Guns again

You can read documented accounts of self defense at The Armed Citizen:
http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/11310/armed-citizen-18/

But this of necessity omits all the occasions where the presence of a firearm prevents a crime from happening in the first place.

#1 RJ on 2014-02-16 11:48 (Reply)

"But did the retired police officer really need to have his weapon with him at a movie theater with his wife in what sounds like a peaceful neighborhood? "

You keep asking that question as if the answer is a rhetorical no. But, do you need to have it pointed out to you that the 71-year old was ATTACKED in a "peaceful" neighborhood?

#2 Charles on 2014-02-16 12:01 (Reply)

James Holmes shot up a movie theater in a "safe" neighborhood. I wish an armed retired police officer (actually an armed anybody) had been there to stop him.

#2.1 mudbug on 2014-02-16 13:00 (Reply)

THIS. This is the answer. Guns in the hands of responsible people stop crime.

I remember when the Concealed Carry bill had just passed the legislature in Texas in the early 90s. The press was all in the dither about how things like this (good guy uses terrible judgement and shoots someone who doesn't deserve it) would be happening all the time. If this popcorn shooting happened the way it was reported, it was a terrible event and Reeves should be in prison.

But that doesn't mean that everyone should lose their right to own and carry a gun. For every tragedy like this there are dozens or hundreds times when guns are used to protect then innocent and prevent crimes. Reeves is the exception, not the rule.

#2.1.1 Dangerous Dean on 2014-02-17 11:22 (Reply)

i don't understand why you keep bringing up the retired police officer. Police, retired or not give rights not afforded those who didn't spend their life in the gang. Theory is criminals may come after them, which is rare unless the officer investigated, testified against other police or politicians. The latter are known to go after those who bring or try to bring them to justice.

The retired officer's fate will rest on how many cronies are left in the system, not on whether he was justified under the law.

#3 JKB on 2014-02-16 12:18 (Reply)

Question: If it was a peaceful neighborhood, why do the police carry firearms? Shouldn't they lock them in the trunk of their car when they patrol the area? I mean, after all, why would they need them?

I see you've dropped the loud music shooting. Is that because the guy was found guilty last night even though the jury hung on the 1st degree murder charge? They'll retry but regardless, he's looking best 25 to life for the attempted murder convictions

#4 JKB on 2014-02-16 12:29 (Reply)

I always enjoy the observations of our Psychiatrist friends. So I ask this question? Why is there today such a preoccupation with the type of weapon used in murders? Also after Newtown, being a numeric guy, I plotted up the number of mass school shootings since 1900 both raw and corrected for US population. These were essentially zero in the 20's and 30's starting to climb only in the 1960's then continuing to rise in concert with population. There were almost no gun laws for much of this time. The only change I could see was the deinstitutionalization of mentally ill in the 1960s (or perhaps increased therapeutic drug treatment). Now correlation is not causation, but it is striking.

Todays gangsters are much more publicly violent than even the prohibition era gangs. Why is that?

#5 DirtyJobsguy on 2014-02-16 12:34 (Reply)

Anything is a weapon. What I find really funny about the whole thing? The time I was mugged, the time I was attacked, and the two assaults on female friends that I know of....all happened in the UK. It seems banning the guns didn't exactly stop the crime. Made fighting back a whole lot harder for the victim though.

#5.1 acairfearann (Link) on 2014-02-16 12:41 (Reply)

Well this is a great time to bring up the "Bath School Disaster" of 1927, worst and least known attack on a school:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

The culprit dynamited the school & only used guns to shoot at responding public officers.

#5.2 T.K. Tortch on 2014-02-16 12:55 (Reply)

"Todays gangsters are much more publicly violent than even the prohibition era gangs. Why is that?"

Take your pick; TV/movies, Video Games, breakdown of family, drop in Church attendance/Sunday School, progressive training in the schools that emphasize self-importance and the guilt of the White-Male society.

Or is it just the instant fame?

#5.3 John the River (Link) on 2014-02-16 13:21 (Reply)

I'm happy to attempt to avert the situation by being polite, respectful, and avoiding confrontation. I do Not want to be in a situation where deadly force is required, I'm not looking for it. I don't want the paperwork, I don't want the jail time while the courts hopefully straighten it out, I don't want the moral weight.
But I ask you: what if my attacker gives me No choice? Shall I just 'lie back and think of England?' and hope that they let me live? According to you, I should.

#6 acairfearann (Link) on 2014-02-16 12:38 (Reply)

"but it might balance some of the anti gun arguments."

if that's that's typical of conclusions drawn from that thread, then we gun owners are doomed.

#7 wirraway on 2014-02-16 13:10 (Reply)

Wow. You seem determined not to understand. The polite withdrawal and the apology are tried first. The fisticuffs are for those who cannot be calmed by good manners. The pistol is for those who cannot be repulsed otherwise. We shoot when there is no alternative. Those situations do happen, you know. You seem to start from the assumption that there is something wrong, something unbalanced about the person who recognizes that reality. As if acknowledging that the innocent do get assaulted, and preparing accordingly, causes such assaults to happen. So you approach us armed citizens with gentle world-wise, mature condescension, suggesting that we might want to calm down a little.

#8 Khornet on 2014-02-16 13:13 (Reply)

Azeff, if you "don't know of a site where these (stories of armed self-defense) can be recorded and shared with a larger population" then I respectfully suggest that you didn't know what you were talking about in the first place. Otherwise you might have had some idea of how common such events are, and where you can learn about them, and maybe be prodded to ask yourself why you have to look for that info as opposed to having it splashed across the media a la school shootings.

#9 Khornet on 2014-02-16 13:20 (Reply)

"But did the retired police officer really need to have his weapon with him at a movie theater with his wife in what sounds like a peaceful neighborhood?"

Wow. It's not only that you don't know anything about the subject on which your opining, it's like you really didn't even bother to think about it.

#10 William O. B'Livion on 2014-02-16 13:37 (Reply)

Well, since most defensive use of a firearm never reveals the presence of the gun, it is hard to show the ignorant. Plus, we know, data, facts, objective reality does not penetrate the anti-gun argument. It is emotion based on superstition.

Most defensive use of a firearm comes simply from its availability. This is the same manner in which police use their firearm. Staring down would-be attackers works most often. Sewing doubt in their minds about the dangers of injury if they proceed works wonders. This works best if you have something to fall back upon if you run into the more aggressive type. The worst, who are intent upon doing injury regardless must be met with the ability to end their attack.

And no, punching or "fisticuffs" does not meet that criteria. Fighting is not lawful. Striking to cause pain to stop an attack is useful and lawful, but, that is only incidental to avoiding injury and breaking free to use force capable of stopping the attacker.

You need a means to make continuing the attack physically impossible if it is continued. The real world isn't high school or TV. Strangers don't go around "counting coup" in our society. An attack is a imminent threat. If that threat is of death or serious bodily injury, even if not the intention of the attacker, the use of deadly force, which includes firearms, to stop that threat is justifiable.

One good reason to not go around attacking people is that it is very easy to unintentionally become an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. That is what happened to Trayvon Martin. Perhaps he didn't desire to kill Zimmerman but his actions, slamming his head against concrete, became an imminent threat of just that. Deadly force is justifiable for use in stopping such threats.

#11 JKB on 2014-02-16 13:49 (Reply)

Well, since most defensive use of a firearm never reveals the presence of the gun, it is hard to show the ignorant. Plus, we know, data, facts, objective reality does not penetrate the anti-gun argument. It is emotion based on superstition.

Most defensive use of a firearm comes simply from its availability. This is the same manner in which police use their firearm. Staring down would-be attackers works most often. Sewing doubt in their minds about the dangers of injury if they proceed works wonders. This works best if you have something to fall back upon if you run into the more aggressive type. The worst, who are intent upon doing injury regardless must be met with the ability to end their attack.

And no, punching or "fisticuffs" does not meet that criteria. Fighting is not lawful. Striking to cause pain to stop an attack is useful and lawful, but, that is only incidental to avoiding injury and breaking free to use force capable of stopping the attacker.

You need a means to make continuing the attack physically impossible if it is continued. The real world isn't high school or TV. Strangers don't go around "counting coup" in our society. An attack is a imminent threat. If that threat is of death or serious bodily injury, even if not the intention of the attacker, the use of deadly force, which includes firearms, to stop that threat is justifiable.

One good reason to not go around attacking people is that it is very easy to unintentionally become an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

#12 JKB on 2014-02-16 13:50 (Reply)

the version in #11 kept getting denied as spam but apparently not? So #12 can be deleted.

#12.1 JKB on 2014-02-16 13:52 (Reply)

Here's something I meant to add in the other thread, about self defense.

When I practiced criminal law in Atlanta, I became familiar with bad parts of town. Atlanta has some high-crime neighborhoods; as per usual victims and perpetrators tend to live in the same community. There is a pervasive background element of menace that's entirely absent in nicer areas, though they may be adjacent or near the bad parts.

I became aware, from conversations with police officers, clients and witnesses that a lot - a whole lot - of criminal attacks on innocents were being thwarted by brandishing a gun.

If you're young, strong, and outweigh your victim by much you don't need a gun to victimize people, especially if they're vulnerable (old folks, women with children etc). Fists; knife, screwdriver, hammer - any improvised weapon will do. Essentially there were a lot of lowlife criminals looking for an easy victim. A gun trumps no gun in those situations. The attacker goes looking for easier prey.

These events rarely got formally reported to police because residents of those neighborhoods know nothing much is going to come of that; they are cynical about police responsiveness as it is and also know that the police are spread thin.

Further, even if you're a 75 year old broken down wreck, if you have a felony record, reporting that you own a gun could get arrested even if you only used it to save your skin.

In any case, I came to understand that in those neighborhoods the crime rate was being tamped down by residents with guns.

If you restricted their right to own or access firearms you would thereby condemn many people in the bad parts of town to a significantly more dangerous existence - and not a danger from criminals with guns but from criminals with no guns.

#13 T.K. Tortch on 2014-02-16 14:00 (Reply)

" But did the retired police officer really need to have his weapon with him at a movie theater with his wife in what sounds like a peaceful neighborhood?"

Guns are like parachutes - if you need one, and don't have it, you will probably never need one again.

You ALWAYS carry, because crime doesn't wait for you to prepare.

#14 Bill Johnson on 2014-02-16 14:24 (Reply)

and that popcorn grease is damn hot, he could have gotten scorched.

#14.1 wirraway on 2014-02-16 16:59 (Reply)

When Zimmerman shot Travon I made a comment that Trayvon was probably a thug (based on what was reported about him) and given time he would have killed someone in a robbery or senseless attack. Zimmerman saved someone's life that day (in addition to his own). I know nothing about this person who was shot except that he felt it was acceptable to take the popcorn out of an old man's hand and throw it at him. Sad to see anyone die especially for such a stupid thing. But he did commit the assault on what he thought was an easy mark; an old man. No matter what the jury decides in this there will be no justice for either man. I am hopng the Jury votes "not guilty". Not that I think the retired cop is 100% blameless but rather because I think he was more blameless then the attacker was.

#15 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-02-16 15:46 (Reply)

Heinlein had a saying,"Never frighten a small man, he'll kill you".

I would add to that, "Never frighten a woman, the age impaired, the crippled or someone who is outnumbered".

That is exactly the reason that all of the above should carry concealed, at all times.

#16 John the River (Link) on 2014-02-16 16:45 (Reply)

Dr. Azeff, I hope you've learned something today.

#17 Mystery Meat on 2014-02-16 17:32 (Reply)

Yes, doc, a learning experience. Allow me to add a different perspective to this whole topic. This from Wiki, probably mostly true, I don't trust them. Whoops, drifting. Ahem:

"The Rwandan Genocide was a genocidal mass slaughter of Tutsi and moderate Hutu in Rwanda by members of the Hutu majority. During the approximate 100 day period from April 7, 1994 to mid-July, an estimated 500,000-1,000,000 Rwandans were killed,"

The point of interest is that nine out of ten were killed with machetes.

So, beyond your opening gambit, which added to the site's hit count and attracted attention to you, the gist of the discussion is about what people do to other people, not whether they use guns or machetes or tractors.

#17.1 chasmatic (Link) on 2014-02-16 17:53 (Reply)

They probably didn't think to "stand down or at least ask yourself if [their] pride [worth] worth [dying] for". That would have stopped the genocide, probably.

Maybe instead of publicizing those who successfully defend themselves with firearms we should put up the very long list of those who died but could possible have saved themselves if they had been armed.

Not that the anti-gunners would care or pay attention, I think.

#17.1.1 JorgXMcKie on 2014-02-16 19:59 (Reply)

Whatsoever they said: doesn't matter. I'ts all bullshit. I know, I still hold the darn gun. Thin man heroes. Myrna Loy. Spel check. Hi...

#18 W. C. Taqiyya on 2014-02-16 22:56 (Reply)

OK, I'm willing to consider if there are times when people just ask to be executed. The popcorn guy was begging to get shot. He deserved it. Loud music can also be grounds for execution. Not normally of course, but in special circumstances. There are times when people are so obnoxious, threatening and rude that a reasonable person can justifiably react with deadly force. Unfortunately, there are those in our society who embrace a culture of thuggery and all of it's associated behavior patterns. They routinely go out of their way to display threat in public settings. They oftentimes use threat gestures and actions. This is born of a societal embrace of leather clad, "macho" bikers and hip hop ganstas. And when those twits roll up into your "peaceful neighborhood", you will feel threatened and you will very likely be in danger. Running them over or shooting them is like killing a rabid dog, simple self defense.

#18.1 W. C. Taqiyya on 2014-02-17 11:05 (Reply)

"Loud Music"

I hate Rap and never watch it, but my niece had a Rap video on and as I tried to tune out the noise I saw the end of the piece. Someone ran out onto the street and shot the singer/hero/artist?.

Gee, I thought. No one ever shot Gene Kelly. Maybe that was because it was raining?

#19 John the River (Link) on 2014-02-17 11:54 (Reply)

I never thought Maggie's would stoop to trolling its own readers, but these two so-called posts are straight-up trolling posts. They are provocative unreasoned attacks that, as far as i can tell, are seeking only to generate hits. This is sad stuff.

If there is a serious point made anywhere in these two posts I'd take this back. Feel free to educate me differently if someone sees something I missed.

#20 MTF on 2014-02-17 14:40 (Reply)

Was my first reaction also.

#20.1 W. C. Taqiyya on 2014-02-18 10:00 (Reply)

MTF, you are seeing twenty-twenty.

"... seeking only to generate hits." sums it up nicely. I'll even put up with the tributes to Bob Dylan, friend to a couple commies, Seeger and Guthrie, but this Azeff, uh uh.

It seems like the tone of Maggies went down. I wonder who's minding the shop?

#20.2 chasmatic (Link) on 2014-02-18 10:26 (Reply)

The problem with that cop isn't what he did bring with him (the gun). It's what he didn't bring with him (his brain).

#21 RonF on 2014-02-18 15:14 (Reply)

Let me first apologize for throwing a stink bomb into your living room. It was uncalled for. But I wanted to start a conversation about guns. I don't own one and have fired a rifle only a few times. I am in agreement with the right for people to own handguns, rifles and shotguns. There are tens of millions of guns in this country and despite the rhetoric about having them taken away I believe the constitutional protection will not be amended. As to the two killings in the recent news, let's look at what happened. In each instance a man with a firearm objected to something irritating another man was doing. No laws were being broken, no one was endangered by their uncivil behavior, they were just being a little too present. If we start with that, the issue of feeling threatened or disrespected or whatever is not up to the level of what is simply murder. Safe neighborhood or not safe may be in the mind of the person carrying. Would you feel there is no difference between "this could be a dangerous place" and "this is a dangerous place." To me neither is comfortable but it is the difference between you may have cancer and you do have cancer. All that said I will stick to medical issues in future, public health issues of shooting deaths notwithstanding.

#22 CTAzeff on 2014-02-18 15:24 (Reply)

You needn't restrain yourself, and speak only of medical topics. But when you speak, say something.

If you are writing about people killing other people why are you focused on the gun that was used? It might just as easily have been a hammer or a kitchen knife. Or an automobile. If uncivil people make themselves annoying to their neighbors, I think we can probably all agree the penalty for that annoyance should not be death and also agree that anyone who attacks another person should have to explain their actions. Its part of the social compact.

But the gun itself seems almost beside the point here, since your real issue seems to be that people sometimes do evil things, or maybe your issue is that laws don't punish the evil doer.

What was your point?

#22.1 MTF on 2014-02-18 20:32 (Reply)

I see your apology, but you're still missing the point. The popcorn shooter will be punished (as he should be) because he misused his gun. I don't know much about the loud music case, but I hope that the shooter there will be punished too.

Just because two men over-reacted and pulled the trigger using horrible judgement doesn't mean that my constitutional rights should be infringed. I know you believe that nobody in the government is looking to take my guns. That isn't really the issue, though you are wrong.

This government is more intrusive and less constitutional than any in American history, Nixon's included. If you think nobody in power is trying to grab guns while ignoring the 2nd Amendment then I would happily be wrong so that you could be right. But that isn't the case. Pelosi and Obama overreached last January, but they tipped their hands for all of us to see. Imagine the irony of Dirty Harry being the one to stop them!

#23 Dangerous Dean on 2014-02-18 15:58 (Reply)

I need to know where to take all my guns as they are all defective. I put my shotgun in a chair pointing at the front door the other day and several people can to the door yet none were shot? I tried each of my other weapons as well including a knife and stick. NOT one of the darn things killed or even hurt anyone. Dog gone pour manufacturing if you ask me.
Remember in your DEBATE here that people kill not guns.

#24 Bill on 2014-03-16 16:14 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Sunday, February 16. 2014