HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Why are there virtually N...

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:07 PM

 

Why are there virtually NO examples

of civilians legally defending themselves with firearms and accidentally shooting innocent bystanders in the process?

Countless times antis have stressed that armed civilians will go "cowboy" crazy and shoot hoards of innocent bystanders while trying to defend themselves with a firearm. I have searched for examples of such occurrences. I even posted two (2) threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117266664#post5

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117267298

asking for examples.

All efforts have generated one (1) example of one (1) innocent bystander accidentally being shot by one (1) individual legally defending himself from two (2) armed robbers.

Sounds to me like it is way past time to put that straw man to bed.

Semper Fi,

69 replies, 8733 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 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why are there virtually NO examples (Original post)
DWC Sep 2012 OP
gateley Sep 2012 #1
petronius Sep 2012 #2
spin Sep 2012 #6
BigAlanMac Sep 2012 #14
gejohnston Sep 2012 #19
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #3
ileus Sep 2012 #4
russ1943 Sep 2012 #5
gejohnston Sep 2012 #9
DWC Sep 2012 #23
AtheistCrusader Sep 2012 #60
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #7
Clames Sep 2012 #8
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #11
Kezzy604 Sep 2012 #31
Clames Sep 2012 #43
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #10
gejohnston Sep 2012 #12
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #13
gejohnston Sep 2012 #15
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #18
gejohnston Sep 2012 #20
DWC Sep 2012 #28
sarisataka Sep 2012 #16
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #21
gejohnston Sep 2012 #22
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #25
gejohnston Sep 2012 #26
Clames Sep 2012 #44
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #45
Clames Sep 2012 #48
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #49
Clames Sep 2012 #53
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #54
Clames Sep 2012 #58
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #59
Clames Sep 2012 #62
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #63
Clames Sep 2012 #64
sarisataka Sep 2012 #24
Oneka Sep 2012 #27
bad sofa king Sep 2012 #39
BigAlanMac Sep 2012 #17
Glaug-Eldare Sep 2012 #30
ManiacJoe Sep 2012 #29
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #32
gejohnston Sep 2012 #33
DWC Sep 2012 #34
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #35
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #36
rDigital Sep 2012 #38
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #40
rDigital Sep 2012 #41
Bjorn Against Sep 2012 #42
ManiacJoe Sep 2012 #47
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #50
AtheistCrusader Sep 2012 #61
bad sofa king Sep 2012 #37
TPaine7 Sep 2012 #46
bad sofa king Sep 2012 #51
DWC Sep 2012 #52
BigAlanMac Sep 2012 #55
DWC Sep 2012 #56
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #57
rDigital Sep 2012 #65
DWC Sep 2012 #66
rDigital Sep 2012 #67
DWC Sep 2012 #68
rDigital Sep 2012 #69

Response to DWC (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:16 PM

1. I'm neutral on the gun control debate (maybe leaning toward more control), but

we all know the bystanders were shot by the police in NYC the other day. I understand these officers hadn't fired in the line of duty previously, but that's not my point. My point is that even if we took away every single gun from non-law enforcement individuals, that's no guarantee innocent bystanders won't literally get caught in the crossfire.

I don't think it's a very fair argument. It happens, but it happens when the people wielding the guns are police, too.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:17 PM

2. The only answer I expect you will get is that it hasn't happened

yet because not enough people carry firearms yet - as if there is some critical mass of CCWers that needs to be reached before they all start shooting wildly at each other and passersby, and the blood starts to flow in the streets...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:48 PM

6. Over 800,000 resident Floridians have valid concealed weapons permits.

and if only 10% carried their handguns on a regular basis there would be 80,000 packing heat daily in Florida. it is rare when a person who lives in Florida misuses his legally concealed firearm in a crime. Only 168 people in Florida lost their carry permit for a crime committed after the license was issued that involved a firearm. That's the TOTAL number since 1987 when "shall issue" concealed carry became law. (Source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf)

The critical mass of CCWers you mention must be extremely high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:20 PM

14. "Not enough people carry firearms yet" won't fly

because the national average for sworn police officers per 100,000 people is between 350 and 400.
(Washington being the highest with @650 per 100,000.)
and the latest estimates for number of law abiding citizens carrying (with or without needing a license/permit) is between 8 and 10 million which puts the rate for them at @ 3,000 per 100,000 of the total US population.

I know for a fact that, in Ohio, CHL holders out number LEOs by well over 30 to 1.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigAlanMac (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:33 PM

19. true but

how do you adjust for their different roles. The cop is expected by their job description to go out of their way to a confrontation while a private citizen, unless they have some defect, just find themselves wrong place wrong time even after taking steps to avoid situations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:24 PM

3. I'm not sure...

...of where the information is and I've tried numerous times to search for it but I remember reading that LEOs shoot innocents (and sometimes even crime victims) by mistake MUCH more often than civilians do. This is a bit intuitive. I can think of lots of reasons. It's harder for the responding officer to pick out who may be the neighbor or family member of a victim of home invasion. Cops are more likely to be and more are in the position of responding to a safety critical situation such as the Empire State Building shooting than will any random civilian.

This is a prime reason why it makes sense to EVERYWHERE in EVERY STATE allow a homeowner to be armed with a firearm in his own house and to make ALL measures he may take in the defense of his family legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:34 PM

4. I spotted a fellow CC'er today at Subway.

He raised his hand just enough to expose the bottom of a kydex holster. I then showed my son how to spot a carrier...as he was standing in line he raised his hands again to where my son got a look at the holster, and once twisted enough to where you could see the print of a full framed pistol.

I know for a fact at that point and time there were at least two carriers, I could imagine sometime in the future where there are enough carriers that eventually we will have examples of crossfire, friendly fire, or mistaken ID of responding CCer's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:45 PM

5. How about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45202

CHL holder unintentionally kills store clerk, trying to stop armed robbers.






HOUSTON -
Houston Police confirm it was a customer with a concealed handgun license who accidentally shot and killed a store clerk. The CHL holder was trying to protect Tyrza Smith, 26, from armed robbers, but something went terribly wrong and she was killed. It happened on May 17 at the Family Dollar located at 6951 Bellfort in southeast Houston.

Read more: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/18661869/2012/05/30/chl?clienttype=printable#ixzz1yHxsVyFn

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/18661869/chl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:01 PM

9. not meaning to move any goal posts but

he said bystanders, IIRC, the clerk was a human shield.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:48 PM

23. That is the one (1) incident found and cited already. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 06:49 PM

60. Good job. You found the one in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:53 PM

7. Just search Google, there are lots of examples

I saved you some work by providing a link to my own Google church, your claim that innocent bystanders don't get shot is ridiculous...

http://www.google.com/search?q=innocent+bystander+shot&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:59 PM

8. False accusation.

 

Point out exactly where he made that claim. Ridiculous you could even come to that conclusion based of simply reading what is written.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:06 PM

11. Read the very first sentence of the OP then follow the link I provided

The OP is wrong there are lots of examples.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #11)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 03:53 PM

31. Why would those be relevant?

I read through a bunch of those and none of those had anything to do with people legally carrying concealed. Most were gang members carrying illegally and shooting at other other gang members who were carrying illegally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #11)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:35 PM

43. I did. You still fail.

 

Apparently there is a distinction you are not picking up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #7)


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:08 PM

12. none of the top ones were CCWs

first page were gang cross fire in US, UK, and Canada. The nearest thing to what he was talking about were a couple of Florida cops that went to NYPD school of marksmanship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #12)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:13 PM

13. This one was near the top and is a clear example

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2018297127_shooting27.html

What evidence do you have to suggest civilians with concealed carry permits many of whom have no training are going to be better shots than the police who have lots of training?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:25 PM

15. the article says they were gangsters

so it is an awful example.
BTW, many CCW types are competitive shooters and hobbyists. Cops firearms training, other than SWAT teams, is rudimentary marksmanship most of the time. They don't get lots of training and most are not interested in getting more training because 1) they have no interest in the shooting sports and 2) they can hit a bystander without going to jail and they know it
I'm cool with reason one, but not cool with reason two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:28 PM

18. Does it say that the gun was illegal?

If not then what does the allegation that they were gangsters have anything to do with it? You may not want to admit it but many gangsters carry legally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #18)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:37 PM

20. they do?

gangsters go to the local PD or county sheriff to get fingerprinted and background check, like Washington State to carry concealed? Reread the OP closer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #18)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 03:27 PM

28. It says

 

"A suspect, caught by police after running... under investigation for assault."

Does not sound like a law abiding citizen legally defending him/herself with a firearm to me.

Semper Fi,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:26 PM

16. From the article:

Police said both he and the man who assaulted him with the skateboard are both gang members.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:37 PM

21. So do gang members not have second amendment rights?

Where does the second amendment say that gang members don't have the right to defend themselves?

Personally I support some gun control so I have no problem with restricting the rights of people to carry, but I am really interested to hear how those who claim that the right to carry a gun is a fundamental human right can justify taking away a person's right based only on gang membership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:43 PM

22. looking to create a strawman?

If they are convicted felons in the US, you lose that right for life. That even includes John Dean, Tom DeLay, and Martha Stewart. That is not the case with Canada, where it only applies to violent felons where a "prohibition order" is part of the sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #22)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:51 PM

25. It is not a crime to join a gang

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #25)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:54 PM

26. so you're saying

a member but doesn't have a record. In that case, what the other guy said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #25)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:38 PM

44. Actually it is.

 

In certain circumstances you can be legally sanctioned for joining certain gangs. Facts don't seem to be your strong suit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #44)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:40 PM

45. No it is not, it is freedom of assembly

Can you please cite a law which says gang membership is illegal?

http://www.askthejudge.info/is-it-illegal-to-belong-to-a-gang/113/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #45)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 07:41 PM

48. You really need to learn how to use Google.

 

DoD Directive 1325.6, Oct 1996. Paragraph 3.5.8 specifically states:

"Military personnel must reject participation in organizations that espouse supremacist causes; attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, or national origin; advocate the use of force or violence; or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.

Active participation, such as publicly demonstrating or rallying, fund raising, recruiting and training members, organizing or leading such organizations, or otherwise engaging in activities in relation to such organizations or in furtherance of the objectives of such organizations that are viewed by command to be detrimental to the good order, discipline, or mission accomplishment of the unit, is incompatible with Military Service, and is, therefore, prohibited."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #48)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 07:46 PM

49. That only applies to members of the military, not civilians

I ask again, cite me a law that says it is illegal to join a gang. I am not talking about military law, I am not talking about a foreign nation's laws, I am talking about a law that applies to the common American citizen. It is legal to be in a gang and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #49)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 10:50 PM

53. I challenged your general assertion that no laws banned people from joining gangs.

 

Obviously there are such laws. Certain people. Certain gangs. What you are talking about now is not the same. Technicalities are one of the major tripping points of those on the anti-gun side. Details. Challenge yourself to think harder in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #53)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 11:07 PM

54. No one on this thread was talking about military law until you put yourself in a corner

You said my facts were wrong because I said it is not illegal to belong to a gang which it is not, I asked you to cite a law which said otherwise and you could not find one which was actually relevant so you posted military law which does not apply to civilians, that is no different than citing Canadian law and pretending foreign law is applicable in this case. There is no indication that anyone in the story I cited was a member of the military therefore your citation is not even a technicality, it is completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand. Maybe you should be the one to challenge yourself to think harder and not assume I am going to let you get by with applying military law to non-military civilians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #54)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:58 PM

58. You are still wrong.

 

In North Carolina, itís now illegal to be a member of a gang under a new law that recently went into effect, designed to give law enforcement and prosecutors a new tool in the fight against what local law enforcement says is a growing gang problem. The N.C. Street Gang Suppression Act, passed by the General Assembly last July, addresses a number of issues related to gang membership, participation and recruitment, as well as increasing criminal penalties for gang-related activity.


http://www.apbweb.com/featured-articles/1052-new-law-takes-aim-at-gang-membership.html


There. Now do your own research for now on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #58)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 06:32 PM

59. Well that law is from a different state and almost certain to be found unconstitutional

So I see you found one state out of fifty that just passed a law which the courts have not had a chance to review yet, congratulations. Of course the state you found is not the state referenced in my link so it does nothing to change fact that gang membership is not illegal in the state that my link referenced. It is still legal for the vast majority of Americans to join a gang so you were wrong to say my facts were incorrect because it is legal in almost all cases and that will remain true no matter how hard you look for the exceptions.

I have done my own research, I even provided you a link earlier that shows I am correct and I think you know I am correct or else you would be able to provide something better than military law and a NC law that was just passed and has not had a chance to be challenged in court. You are discrediting yourself further with every post you make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #59)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 08:22 PM

62. Keep digging.

 

You made an assertion, I found two examples that proved it false. Think I give two shits what you think about my credit with you? Nope, another false assertion you've made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #62)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 08:28 PM

63. Well if you want to say gang membership is illegal based on two exceptions to the rule

Then I guess private gun ownership is illegal as well because not every single person in this country can own a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #63)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:25 PM

64. Another false assumption.

 

Is this a habit of yours? Did I say gang membership was illegal in absolute terms? Nope. Not even implied. You made the absolutist assumptions. I just poked holes in them. Seems you are trying to keep my gainfully employed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:49 PM

24. Now THAT is an excellent question



if their only flaw is being a member of a gang I do not believe they should be disqualified from being able to own a gun.

Things I would like (but am not sure how to fully enforce yet) of gang members who are not felons:
-increased scrutiny to avoid straw purchases
-if a crime gun is traced to a purchase made by the gang member, he is charged as an accessory
-if present at a gang related shooting, be charged as an accomplice
-if caught carrying otherwise legally and in possession of drugs, automatic felony- I would support this for everyone.

You are correct, that a fundamental right should not be taken away because of who your friends are. Even convicted felons still have a right to self-defense, they just cannot own a gun anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 03:13 PM

27. According to Mn law: no

(b) Unless a sheriff denies a permit under the exception set forth in subdivision 6, paragraph (a), clause (3), a sheriff must issue a permit to an applicant if the person:
(1) has training in the safe use of a pistol;
(2) is at least 21 years old and a citizen or a permanent resident of the United States;
(3) completes an application for a permit;
(4) is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under the following sections:
(i) 518B.01, subdivision 14;
(ii) 609.224, subdivision 3;
(iii) 609.2242, subdivision 3;
(iv) 609.749, subdivision 8;
(v) 624.713;
(vi) 624.719;
(vii) 629.715, subdivision 2;
(viii) 629.72, subdivision 2; or
(ix) any federal law; and
(5) is not listed in the criminal gang investigative data system under section 299C.091.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714

This is just MN state law, but looks pretty clear to me, that carry permits are not issued to (suspected)gang members here. While i don't agree with the application of this law, it is the law here. I no more wan't to see people on a database of suspected gang members, lose second amendment rights, than i want to see people not allowed to fly, based on being placed on a (terror watch)list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:17 PM

39. Blood in-Blood out. you can't even join a real gang without committing a felony.

 

And if they don't have a record yet, they will. But by all means, if they want to carry a handgun LEGALLY until they get caught, we can humor them-no problem. They're gonna carry one illegally anyways so why not issue them a permit and get their name and fingerprints in the system before their first arrest. I'm all for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:27 PM

17. Example of what?

Where in that article does it say that any of the shooters had a valid CHL?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 03:53 PM

30. Lots of training?

What departments are you talking about? It seems to be the norm for police officers to have far less training than permit holders tend to perform on their own time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 03:41 PM

29. That search is a good start, but requires lots of weeding.

Most of the results are for the bad guys shooting the bystanders while the request is for examples of the good guys shooting the bystanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:21 PM

32. And how do we determine who is a good guy and who is a bad guy?

Sounds like an easy way to dismiss any case that is brought up, just claim it was a "bad guy" that did it. I don't see what the difference is anyways, there is no evidence that "good guys" have better aim than "bad guys".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #32)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:25 PM

33. If the shooter runs instead of

calling and waiting for the cops, he is a bad guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #33)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:46 PM

34. Touche' n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #32)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:50 PM

35. Good guys obey the law.

In most states you have to have a CCW to legally carry a concealed weapon. So if the guy with the gun is carrying and doesn't have a CCW, then he is breaking the law and that makes him a bad guy. It is a fairly easy concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #35)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:58 PM

36. It may be simple if you view the world in black and white, I see lots of grey

Not everyone who follows the law is a good guy and there have been numerous examples of people breaking the law in order to do good, it is really not as black and white as you would like to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #36)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:10 PM

38. Nirvana Fallacy: The system doesn't have to be perfect to be functional and provide a benefit. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #38)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:21 PM

40. How does that have anything to do with what I said?

I wasn't talking about a perfect system, I was simply stating that you can't judge whether someone is a "good guy" or a "bad guy" based solely on their obediance to the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #40)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:23 PM

41. The system works, your implying that it doesn't because it isn't perfect. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #41)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:25 PM

42. Can you please quote where I said anything even remotely like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #36)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 07:41 PM

47. Yes there is gray, but not nearly as much of it has you imply.

Feel free to pick some examples that leave you questioning and we can discuss them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #36)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 08:28 PM

50. Let me make it real easy for you.

If you attack me, you are a bad guy and I will defend myself with whatever force is needed.

The requirement that we be acting in DEFENSE (NOT OFFENSE) makes the dividing line real easy.

We who have CCWs are not LEOs. We do not persue and attempt to capture criminals. So we don't get into many situations that have shades of gray. I don't have to figure out who is the good spouse and who the bad spouse on a domestic call as I don't get involved in those. The gun that I carry is purely to defend myself and my immediate family. I will not get involved in someone else's problem unless the situation is very clear and the bad guy is likely to shoot someone.

My gun doesn't come out of the pocket for shades of gray situations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 06:50 PM

61. Fortunately, lawful concealed carry proponents have better aim than you do in search terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:07 PM

37. Ususally when you're being mugged, there aren't any innocent bystanders inncocently standing by

 

same for rape, murder, and assault. criminals specifically avoid committing crimes in front of a crowd of potential witnesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bad sofa king (Reply #37)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 07:40 PM

46. Excellent point, and a strong argument against the

 

"CCW will lead to lots of bystanders getting shot" meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #46)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 08:37 PM

51. when you have been in one of these situations

 

you tend to have a different perspective. They went to great lengths to ensure that there were no witnesses and we were glad to be carrying that day. That day I learned, among other things, that a 5 shot .357 snubby isn't enough gun, not by a long shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bad sofa king (Reply #37)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 09:00 PM

52. You Hit the Nail on the Head !!!

 

Criminals that attack others with violent force are just like any other predatory animal and, in general, instinctively seek victims that are isolated from others who may assist in defense or at least witness and report the crime / attack.

It is past rare that innocent bystanders are present during such an attack where they would be exposed to the possibility of being accidentally shot.

There are definitely exceptions to this scenario such as a crazy in a packed theater. However, the above scenario safely represents well over 90% of incidents where armed self defense is necessary.

Semper Fi,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 08:52 AM

55. IIRC - It was in 2004 that a study published

a comparison between LEOs and CHL holders with respect to bystanders being wounded/killed.
In cases where police officers fired their weapons, they hit bystanders 11% of the time and in cases where CHL holders were actively shooting, they harmed bystanders 2% of the time.

That means, if you are a close witness to a shootout, you are 5 times more likely to be shot by "officer friendly" than an LAC with a CHL. Note: Worst case: you only have a 1 in 9 chance of being hit, assuming you aren't a participant in the shootout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:28 PM

56. IMO, there are virtually NO examples because

 

it virtually never happens.

Even though there are more than 7 armed civilians for every armed LEO.

LEOs must hunt bad guys and engage them where ever they may be.

Bad guys hunt potential civilian victims and attempt to isolate them from "the herd".

Two different situations. Two different results.

Semper Fi,


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:04 PM

57. When your cause is just you cannot allow yourself to be constrained by empirical evidence

 

Facts are the last refuge of the wicked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #57)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 01:26 PM

65. Ban guns. Only murderers have guns. Ban them ALL!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #65)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 03:23 PM

66. Ban all murders? Ban all gun? or both? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Reply #66)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 12:44 AM

67. Well if we ban murder then it won't happen anymore. Let's ban both. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #67)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:55 AM

68. Let's Ban Murder and Violent Attacks However Committed.

 

Leave the firearms and air guns; knives and other sharp objects; bats, clubs, and other blunt objects; vehicles; cords and ropes; etc., etc., etc.

It does not matter to a victim if they are murdered with a gun or a rock. Either way they are just as dead. It is not the fault of the gun or the fault of the rock. It is the fault of the individual who determined to, without just cause, exert violence on another

I doubt I will ever support more gun control laws and infringement of my 2A rights but I will get in lock step with heavy handed laws in support of Violence Control.


Semper Fi,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Reply #68)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:58 AM

69. Amen

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread