Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 08:07 am
Occasionally we will see a posting citing an article where an armed citizen successfully defended themselves using a personal firearm. I don't have an issue with people owning guns, but I think people should not carry them around. My belief is that if you have a hammer, you tend to think of problems as nails and likewise if you have a gun, you tend to think of solving personal disputes by pulling it, even if you are otherwise an upstanding citizen. To test this idea, I went looking for news articles were this has occurred, specifically people who seem not to be habitual criminals and who carry handguns displaying exceptionally poor judgement and pulling them in personal disputes. We see around one personal defense story a week, so I also wanted to compare the number of stories I found to that anecdotal value.

I found hundreds of news articles from newspapers all over the country. I restricted my search to articles posted in the last week and still found too many to read through. Some of the top hits:

Woman kills cousin for wearing inappropriate Easter attire
Off duty police officer draws gun over a near miss auto accident
Driver of a 2004 Volvo arrested after pulling gun on another driver in traffic.
Man is in jail after pulling a hand gun in traffic because the other driver was "being stupid".
Another man points gun at another driver article.
Man pulls gun on driver of a car that he hit from behind.
A 70-year-old man was arrested he pulled out a handgun when a driver passed him.
Driver pulls gun on bicyclist for being on the road.

And it goes on. While all of the gun wielders in these articles are probably not saints and all of the victims probably not saints, it does seem like I can find many more examples of seemingly good people misusing guns in the spur of the moment than I can find upstanding citizens defending themselves. This seems so common that it's not even national news like the self defense stories.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 23 • Views: 10,638 • Replies: 210

 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 08:13 am
@engineer,
I once found the statistic for how much more danger you're in from just having a gun around the house, let alone carrying one around with you.

A member of your household is many times more likely to get shot by the gun (by accident or by it being used in a domestic dispute), than for it to be successfully used in stopping a crime.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 08:29 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
I once found the statistic for how much more danger you're in from
just having a gun around the house, let alone carrying one around with you.

A member of your household is many times more likely to get shot by the gun
(by accident or by it being used in a domestic dispute),
than for it to be successfully used in stopping a crime.
Maybe, but the anti-self defense crowd is well known for fraudulently misleading statistics.
There was even a scandal in a prominent MEDICAL journal, that published a junk science article.
(I 'm not going to track it down; too much trouble.) The good guys already WON this war
and (in case we don't have enuf mixed metaphors): I don 't need to re-invent the wheel.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 08:32 am

I DO remember the National Safety Council finding
that u are more likely to die from DROWNING than from accidental gunfire.





David
Ionus
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 08:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
that u are more likely to die from DROWNING than from accidental gunfire.
Is that if you are shot and fall in the water because I have seen that lots on TV
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 08:41 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Occasionally we will see a posting citing an article where an armed citizen successfully defended themselves using a personal firearm. I don't have an issue with people owning guns, but I think people should not carry them around. My belief is that if you have a hammer, you tend to think of problems as nails and likewise if you have a gun, you tend to think of solving personal disputes by pulling it, even if you are otherwise an upstanding citizen. To test this idea, I went looking for news articles were this has occurred, specifically people who seem not to be habitual criminals and who carry handguns displaying exceptionally poor judgement and pulling them in personal disputes. We see around one personal defense story a week, so I also wanted to compare the number of stories I found to that anecdotal value.

I found hundreds of news articles from newspapers all over the country. I restricted my search to articles posted in the last week and still found too many to read through. Some of the top hits:

Woman kills cousin for wearing inappropriate Easter attire
Off duty police officer draws gun over a near miss auto accident
Driver of a 2004 Volvo arrested after pulling gun on another driver in traffic.
Man is in jail after pulling a hand gun in traffic because the other driver was "being stupid".
Another man points gun at another driver article.
Man pulls gun on driver of a car that he hit from behind.
A 70-year-old man was arrested he pulled out a handgun when a driver passed him.
Driver pulls gun on bicyclist for being on the road.

And it goes on. While all of the gun wielders in these articles are probably not saints and all of the victims probably not saints, it does seem like I can find many more examples of seemingly good people misusing guns in the spur of the moment than I can find upstanding citizens defending themselves. This seems so common that it's not even national news like the self defense stories.
When I needed my gun, I was glad to have it handy, when a criminal shot out
my driver's door window, 3 inches in front of my face.

Upon reading your post,
it behooves a citizen to decide whether he chooses to walk thru the world
in a state of helplessness,
or
whether he wishes to have the means to CONTROL a predatory emergency
if one unexpectedly presents itself.

If u opt for helplessness and taking your chances: OK. Its a personal decision.
(U don 't have to carry a spare tire in your trunk, either if u don t wanna.)

I know from my own personal experience that
its better to HAVE a gun when u don 't need it
than it is to NEED a gun when u don't ` HAVE it.





dlowan
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 08:44 am
@engineer,
I don't think it's a flip-side at all...I think it's a big part of the main track.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 08:51 am

Years ago, I was sideswiped by a meat truck.
When the meat truck driver dismounted to exchange
information, he had a meat hook (looked like a scythe).
I did not draw on him, but I kept him under fairly close observation
and stood somewhat away from him.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 08:56 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
I don't think it's a flip-side at all...I think it's a big part of the main track.
Its perfectly fine to go around without emergency equipment,
as long as an emergency does not arise.

If an emergency arises,
then it is in your best interest to be able to CONTROL
that emergency, to bring about an optimal result, or at least an acceptable result.





David
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 09:17 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I DO remember the National Safety Council finding that u are more likely to die from DROWNING than from accidental gunfire.

And what part of this is an argument for carrying a gun?
engineer
 
  6  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 09:18 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

When I needed my gun, I was glad to have it handy, when a criminal shot out
my driver's door window, 3 inches in front of my face.

Actually, it was your story of pulling a gun to counter someone shooting out your window that got me going down this trail. As I recall the details, it was late at night and someone drove beside you and shot out your window. You pulled and displayed your gun and they fled. (Please correct the details if that's not correct.) The reason that got me thinking is that your response was what I would expect from someone armed, but almost certainly the wrong one (although it worked in this case.) If someone shot out my window, I would disengage and call the police. I think that would be the optimum response even if I had a gun with me. Once you show the gun, one of two things are going to happen. a) The other person will disengage or b) a gun fight will occur. While forcing the other person to disengage might make me feel all manly, it's no better than me disengaging and calling the police. A gunfight is clearly an inferior scenario. I was listening to the story of a convicted killer in CA who was seeking parole. He described how he went from an assistant store manager to a convicted killer. Drugs were involved of course and he started resorting to armed robbery to get money. One night, he failed to get the drop on his victim and the victim opened up his briefcase to grab for his gun. Seeing the gun coming at him, he shot the man through the pocket of his coat and killed him. When I read your account, I remembered this story. When you showed your gun, it would have been a reasonable conclusion for the passenger of the other car to assume their life was in danger and shoot you. You believe you defended your life by pulling your gun; I think you risked it.

But the take of my original post is that some people who are carrying have a distorted sense of how to resolve issues and that the articles I posted reflect that. Note that I found a lot of them just over the last week. I recall an interview with an author who described how his inner city neighborhood had gone downhill and how he started to fear groups of teens on the street. His response was to get a gun, but soon he found himself intentionally doing things to antagonize those same teens. Having a gun seems to encourage people to put themselves in harm's way by distorting our sense of personal safety. Of course, that doesn't apply to everyone and there are people who can carry responsibly, but as the articles I linked to show, there are plenty of people who can't.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 09:21 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I DO remember the National Safety Council finding that u are more likely to die
from DROWNING than from accidental gunfire.

And what part of this is an argument for carrying a gun?
That is a refutation of an argument alleging
relative danger from accidental gunfire.





David
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 09:22 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Having a gun seems to encourage people to put themselves in harm's way by distorting our sense of personal safety.

There's actually a name for this phenomenon, although I can't seem to dredge it out of my brain.

With the advent of anti-lock brakes, one would think there would be a reduction in the accident rate, or fatalities, or property damage from auto accidents. There hasn't been one; people just drive more recklessly because they feel safer with their ABS.
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 09:24 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
That is a refutation of an argument alleging
relative danger from accidental gunfire.

No it isn't, actually. Saying that the risk from one danger is higher does not make the risk from the other danger disappear.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 09:38 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
That is a refutation of an argument alleging
relative danger from accidental gunfire.

No it isn't, actually. Saying that the risk from one danger is higher
does not make the risk from the other danger disappear.
U have now introduced a NEW element
into the conversation: that of being ABSOLUTE.

I was pointing out that the danger (being less than drowning)
is RELATIVELY little; I stand by that,
not that there is absolutely no conceivable danger at all.
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 09:46 am
@OmSigDAVID,
But it is essentially a meaningless statement.

"There's more sunshine in the day than there is at night" is a true statement, but it doesn't really tell you anything.

"More risk from drowning than from accidental shooting" is true, too, but it doesn't tell you anything, other than one should avoid guns and water.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  5  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:07 am
With all due respect, I have never believe Omsigdavid's story. It doesn't make sense. If someone had already shot out a window and then sees a gun, the response would be to squeeze off enough lead to make the gun go away.

Ask yourself, if you were writing a script and the action happened as David told it, (gunshot, window implodes, gets out gun .....prep drives off????) There is only one situation where that would make sense and that would be if the weapon David pulled out was a lot more lethal. ---He pulls a gun, you pull a mac-10 or in the classic "A knife? That's not a knife. THIS is a knife.----

Didn't happen.

I like and believe the story about NOT pulling a weapon despite the presence of a meathook, too bad the others listed in the above stories weren't given large doses of restraint along with their carry licenses.

It's interesting, in the scenario wherein he would be justified in returning fire, he merely showed the weapon, yet he gave no warning peek to the meat hook carrier.

Joe(I waited until he came at me before reaching for....yeah yeah)Nation

sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:25 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
But the take of my original post is that some people who are carrying have a distorted sense of how to resolve issues and that the articles I posted reflect that.


I think it's also a hot state vs. cold state thing. As in, not necessarily acting differently so as to have an excuse to wield a gun (though I think that does happen), but acting as one normally would and having the option for simple lethal force where a smack with a purse or maybe a punch would be if the gun wasn't around. The Easter Hoochie happened around here, I read about it and was appalled. If that woman hadn't had a gun easily accessible, she might've tried to beat the "inappropriately dressed" woman with her fists or something else, but it's much less likely that she would've managed to KILL that person.

And perfectly nice, normal people get in hot states.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  9  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:33 am
@engineer,

The problem, though, isn't that the shooters had guns. The problem is that the victims didn't have guns. I'm sure if the woman who wore the inappropriate Easter outfit had been armed, she wouldn't have been shot to death -- or at least she could have taken out her cousin in the ensuing firefight. It's all very simple. The answer to gun violence, you see, is more guns, just as the answer to budget deficits is tax cuts.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 11:50 am
@engineer,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
When I needed my gun, I was glad to have it handy, when a criminal shot out
my driver's door window, 3 inches in front of my face.
engineer wrote:
Actually, it was your story of pulling a gun to counter someone shooting out your window
that got me going down this trail. As I recall the details, it was late at night
and someone drove beside you and shot out your window.
You pulled and displayed your gun and they fled.
(Please correct the details if that's not correct.)
The reason that got me thinking is that your response was what
I would expect from someone armed, but almost certainly the wrong one
(although it worked in this case.) If someone shot out my window, I would disengage
and call the police. I think that would be the optimum response
even if I had a gun with me. Once you show the gun, one of two
things are going to happen.
a) The other person will disengage or
b) a gun fight will occur.
While forcing the other person to disengage might make me feel all manly,
it's no better than me disengaging and calling the police.
A gunfight is clearly an inferior scenario.
Engineer, if u 'll examine your analysis more carefully, I believe that u 'll find some disabling flaws;
I 'll point some of them out:

1. U assume, without proving, that disengagement was possible and safe.


2. U assume that it is POSSIBLE to call police. This occurred long before I considered getting a cellfone.
I did not notice any pay fones around (tho, admittedly, I was distracted) and I do not feature getting shot
while dropping a dime in the fone. (Even if I had a cellfone, it woud take police time to arrive,
especially since I did not know exactly where on the road I was, at that moment.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away,
while I was taking incoming gunfire; is that acceptable for a fone conversation? Maybe u think that 's OK; I don 't.)

On the point of elapsed TIME in an emergency, I saw something on TV; true story,
from a recorded 911 call. A woman 's car broke down out in the country late at nite, driving with her children.
She pulled to a stop. There was a pay fone nearby. She explained her distress and asked for assistance.
During that call, a loud crash was heard and recorded.
A truck had hit and crushed the left side of her car.
Her child behind driver's seat was crushed.
It took emergency personnel over 40 minutes from the time noted of that recorded crash
on said 911 call for them to arrive at a fatal accident involving children,
presumably, with lites & sirens.



3. U assume, in conflict with the known evidence, that a gunfight had NOT already started.
I 'm here to tell u that it HAD, indeed.



4. U encourage me to ASSUME, with no predicate evidence,
that the NEXT gunshots (however many thay may be)
from said criminals will not inflict grievous, permanent personal injury or fatal wounds upon myself.
(I don't think that 's good advice.)

I cannot begin to guess HOW u 'd "disengage", Engineer,
with the predatory car driving abreast.

Be advised that rather than waiting to find out how accurate the next gunshots were going to be,
I was preparing to DEFEND myself, when I heard a scream and noticed an abrupt departure of the car
that had been theretofore driving abreast of me.
That I "displayed" my gun was INCIDENTAL to my defense.
I was not about to just let them blast me whenever thay felt like it, and HOPE for the best.



engineer wrote:
I was listening to the story of a convicted killer in CA who was seeking parole.
He described how he went from an assistant store manager to a convicted killer.
Drugs were involved of course and he started resorting to armed robbery to get money.
One night, he failed to get the drop on his victim and the victim opened up
his briefcase to grab for his gun. Seeing the gun coming at him,
he shot the man through the pocket of his coat and killed him.
When I read your account, I remembered this story.

When you showed your gun, it would have been a reasonable conclusion for the passenger
of the other car to assume their life was in danger and shoot you. [U mean, like he did not do that ALREADY!]

You believe you defended your life by pulling your gun; I think you risked it.
Lemme get this straight: according to your vu of things,
my life was not in danger when the criminals' slug hit 3 inches in front of my face,
nor thereafter, UNLESS I began to defend myself ??
Is that your position ??

I infer that u suggest that I demonstrate to the criminals how DOCILE & humble
I can be in surrendering myself, my life, into their discretion? Is that your recommendation?
I shoud appeal to their mercy and let them decide my fate ?

Not THIS American.



engineer wrote:
But the take of my original post is that some people who are carrying
have a distorted sense of how to resolve issues and that the articles
I posted reflect that. Note that I found a lot of them just over the
last week. I recall an interview with an author who described how
his inner city neighborhood had gone downhill and how he started
to fear groups of teens on the street. His response was to get a gun,
but soon he found himself intentionally doing things to antagonize those same teens.
So just don 't do stupid things like that.




engineer wrote:
Having a gun seems to encourage people to put themselves in harm's
way by distorting our sense of personal safety. Of course, that
doesn't apply to everyone and there are people who can carry
responsibly, but as the articles I linked to show, there are plenty of people who can't.
It is a fact that people have been KILLED
while changing flat tires on the road.
Perhaps u believe that is a reason not to carry a spare tire in your trunk;
I don't see it that way.
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Flip Side of an Armed Public
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 12:33:00