HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » "If they have the dr...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:35 PM

 

"If they have the drop on you, you will get shot if you resist with a gun"

This is just an anecdote. As such, it cannot prove trends, it can only disprove categorical comments about what will happen if you use a gun defensively.

Just after 10 p.m. a 36-year-old man was confronted by a robber with a shotgun in the parking lot of the Walgreens located in the 3600 block of College.  The man said the robber held the shotgun to his head and demanded money.

The man, a concealed handgun license holder, was able to get his handgun and fired one shot at the would-be robber. The robber dropped his shotgun and took off running fleeing south behind the store. The intended victim was not injured during this confrontation and he did not lose any property.

Patrol Officers set up a perimeter and with the assistance of our K-9 Unit began to search for the robber. An officer saw a man hiding behind a business near the area of Interstate 10 and Corley. The man matched the description of the robber.  Police say the man also had a gunshot wound to his hip.

The original victim positively identified this man as the robber.

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/19253451/shotgun-robber-not-successful


This disproves a few anti-gun "facts":

"If they have the drop on you, you will get shot if you try to draw your gun."

"If you try to use a gun, they will simply take it from you."

"You will miss the criminal and hit innocent bystanders."

"The only purpose of a handgun is to kill people."


This gun served its intended purpose—it defended the life of the CCW permit holder. His gun wasn't taken from him, nor did he shoot innocent people. He wasn't hurt in any way; he didn't even lose money. And no one died.

A shotgun is the single most fearsome short distance conventional gun, yet a guy with a handgun and the element of surprise was able to overcome the felon with a mere handgun.

This just goes to demonstrate that biased (and ill-informed) imagination is not synonymous with reality. People come here all the time to tell us—often with great conviction and even contempt—that things like this can't happen. They're wrong.

72 replies, 5980 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 72 replies Author Time Post
Reply "If they have the drop on you, you will get shot if you resist with a gun" (Original post)
TPaine7 Aug 2012 OP
JoePhilly Aug 2012 #1
bongbong Aug 2012 #2
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #4
bongbong Aug 2012 #7
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #13
bongbong Aug 2012 #18
HALO141 Aug 2012 #32
bongbong Aug 2012 #33
HALO141 Aug 2012 #35
bongbong Aug 2012 #36
HALO141 Aug 2012 #38
bongbong Aug 2012 #40
HALO141 Aug 2012 #55
PavePusher Aug 2012 #51
Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #57
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #59
Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #62
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #64
X_Digger Aug 2012 #72
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #3
pnwmom Aug 2012 #5
gejohnston Aug 2012 #10
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #11
Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #58
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #60
Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #61
JoePhilly Aug 2012 #14
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #21
JoePhilly Aug 2012 #24
gejohnston Aug 2012 #42
Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #63
JoePhilly Aug 2012 #16
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #28
JoePhilly Aug 2012 #30
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #45
Jenoch Aug 2012 #65
JoePhilly Aug 2012 #66
JoePhilly Aug 2012 #17
bongbong Aug 2012 #20
JoePhilly Aug 2012 #23
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #25
JoePhilly Aug 2012 #27
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #29
JoePhilly Aug 2012 #31
bongbong Aug 2012 #34
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #22
JoePhilly Aug 2012 #26
gejohnston Aug 2012 #6
bongbong Aug 2012 #8
spin Aug 2012 #41
1StrongBlackMan Aug 2012 #9
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #19
ileus Aug 2012 #12
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #15
GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #37
DanTex Aug 2012 #39
gejohnston Aug 2012 #43
DanTex Aug 2012 #44
gejohnston Aug 2012 #46
DanTex Aug 2012 #49
gejohnston Aug 2012 #50
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #53
DanTex Aug 2012 #54
rDigital Aug 2012 #47
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #48
Rain Mcloud Aug 2012 #52
Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #56
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #68
Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #69
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #70
Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #71
4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #67

Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:38 PM

1. Yes, one anecdote disproves "anti-gun facts"

Kind of like how snow in the winter disproves the science of climate change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:40 PM

2. Forgive him

 

Gun-relgionists base their beliefs on emotion and nothing else. Guns are the only way they can feel safe enough to leave the house! If they didn't have their Precious, they would starve since "it wouldn't be safe" to go to the supermarket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:45 PM

4. Is your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you mocking antis

 

by feigning extreme stupidity?

From the OP:

it {this story} can only disprove categorical comments about what will happen if you use a gun defensively

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:51 PM

7. LOL

 

You can deny it, but you plainly typed "this disproves". So you're WRONG. As always.

And gun-religinosts shouldn't be wasting time quibbling over rhetorical mishmash here! You've got another shooting to defend, and NRA Talking Points to post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:59 PM

13. You have my condolences...

 

I trust that everyone can see what you can't.

I hope things get better for you. In the meantime, enjoy your bliss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #13)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:13 PM

18. more laughs

 

Enjoy the (only) bliss you know - stroking your Precious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #18)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:50 PM

32. You need a new play, bongbong

This one's worn out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HALO141 (Reply #32)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:52 PM

33. TP

 

Not as worn out as the tired, ancient, long-debunked NRA Talking Points that gun-relgionists parrot over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and .....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #33)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:02 PM

35. Not sure what you mean

unless you're talking about responses to the tired, ancient, long-debunked VPC Talking Points that gun-grabbers parrot over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and .....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HALO141 (Reply #35)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:04 PM

36. Nice!

 

"You're rubber, I'm glue"

Thanks for the nostalgia trip. I haven't had what I said repeated back to me as a "stinging rebuke" since about 2nd grade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #36)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:18 PM

38. Not my fault that you guys can't come up with anything new.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HALO141 (Reply #38)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:29 PM

40. LOL!

 

Such irony! You gun-relgionists are hilarious. Keep posting, your stuff makes my gut hurt from laughing so hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #40)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 12:00 PM

55. Ah. Nice to know my life hasn't been wasted. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #33)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:48 PM

51. Onion Bread

 

Ingredients
1 (.25 ounce) package active dry yeast
2 tablespoons white sugar
1 1/2 cups warm water (110 degrees F/45 degrees C)
2 teaspoons salt
2 tablespoons shortening
1 tablespoon minced onions
1/2 teaspoon dried oregano
3 1/2 cups bread flour
1/2 onion
2 tablespoons butter, melted

Directions
1.In a large mixing bowl, dissolve yeast and sugar in warm water. Let stand until creamy, about 10 minutes.
2.Stir salt, shortening, minced onions, oregano and 2 cups bread flour into yeast mixture. Stir in the remaining flour, 1/2 cup at a time, beating well after each addition. Cover with a damp cloth and let rise in a warm place until doubled in volume, about 1 hour.
3.Stir dough to deflate and place it into a lightly greased 9x5 inch loaf pan. Cover with a damp cloth and let rise until the top of the dough is within 1/2 inch of the top of the pan, about 40 minutes. Meanwhile, preheat oven to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C).
4.After loaf has risen, arrange onion slices on top of the loaf. Pour melted butter over the slices and bake in preheated oven for 35 to 40 minutes, or until golden brown. Remove from pan to cool on a wire rack.

Nutritional Information
Amount Per Serving Calories: 192 | Total Fat: 4.8g | Cholesterol: 5mg Powered by ESHA Nutrient Database

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 12:37 PM

57. I'd love to see one of those "categorical comments". Gotta link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #57)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 01:23 PM

59. How about three?

 

I found these pretty quickly looking at "drop on you" and "gun." Of course people can and do often use other terminology.

Enjoy:

A CWP is a nice thing to have but it does you no good if the other guy gets the drop on you. 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002979722#post53




87. crooks won't approach unless they know they have the drop on you.

By the time you grab your piece, your brains will be splattered all over the sidewalk. Only in the movies can you pull your gun, turn off the safety, aim, and shoot before the crook can react.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=756428&mesg_id=766894

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #59)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 01:44 PM

62. Congrats! You win.

Now find another Dirty Harry who defied those odds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to TPaine7 (Reply #64)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 06:49 PM

72. Like fish in a barrel :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:41 PM

3. Reading is fundamental

 

Snow in the summer disproves categorical statements like:

"It can't snow in the summer"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:48 PM

5. You have provided an anecdotal argument.

It doesn't disprove the statistics that show your anecdote is the exception, rather than the rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:54 PM

10. you have no evidence that what you think is the rule

is actually the rule, other than the movies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:56 PM

11. Nor does it disprove the statistics that show unicorns prefer clover.

 

That statistic can't be disproven until it is shown to exist. Similarly, your statistics must be shown to exist.

Would you care to cite actual statistics that show that:

1. In most cases, if they have the drop on you, you will get shot if you resist with a gun.
2. In most cases, if you pull a gun, they will simply take it from you.
3. In most cases, in order for a gun to fulfil its purpose, it must kill a person.

If you will cite the actual statistics, perhaps we can see if they can be refuted. Until then, they're as relevant as unicorn preferences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 12:46 PM

58. Oh no, don't you get it?

The new rule is, if someone puts a gun to your head, unzip your fashionista fanny pack, pull out your baby, virtually invisible Glock, say "excuse me!", stand your ground and shoot that nasty thug. Oh, what a wonderful world we live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #58)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 01:30 PM

60. Did you not read the OP or do you have a rule against letting facts affect your opinions?

 

Of course it's not a rule that you must shoot when there is a gun to your head, and no one (besides you) implied that there was.

The person who is in the situation is in the best position to judge whether they should shoot defensively. They alone know things like:

1. if the assailant is temporarily distracted
2. if they can get inside the length of the shotgun where only their pistol is useful
3. if it appears to be a "nothing to lose" situation

Fortunately, the person in this case made a perfectly effective decision, and fortunately they had the means to carry it out successfully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #60)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 01:41 PM

61. Right!

All we can learn from this story is that one guy was prepared to shoot another and one was full of shit and probably had an unloaded gun. But you can run with the fantasy if it makes you feel better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:05 PM

14. When I was a kid, the mother of my friend was killed when his father, a cop ...

dropped his gun in their bedroom. The gun went off, shot her in the head, and she died instantly.

This anecdote clearly proves that those who claim its a FACT that guns are safe are wrong.

This btw, is a true story. Happened when I was in 7th grade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #14)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:21 PM

21. I haven't seen that claim.

 

I've seen this one, frequently:

MODERN guns are safe unless defective.


Have you actually seen this claim on DU?

its a FACT that guns are safe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #21)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:32 PM

24. Yes, very safe, unless dropped, or handled by a kid who had access ... or

accessible to those who are suicidal, or prone to domestic violence ... or just pissed off at the world.

But beyond that ... totally safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #24)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:49 PM

42. modern guns at least well made ones

don't go off when dropped. Suicidal, ropes are not safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #21)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 01:50 PM

63. Very safe exept when used with people around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:08 PM

16. Another anecdote, a guy I knew was showing off Daddy's gun, explaining

how he was allowed to handle it.

It went off, and he accidental killed his sister.

This happened when I was in 8th grade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #16)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:39 PM

28. I have never known anyone, of any persuasion, who claimed that gun accidents don't happen

 

when kids get access to dad's gun.

I haven't even known anyone to claim that adults, including police and military, are never responsible for gun accidents.

What is the connection between your post 16 and the OP? Are you just making random statements about guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #28)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:46 PM

30. I'm told that guns protect your family more than they create a risk to your family ...

and yet ... from my own life, anecdotally... I can list more instances in which the gun in the home INCREASED the risk rather than diminished it.

And as for "random" statements ... you posted an anecdotal (aka, random) story as a way to "disprove" anti-gun facts. You do get that, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #30)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:16 PM

45. You are introducing Cadillacs into a discussion of apples

 

The OP refuted categorical statements with an anecdote.

You are attempting to refute a very different type of claim with an anecdote. Saying that guns in the home are more protective than risk creating is not the type of statement that can be refuted with an anecdote. It's as valid as saying something like

2 + 2 = 4 because cherries are my favorite ice cream flavor


Even if the conclusion is true (2 + 2 = 4 is actually true) the statement is false because the logic is wrong.

You do get that, right?


Yes, I get that. Hopefully, now you get it too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #30)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 03:53 PM

65. In both of your

Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2012, 06:11 PM - Edit history (1)

stories the gun that discharged was being mishandled. The only way that a handgun will discharge when dropped is one that is already cocked, and it won't discharge every time it is dropped, and a defective handgun. While unfortunate, your stories don't prove anything anymore than does a single incident in which someone protects themselves with a handgun while a shotgun is aimed at them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #65)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 04:25 PM

66. Ding ding ding ... you win.

My anecdotes are not broad based data ... which is the issue the OP creates. Taking an anecdote and using it t refute real data.

And as for why the gun deaths I mentioned occurred (mishandling), that's irrelevant. The reason I say that is the current laws around gun ownership ignore whether those who purchase a gun know how to handle it correctly in the first place, which means they will be mishandled ... people don't know how to ensure a child does not get access, how to make sure a suicidal person doesn't have access ... how a person with an anger management problem doesn't get access to one, nor are they EXPECTED to know.

I have said many times that there is a solution to this issue. You create graded gun licenses. If I can demonstrate proficiency with a gun, then I should be able to purchase it. I'm fine if they let you own a rocket launcher (ala Scalia) if you prove you know how to store it, maintain it, operate it, and prevent access to it by those who do not have proficiency.

I have a driver's license, and I can drive any passenger vehicle ... but I can't drive an 18 wheeler or a commercial dump truck.

The economic benefit would be huge, btw. Shooting clubs would become official gun license centers. Once certified as a "license center" ... they'd be able to make a fortune running the classes and helping people progress from one level to the next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:10 PM

17. Another anecdote ... I worked in a cemetery when I was a teen ...

One of the guys I worked with (he was in his 30s), wanted to join the police department. He failed their test a couple of times.

He became depressed and shot himself in the head, successfully committing suicide.

This is also a true story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:16 PM

20. You'll be ignored

 

Your facts don't jibe with the ideology of the gun-relgionists, which is:

"My Precious Is My Strength!"

Remember, those guns are Holy Objects to them. Then need them to work up enough bravery to leave the house. For them, it's either own a gun or starve!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #20)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:30 PM

23. Well, if I do get "ignored" ... I do hope that I get the "Welcome to my ignore list" response.

Whenever I get that response (and I have received it before, I can be a smart ass, no no, its true!!!) ... I always ask to know who else is on that particular ignore list because I'd probably like those folks a great deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #23)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:32 PM

25. Your comment wasn't ignored, though another one was. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #25)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:37 PM

27. You don't seem to know what "Ignored" means on DU.

Its not about ignoring a post, its about ignoring a person so that you need never see any of their posts or responses again.

You can choose to ignore people on DU ... that is what the other person was referring to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #27)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:43 PM

29. "Ignored" means the same thing here as it means anywhere else.

 

It can also be used in the specialized way you mentioned, as I am well aware.

Given the context, I interpreted it to have the ordinary meaning. It made more sense that way, at least to me. (And there's the fact that I've never put anyone on ignore, or alerted on any post, so I don't expect people to think I would do so in the future.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #29)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:48 PM

31. I've never placed anyone on ignore either, what fun it that?

But that is probably what the other poster was referring to ... maybe they will clear it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #31)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:55 PM

34. Ignored?

 

Gun-relgionists rarely put somebody on their Ignore List, simply because they want to see any gun-control post.

This is so they can look at their handy reference work entitled "NRA Talking Points Manual", and post another "stinging rebuttal" (in reality, just more of the same long-debunked lies and distractions)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:22 PM

22. Suicide with a gun is possible. Have you seen anyone claim otherwise on DU? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #22)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:33 PM

26. Not only is it possible, its much much easier. Some might call it win win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:50 PM

6. none of those "anti gun facts" are actually based

empirical studies but based on speculation by people who don't know about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:52 PM

8. Prove it

 

As you gun-relgionists always say, "PROVE IT!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:48 PM

41. I personally know of three anecdotal tales in which people with a carry permit ...

stopped an attack by an armed individual who had every intention of serious injuring or killing them.

Since these incidents never made the news or ended up in any statistics on self defense you will consider them simply bullshit.

But the fact is that I seriously believe that they happened as I personally know the individuals and they rarely lied or exaggerated any stories that they told. I have heard other such stories from people who often told false stories and I simply felt they were interesting fiction.

You are entirely right to express your view but I will simply politely suggest that you might be wrong. Obviously I can't produce statistics to back up my response but let me assure you that such incidents happen frequently. They are obviously hard to prove as the media rarely reports them and neither do the police.

To claim otherwise serves your purpose but ignores reality.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:53 PM

9. And this is equally anecdotal ...

I was in a bodega late one night. They were 4 other people in the store, besides the clerk.

A (particularly seedy looking) guy entered the store and kind of wondered to the back of the store before walking to the front.

All of a sudden we notice that the guy had a gun in his hand. He order everyone to the floor.

Long story short, he robbed us and the store. As the robber was leaving, one of the patrons got up, gun in hand; and the robber shot him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #9)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:15 PM

19. The good guys don't always win, even when they perform flawlessly.

 

It doesn't sound like the person in your experience performed flawlessly.

If the robber was leaving, the threat was probably over and unless the person was a cop looking to arrest the robber, it was probably best to let him go.

If you are going to resist, the first bullet should leave the chamber as soon as you get on target, and he probably shouldn't have stood first—standing gave the robber a warning.

Be that as it may, the felon will almost always be able to rob, assault, kill, rape, torture or kidnap if all of his intended victims are unarmed. Just because the folks who are minding their business don't always prevail over criminal assailants doesn't mean that they should be disarmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:57 PM

12. Like most RoBBers this one was dumber than dirt.

Any wrong move should have resulted in the victim being shot, something went wrong this time. The next time he probably won't be so careless with his victim.


Be Alert....and always remember, trouble doesn't make an appointment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #12)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:06 PM

15. Holding a long gun to somene's head isn't very smart. If they can get inside the length of the

 

long gun, it becomes useless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:05 PM

37. Robbers get tunnel vision too.

During a crime they get the same adrenalin dump that the victims will get. He probably wasn't even aware of the victim's hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:23 PM

39. LOL. Using anecdotal evidence to disprove straw arguments!

I guess when you don't have statistical evidence on your side, you take what you can get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #39)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:04 PM

43. not a straw arguement

because it is talking about an argument your side makes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:14 PM

44. Wrong. I don't know anyone who argues that if you try to defend yourself with a gun,

your gun will be used against you every time, or that you will hit an innocent bystander every time, or that any other specific thing will happen every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #44)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:19 PM

46. the OP doesn't use the term "every time"

but the arguments do date back to the 1970s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #46)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:44 PM

49. Yes, but if the term "every time" isn't implicitly included, then a single anecdote..

...doesn't disprove them, which makes the OP pointless. You aren't so good at the whole logic thing, are you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #49)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:48 PM

50. more so than you

I mean, most of your posts are pretty pointless.
and your post was pretty pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #44)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 08:37 PM

53. It would be so neat if your humor were intentional.

 

gejohnston (7,926 posts) 
43. not a straw arguement

because it is talking about an argument your side makes.


DanTex (1,679 posts) 
44. Wrong. I don't know anyone who argues that if you try to defend yourself with a gun,

your gun will be used against you every time, or that you will hit an innocent bystander every time, or that any other specific thing will happen every time.


You are attempting to expose an alleged logical error—a straw man argument. But gejohnston claimed that the OP wasn't a straw argument because it's talking about an argument your side actually makes.

But you claim that's wrong. Your argument is that YOU allegedly don't know anyone who argues that any specific thing will happen every time, and so gejohnston is wrong. And that, to you, is solid logic.

Unfortunately, your ironic humor is unintentional.

(I've seen categorical statements many times, but I won't be chasing any down. Believe what you will.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #53)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 09:05 PM

54. Oh, I get it! You are using anecdotal evidence to disprove categorical arguments that...

...neither of us has any evidence that anyone has ever made! You are special!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:24 PM

47. It appears Bloomberg's Internet Army (BIA) is already at work on this thread.

 

Denying reality here, back peddling there. The hilarity never ends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #47)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:43 PM

48. Bloomberg's Internet Army... i like! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:55 PM

52. Ho Hum.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 12:35 PM

56. This gun served its intended purpose—it was used to shoot someone.

Fixed it for you.

Great advice you're handing out there Mr Paine. Is the body count on too much of a slump this week?

I've seen you come up with some fairly thoughtful posts in the past, but this one is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #56)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 05:32 PM

68. That person "needed shooting", so what's the problem?

 

And where is the advice in my OP? I handed out no advice.

The intended victim is the one who best understands the situation. He may have had nothing to lose; he may have calculated that his life was at stake. He may have been able to momentarily get inside the length of the shotgun and shoot to save his life.

If the body count was going to increase by one, better the assailant die than the guy minding his business, wouldn't you agree?

I wouldn't advise some one to do what the shooter did. I wouldn't advise them not to do it. I would advise them to get trained, carry concealed and do what is best in the totality of the circumstances when faced with a situation like this. He did, and his choice lead to a great outcome--the felon didn't even die.

You should be happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #68)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 05:52 PM

69. Excuse me? "That person "needed shooting", so what's the problem?"

We're done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #69)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 06:05 PM

70. Come on, Starboard Tack.

 

Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2012, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

If someone was holding a shotgun to your head and the only way I had to secure your safety was shooting him, he would need shooting. I put it in quotes to show that I mean it ironically, I've seen it used to say that people need shooting simply because they're bad folks. I obviously don't agree with that meaning, but I do believe people sometimes need to be shot to save innocent life.

Don't you?!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #70)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 06:39 PM

71. They need to be deterred, definitely. Shooting anyone should be an absolute last resort.

I don't blame the guy for shooting him. I don't blame anyone who uses a gun to save life if there is no other way. In my experience, fortunately, there has always been another way. Probably because I refuse to give myself such an extreme option (so far).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 04:49 PM

67. Some people seem to assume all legal gun owners are incompetent rubes, but . . .

 

all criminals are ex-CIA weapons experts or perhaps bond-level villains.

I've known a lot of legal gun owners who regularly practice with their guns at the range.

I don't know a lot of illegal gun owners who do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread