to where they were?
ReplyDeleteOr are:
Except that suicide rates correlate pretty well with gunownership in this country.
You know all those moans about gun-free zones? Where do the majority of firearms deaths and injuries occur? In the home with the family firearm.
indefensible?
Easily done. In fact, I was planning to link to this story:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-concealed-carry-20151101-story.html
as an example of a (very rare) concealed carrier halting a life-threatening hood. But I waited a few hours (as is my custom) to see what additional information came out.
And, lo! turns out that no life was being threatened, only property and mental well-being (not small things, but not life).
So now we have a concealed carrier giving out the death penalty for a crime worth 10-20 years in prison if normal legal procedures had taken their course.
Shenanigans. You made these assertions:
ReplyDeleteExcept that suicide rates correlate pretty well with gunownership in this country.
You know all those moans about gun-free zones? Where do the majority of firearms deaths and injuries occur? In the home with the family firearm.
The first is superficial shenanigans, the second a perfect example of circular logic.
When challenge, you scuttle off with the goalposts.
From this I can conclude that you were blowing it out your hat, right?