If these victims were armed, could they have been able to defend themselves?

[alp227]

I read two local crime stories and couldn't help but think, if the victims in the stories were armed, they would've been able to stop their attackers in their tracks.

The first one: "$1 million bail set for Redwood City student accused of trying to rape teacher" (http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county-times/ci_19821983):

David Andres Velasquez, 19, was arraigned Wednesday in San Mateo County Superior Court on four felony charges including kidnapping to commit rape and criminal threats for the Monday attack on the teacher, Assistant District Attorney Al Serrato said. He is due back Feb. 8 to enter a plea to the charges.

The victim, a 29-year-old San Francisco woman, was walking to her car in the school's underground parking garage around 6:05 p.m. when Velasquez reportedly emerged with a knife and grabbed her from behind, Serrato said. The teenager then put the knife to her side and ordered her to get into her car.

He allegedly threatened to kill her is she didn't comply. The victim recognized Velasquez's voice because she had taught him for several years, Serrato said. As they moved toward her car, the teacher intentionally dropped her keys in order to delay the attacker.

The second one (also in the same county): "Well-dressed Palo Alto robbers steal man's jewelry" (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/26/BALC1MV289.DTL):

Three or four robbers waylaid the victim just before 2:30 p.m. Wednesday as he was putting the jewelry in the trunk of his car in the shopping center's northern parking lot, near the Macy's department store, said Sgt. Brian Philip, a police spokesman.

I may be becoming a right winger by mentioning guns, but wouldn't an armed society be a better "we" society (as opposed to a "me" society) where people will actively do something to defend their fellow person from crime? I don't know if there were any bystanders or witnesses to the jewelry robbery, but if the other teacher in the first story were armed, that teacher would've been able to shoot the attempted rapist on sight.

[baldguy]

1. Of course. Guns are magical talismans which can protect their owners from all harm.

Just as long as the owner's NRA dues are paid up.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. That argument is what I call...

...non sequiturd.

[baldguy]

11. Non sequiters? In the gungeon?

NO!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. Yes! n/t

[SteveW]

51. To clear up some of your fantasies...

You will not find anyone here who says "Guns are magical talismans which can protect their owners from all harm. Just as long as the owner's NRA dues are paid up."

You WILL, however, find gun-controller/prohibitionists who maintain this fantasy straw man.

All clear, now?

[arcane1]

2. To be fair...

you can't shoot someone on sight if they sneak up behind you

[ileus]

3. it never hurts to be a rude toter....betters the odds.

Safety first is what I always say, go prepared. Refuse to be a victim...

[burf]

7. Be aware of your surroundings n/t

[niyad]

4. right, because nobody who owns a gun has ever been killed with his/her own weapon.

quite frankly, your desire to have everyone armed is such a chilling concept that it is making me ill.

by the way, please note that, according to your own information, there were three or four people robbing the jeweler. for your scenario to work, every single person on the street would have had to be armed, had to have seen what was going on, and be able to shoot the perps without hitting the victim.

thanks, but no thanks.

[SteveW]

52. Errors in your post...

"quite frankly, your desire to have everyone armed is such a chilling concept that it is making me ill."

I know of no one in these threads who advocates this 'desire,' but there are a number of gun-controller/prohibitionists who keep saying this. Over and over. So any "chills" you feel are self-induced.

"...nobody who owns a gun has ever been killed with his/her own weapon."

Again, no one has ever claimed this, but there are a number of gun-controller/prohibitionists who keep saying this. Over and over.

If you have any supportable data which indicates your second statement is a widespread phenomenon, please present it here. Be aware that some studies which indicate your position (Kellerman, et al) have been widely-discredited.

The rest of your posts is speculation.

Thank you for the opportunity to correct your errors.

[niyad]

55. nice try, but no cigar. by the way, until this moment, the post was singular,

[SteveW]

56. No, my criticisms stand unrefuted. Straw men are often used by controllers. nt

[niyad]

57. keep trying. the post was, until that one, singular.

your tap dancing is fascinating to watch, however.

[ellisonz]

5. No. In both situations pulling a gun...

...may have resulted in homicide. Furthermore, in both situations the victims seem to have been attacked from behind. The solution in both situations is more situational awareness

[Jean V. Dubois]

6. And a justified homicide would be a bad thing under these circumstances...why, exactly?

[iverglas]

9. sigh

Did you really not grasp that what was being said was that pulling a gun may have resulted in the homicide of the person who pulled the gun? Both of whom were already facing an armed assailant / multiple assailants?

But to your question ... a homicide is not "a good thing" regardless of what category it falls into. "Justified" and "good" are entirely unrelated concepts.

Oh, okay, killing Pinochet might have been an okay thing.

[ellisonz]

14. Sometimes you've just got to wonder...

Occasionally, some of the posters here remind me of one of my dogs when it's time to go for a walk. As soon as the leash is picked up, she runs at the other one like a linebacker pancaking a running back: pancaked. There's just a sort of haphazard reckless abandon to the act.

[Jean V. Dubois]

17. Dramatic sigh back at ya. Did you really not grasp that I said that a *justified* homicide

wouldn't be bad under the circumstances? If the innocent party was killed, the homicide wouldn't be justified, would it? Let me make it clear for you: I was speaking only of the bad guys being killed. Get it?

But to your question ... a homicide is not "a good thing" regardless of what category it falls into. "Justified" and "good" are entirely unrelated concepts.

But they're not contradictory, are they? A homicide can certainly be a good thing. When vermin such as this assume room temperature, the world is a better place.

[iverglas]

22. wowsers

Maybe if you tried reading what I said again; or is third time lucky for you? --

But to your question ... a homicide is not "a good thing" regardless of what category it falls into. "Justified" and "good" are entirely unrelated concepts.

Yes, a justified homicide would be bad. All homicide is bad. Yeesh.

A homicide can certainly be a good thing. When vermin such as this assume room temperature, the world is a better place.

Let me check in on this one a little later.

[Jean V. Dubois]

33. Is that all you have?

Maybe if you tried reading what I said again; or is third time lucky for you? --

Please get back to me when you feel like actually addressing what I said. It makes for such a more...interesting conversation.

Yes, a justified homicide would be bad. All homicide is bad. Yeesh.

Your assertion doesn't make it so. Likewise, my assertion to the contrary doesn't disprove it. In the end, it's just a matter of opinion, hence this delightful discussion.

Let me check in on this one a little later.

You do that.

[Jean V. Dubois]

37. Not a misfire, but certainly a clean miss:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124036489



Only one out of six. Aww....nice try, though.

[iverglas]

45. there's an old saying

about the best time to

[SteveW]

53. Like Newt complaining about viscious attacks and lies? In public, yet. nt

[rl6214]

24. That's not what was said...

"Did you really not grasp that what was being said was that pulling a gun may have resulted in the homicide of the person who pulled the gun?"



ellisonz (13,168 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

5. No. In both situations pulling a gun...

...may have resulted in homicide. Furthermore, in both situations the victims seem to have been attacked from behind. The solution in both situations is more situational awareness


Reread what was posted and show us where ellisonz said it "may have resulted in the homicide of the person who pulled the gun?"

[Straw Man]

26. Don't you know?

Reread what was posted and show us where ellisonz said it "may have resulted in the homicide of the person who pulled the gun?"

You're supposed to know what was meant, regardless of what was said. Any "reasonable" person would ...

[PavePusher]

30. It's the Jello(tm). Sigh, indeed. n/t

[Callisto32]

47. This is often the case.

The modern world offers so many distractions that situational awareness seems pretty abysmal. Every time I see someone walking down a street with earbuds in and staring at a phone I think "there's a mugging waiting to happen."

[ellisonz]

48. lol

Thank you for acknowledging that situational awareness is probably the most important element of self-defense.

[Callisto32]

50. Hey, I have no trouble acknowleding reality.

Let me be clear.

I don't think that a firearm is the BEST tool for self defense. The problem is that we think of self defense as something we do AFTER something bad happens. Prevention/cure, and all that.

What a firearm is, is the best tool for extracting yourself from a very, very specific and narrow set of circumstances that are highly unlikely to occur. Even then, they don't always work.

This is reality, and to deny it would be foolish in the biblical sense of the word.

Edit: However, I apparently have trouble spelling "acknowledging" correctly.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. Who originated the meme that all liberals disfavor gun ownership? Truman was a lefty.

From the Truman library:


http://www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs/displayimage.php?pointer=11353&people=&listid=6

[BiggJawn]

12. I think it was Wayne LaPierre...

I get tired of that, too. "You have a GUN? Why, I thought you voted for Obama!"

Yeah, well, a few years of "Round up all the Liberals" and "Liberals ought to be shot" kinda adjusts your thinking, Knowhuttamean?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

15. Wayne LaPierre = another conservative, Bush-supporting, chicken-hawk.

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

No one should believe what these people have to say.

If they look at a watch and give the time, it would be a good idea to be somewhat skeptical and verify the time with another source.

They have no monopoly on the criteria for determining who is and who is not a liberal.

[iverglas]

34. "Who originated the meme that all liberals disfavor gun ownership?"

Um ... you?


Oh, p.s.: Can you explain what connection this has to the thread in which it is posted?

I'm afraid it's eluding me.

[applegrove]

16. Are we going to now see a daily list of crimes in the gungeon? You know so we can all fantasize that

we get a gun and defend ourselves?

[PavePusher]

18. "fantasize"? Who? Where? n/t

[applegrove]

19. Aw come on. That is why you post the daily victim event. So people will imagine themselves

in that position with a gun. Next they'll go out and buy one. I doubt anybody has ever bought a gun that didn't at least once imagine themselves holding it and firing it. So you are doing a great deal to help gun manufacturers and the GOP.

[PavePusher]

20. Moi? I posted no events. I "imagine" nothing; I have empirical evidence.

Do you deny that people can effectively defend themselves with a firearm?

[ellisonz]

23. Do you deny...

...that when gun control regulations are so ineffective criminals and the insane have no problem getting guns that something has to change?

I have empirical evidence of that. You must concede to my empirical evidence. My empirical evidence owns you.

[Straw Man]

27. Didn't you mean ...

...that when gun control regulations are so ineffective criminals and the insane have no problem getting guns that something has to change?

... to say "enforcement"?

Lots of laws, no teeth.

[ellisonz]

28. Same difference...

Of course gun owners don't want to bear any of the cost for improving "enforcement."

[Straw Man]

39. Not at all.

Same difference...

No. You're calling for new laws when the old ones are not being adequately enforced. Given that, who is to say (a) that the new laws are even necessary, or (b) that the newer laws will be enforced any more than the old ones were?

Of course gun owners don't want to bear any of the cost for improving "enforcement."

Why should they? What's the precedent? Are drivers taxed extra to pay for traffic enforcement? How am I responsible for someone else's criminal behavior?

[liberal_biker]

41. Why should we?

Just because I own a gun that somehow means I am personally responsible for criminal behavior by others?

[PavePusher]

29. Please name a place where "gun control" has kept criminals from obtaining guns.

A mere two or three countries will do.

[ellisonz]

31. That's not what I said...I implied reduction.

Now who's dodging like Keanu Reeves...

[iverglas]

38. please show us proof of life on Mars

Please name a place where "gun control" has kept criminals from obtaining guns.

No one having made the assertion you are demanding proof of -- that gun control has kept criminals from obtaining guns in some place -- I'll just wait for your answer to my question.

You know, when somebody says "People don't like bugs", they don't mean that all people don't like any bugs. And "Please name a place where people don't like bugs" would be a reasonable response, as long as the person asking weren't pretending to believe that the statement meant that all people don't like any bugs, and demanding proof of that.

So when somebody says "gun control keeps criminals from obtaining guns", they don't mean "gun control keeps all criminals from obtaining any guns". They mean that gun control keeps some criminals from obtaining some guns.

(And surely you agree! Isn't that what your NICS is for?? And it might actually stop some criminals from getting some guns, if it weren't for the fact that it's not very well operated and there are so many other easy ways for criminals to get guns, eh?)

So when we look at it that way, the answers are easy.

Canada. The UK. Australia, various European countries ... where gun control means that there aren't so many easy ways for criminals to get guns.

Not everybody in those countries doesn't like bugs, and not all criminals in those countries don't obtain guns.

But a whole lot of criminals in those countries who would have guns don't, because gun control measures operate to prevent it.

[ileus]

40. proof doesn't matter, it's how we feel, laws that say no guns = safe

[liberal_biker]

42. If you have such empirical evidence

By all means, let us see it.

I will agree we could certainly do more to address criminals and the insane, but the way to do that is not to restrict those who are neither.

[pipoman]

35. No shit?

I doubt anybody has ever bought a gun that didn't at least once imagine themselves holding it and firing it.

And nobody bought a car without imagining themselves driving it, and nobody bought a steak without imagining themselves eating it, and nobody bought a pair of shoes without imagining themselves wearing them..any other brilliant observations?

[gejohnston]

21. I have had guns off and on since I was about eight years old

my gun fantasies are more mundane like going to some gun shows in Canada to see what they are like, going to Schützenfest next time I'm in Europe or even the IWA Show in Nuremberg.
But fantasies about having to shoot someone? Not me.

[Callisto32]

49. This.

My gun fantasies are more like.

"Awwww, man, it's gonna be bitchin' when roll up that 50 rounds of .38spl 158gr. LSWC and and then use them to punch 10 groups of five shots creating a single hole each.....yeah."

Occasionally, when I'm feelin' REALLY crazy they'll be "eat my smoke Jerry Miculek!"

[rl6214]

25. There is already a daily list of crimes in the gungeon

Mostly by the anti-gun zealots so everyone can go crying and hide.

[Union Scribe]

36. You just copying and pasting now?

Or is that the only thought you can manage anymore?

[SteveW]

54. "Now see?" I guessed you missed years of reams of crime reports -- by controllers...

Following the bassackward nature of your logic, did gun-controllers' postings of hundreds of crimes committed with guns stoke the fantasy that the thugs committing them were poor sick puppies what just needed another social policy program to lance their anti-social boils?

Really, you should keep up with your own... stuff.

[cbrer]

32. It was a musing people

An idle thought, a question. Meant to provoke discussion. Which it handily did.

No one can predict the impact that a gun would have had on these crimes.There are too many variables, and I think most of us realize that.

It is a simple fact that guns stop many crimes. And even up the playing field when strength or power is used to force acquiescence. The vast majority of reasonable gun owners never get heard from. I would much rather that criminals suffer than law abiding citizens.

[ileus]

43. Well I've read you need to know intent before you can defend yourself with a firearm.

otherwise you're just murdering some innocent attacker.

[DWC]

44. Is this a trick question? n/t

[Callisto32]

46. I don't like to engage in speculation on attacks.