Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forum"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.
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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Kind of like how snow in the winter disproves the science of climate change.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)by feigning extreme stupidity?
From the OP:
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!
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)I trust that everyone can see what you can't.
I hope things get better for you. In the meantime, enjoy your bliss.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Enjoy the (only) bliss you know - stroking your Precious.
HALO141
(911 posts)This one's worn out.
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 .....
HALO141
(911 posts)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 .....
"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.
HALO141
(911 posts)Such irony! You gun-relgionists are hilarious. Keep posting, your stuff makes my gut hurt from laughing so hard.
HALO141
(911 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)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
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)I found these pretty quickly looking at "drop on you" and "gun." Of course people can and do often use other terminology.
Enjoy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002979722#post53
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=354632&mesg_id=354821
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
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Now find another Dirty Harry who defied those odds.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=196626&mesg_id=196626
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183598/Continental-Jewelry-The-moment-woman-65-thwarts-robbery-store-opening-armed-men.html
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Snow in the summer disproves categorical statements like:
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)It doesn't disprove the statistics that show your anecdote is the exception, rather than the rule.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)is actually the rule, other than the movies.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)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.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)I've seen this one, frequently:
Have you actually seen this claim on DU?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)accessible to those who are suicidal, or prone to domestic violence ... or just pissed off at the world.
But beyond that ... totally safe.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)don't go off when dropped. Suicidal, ropes are not safe.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)how he was allowed to handle it.
It went off, and he accidental killed his sister.
This happened when I was in 8th grade.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)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?
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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
Even if the conclusion is true (2 + 2 = 4 is actually true) the statement is false because the logic is wrong.
Yes, I get that. Hopefully, now you get it too.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)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.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)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.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)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.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)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!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)But that is probably what the other poster was referring to ... maybe they will clear it up.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)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)
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)empirical studies but based on speculation by people who don't know about it.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)As you gun-relgionists always say, "PROVE IT!"
spin
(17,493 posts)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.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
ileus
(15,396 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)long gun, it becomes useless.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)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.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I guess when you don't have statistical evidence on your side, you take what you can get.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)because it is talking about an argument your side makes.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)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.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but the arguments do date back to the 1970s.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...doesn't disprove them, which makes the OP pointless. You aren't so good at the whole logic thing, are you...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I mean, most of your posts are pretty pointless.
and your post was pretty pointless.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)43. not a straw arguement
because it is talking about an argument your side makes.
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.)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...neither of us has any evidence that anyone has ever made! You are special!
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Denying reality here, back peddling there. The hilarity never ends.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Rain Mcloud
(812 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We're done!
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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?!!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)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).
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)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.
