Shop owner’s gun argument off-target

[SecularMotion]

Dawoud Zoubeidi has done the pro-gun crowd no favor.

When Zoubeidi raced out of his Calumet City clothing store and fired three shots at a fleeing thief, he played right into the fear of every opponent of looser gun laws who worries about Wild West shoot-em-ups.

Zoubeidi fired a .40-caliber handgun. A bullet from a .40-caliber can travel a mile. Zoubeidi is lucky he didn’t hit an innocent shopper or child.

Now, almost two years after the incident, Zoubeidi is about to stand trial on felony weapons charges, and we’re bracing for the predictable outrage from the NRA. Surely they will rally to his defense, right?

http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/13263927-474/shop-owners-gun-argument-off-target.html

[SkatmanRoth]

1. Mythbusters showed that a handgun fired level the bullet hit the ground in 360 feet.

Youtube video here:

In order for a handgun bullet to travel a mile, it has to be fired at an angle up into the air.

[Scootaloo]

2. Yeah, that was a weird claim...

They didn't invent artillery that could fire across a mile until World War 2, for crying out loud.

[oneshooter]

6. Best check that "fact" at the door.

The reason for the 3 mile from shore rule was because that was the maximum range of coastal artillery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-mile_limit

Here in Texas we have a Dreadnought class battleship, the USS Texas. Launched in 1914 (well before WW2) her 14"/45 main battery has a range of 23,000 yards with a 1400lb AP round.
Well beyond 3 miles, well before WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Texas_%28BB-35%29

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

8. I take it you never heard of the "Paris Gun" from World War One.

It was used by the Germans to shell Paris from 75 miles away.

[Scootaloo]

16. One, two, whatever, both prime numbers, right?

*cough*

Yeah, alright. Still. A handgun shooting over a mile?

[GreenStormCloud]

17. An ordinary handgun would not be able to shoot a mile, even if elevated. N/T

[petronius]

20. If fired ~30° above the horizontal, a typical handgun bullet

can travel about a mile. You couldn't aim it with any accuracy, of course...

[Scootaloo]

21. Yes, I understand the physics of a parabolic curve...

but, not exactly relevant to the story, is it? That's more like the Mythbusters trying to find a way to force the myth to technically work.

[petronius]

23. The MythBusters version is more relevant, since the man in the OP almost

certainly fired the gun held flat - in which case there's no way the bullet could have traveled a mile.

But it's not impossible that he could have happened to pull the trigger with the muzzle elevated - so the Op-Ed writer's scare-mongering choice of an example is technically correct as well.

Bottom line? Everyone is right!

[mvccd1000]

3. I caught that, too.

I usually go shooting in the open desert, so the backstop may be a ways off. I can see the puffs of dust where the bullet hits the ground and skips.

I suppose if I went a bit north and went shooting, the bullet could travel a mile.... DOWN. (Grand Canyon.)

In these days of google, can it really be that hard for reporters to get even basic facts correct?


As for the shopkeeper in the OP, as far as I know, it's still a crime to shoot a fleeing person in the back. (Or to shoot AT a fleeing person.)

[DrDan]

5. 360 feet is more than a football field. Think there might be some innocents in that range? The

point is valid.

[mvccd1000]

10. Of course the point is valid...

... there could be innocents inside of 10 feet.

The point being made HERE, though, is that if simple, basic facts like that are so obviously incorrect, what other facts are wrong?

[DrDan]

12. not incorrect at all - some here have added the "level" constraint to detract from the basic point

the statement made is true.

[NewMoonTherian]

19. If the shop owner was firing AT the robber...

can we assume he was probably firing close to level, and not trying to see how far he could get a stray bullet to travel?

Anyway, I know that the editorial didn't say THESE bullets could have traveled over a mile. The author was just throwing out some scary facts to help further outrage readers. The owner made a stupid, dangerous mistake and he's going to pay dearly for it, but I honestly can't get that upset with him for wanting to fight back.

[SkatmanRoth]

31. The fact a .40 caliber handgun bullet could fly a mile is valid

The curiosity is about why this irrelevant fact is included in the Chicago Sun Times editorial. The story about Zoubeidi firing three shots that missed a fleeing thief does not contain emotional tragedy like the story of the Amish girl being killed by a bullet fired from a mile away. In order to invoke the specter of injury and death caused by guns, a true fact is introduced coupled with supposition about a shopper or child being injured or killed by gun violence.

Impending emotional calamity caused by guns is stock and trade for persons advocating the restriction of the private ownership of guns. Here is an editorial that cannot point to actual blood in the street, so it falls back to the concept that there could have been blood in the street. Stories about people being stuck by errant bullets are rare enough to be news when they occur. Bullets that miss are not news.

The editorial is about a gun owner who misused his gun without tragic results. To make the author’s point, the story is framed by what could have happened. Without the emotional framing, it documents three more data points where errant bullets did nothing.

[DrDan]

32. the point is that this nut put many others at risk - all those within a mile

a fact that should be shared with all readers

[GreenStormCloud]

39. A mile? Really? That .40 must have had a HELL of a recoil.

Yes, he was reckless and did endanger anyone who might have been in the direction that he fired. But there is no need to exaggerate the danger. For the bullet to have traveled a mile it would have had to have been going 9,600 feet per second. (Neglects velocity loss due to air resistance.)

That assumes that he fired from shoulder level, horizontally. Average male shoulder height of five feet. The time for a bullet to drop five feet is .55 seconds which yields a velocity of 9600. Average velocity for a .40 is about 1200 feet per second. 9600/1200=8.
So the recoil would be eight times that of a regular .40, and the muzzle energy would by a whopping 64 times that of a regular .40. That would be an awesome muzzle blast that would blow the gun to pieces before the bullet was out of the barrel.

[Meiko]

4. Pretty stupid this guy

He should not be allowed to own a gun, a right he will lose when he is convicted. There is no way the NRA is going anywhere near this one. Good thing for him that he didn't hit anyone walking down the street or he could be looking at some serious jail time. Besides everyone knows that only cops are allowed to shoot at fleeing felons regardless of the consequences.

[jeepnstein]

7. Being allowed to do it and actually doing it are different things.

Police officers are taught to shoot fleeing felons only in the direst cases, like when you are reasonably sure the fleeing felon is going to inflict serious bodily harm or death on someone RFN. I've chased my fair share of fleeing felons and am here to tell you that shooting them was pretty much the last thing on my mind. One was an escaped murderer who really didn't want to go to prison. I actually wound up breaking another officer's arm in the process of taking the felon down to the curb. His girlfriend almost got shot because she was getting ready to run over us to escape. It was a circus of epic proportions. You just don't shoot into crowds if you can avoid it.

The store owner will be convicted of the charge. He shouldn't have fired when it was obvious the threat to his life was passed.

[GreenStormCloud]

9. The NRA is against doing what that shop owner did.

You can put your strawman back in the barn.

[DonP]

11. Another NRA "Claim" in the OP ... with no links of course

I guess we have several posters who knows what the NRA really means, even when they don't say anything.

Making the NRA a convenient boogeyman for every time another gun law gets changed for the better seems to be the last refuge of our resident gun controllers.

But I notice they never seem to be able to point or link to an actual statement by the NRA for any of these claims.

My favorite was the idiot that asked if I was getting paid by the NRA, because I didn't agree with his twisted Brady inspired vision of the 2nd amendment.

Oh well, I guess it's easier to blame the NRA for your pathetic and impotent political power, than accept that they have tapped into the majority and that you are that far out of the mainstream in this country.

[Hoyt]

13. Too bad you and fellow permit holders didn't feel that way when this young lady shot in head by

a concealed carry zealot who chose to save his ass at expense of innocent young lady.

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


Fact is, permit holders don't "perform" as well under pressure as they like to think they will. And, their selfish -- me first -- attitude is dangerous.

[PavePusher]

41. Since you claim to be clairvoyant, please tell us everyhting that happened in that store....

during that event. Every action by every person.

We'll wait....

[slackmaster]

14. I'm going to make a bold prediction here - The NRA will _not_ defend Zoubeidi

Would anyone care to wager against my prediction?

[sarisataka]

15. The NRA response:

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Which happens to be in the same editorial...

Actually, no.

Gun rights advocates are, for once, in general agreement with gun control advocates, including this editorial page, in believing that the Cook County state’s attorney’s office was right to bring criminal charges against Zoubeidi and that his claim of self-defense is dubious. Even if the thief did flash a handgun in his waistband before he fled the store, it’s hard to see how Zoubeidi was defending himself from physical danger when — as he told police — he followed the man out of the store and shot at him.

<snip>

Illinois law allows a person to legally own and use a handgun to defend himself, but not simply to pursue a thief, said Todd Vandermyde, chief Illinois lobbyist for the NRA. If that is indeed what Zoubeidi did, Vandermyde said — stressing that he doesn’t know all the facts — then “he made a bad judgment and crossed the line that most of us explicitly understand.”

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Good find. N/T

[DrDan]

22. "selective editing?

There used to be a 4-paragraph rule (there still might be, I am not sure) - due to copyright issues. That seems to have been what the OP followed.

Nothing nefarious going on.

[NewMoonTherian]

24. Except that the snip in the OP...

ended with "Surely the NRA will come to his defense, right?"

The entire meaning of the editorial was misrepresented by this snip. The OP could have omitted that obnoxious ".40 caliber bullet can travel a mile" paragraph - which added nothing to the article - and included the last paragraph, which actually contained pertinent information and would have changed what the OP conveyed.

[SecularMotion]

25. If you have a problem with the layout of the article - talk to the writer

I posted the first 4 paragraphs, as the copyright rule allows.

There was no ulterior motive for the edit - it's your paranoia talking.

[NewMoonTherian]

26. You posted an excerpt that does not represent the intent of the editorial.

What purpose could you possibly have had for doing that? Maybe you're right - I am paranoid. Maybe you posted this misleading snip out of simple, innocent ignorance. If that's the case, I apologize for any implication that you did it with ill intent.

[SecularMotion]

30. It was posted to comply with the rules.

"To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=copyright

If you think the writer was unfair to the NRA lobby, take it up with him. It's in the sequence the article was written. I made no changes.

[NewMoonTherian]

35. The DU rule says nothing about sequence.

Nor does it stipulate that the snip use four consecutive paragraphs.

Of course, the rules also don't state that the snip has to represent the original purpose of the source article. That's just intellectual honesty.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. You could have edited it differently.

You get to choose which four paragraphs you post. You chose the first four and left out an important one.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. The copyright rule says nothing about *which* four paragraphs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=copyright

DMCA Copyright Policy

Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt with a link back to the original.

To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified.

I've posted many an excerpt from a copyrighted article that contained four non-consecutive paragraphs, and none has yet been pulled or needed reediteding.

I'm sure that the fact the four paragraphs you chose to excerpt don't actually reflect the NRA's position on the Zoubeidi case is entirely coincidental...

[sarisataka]

29. The straight four paragraph cutoff

changed the context of the article from "Look both sides can agree on something" to "Here come the NRA mouthpieces defending another shooter."

I will take you at your word that is was unintentional as it matches posts you have done previously.

I apologize for the implication of editing and will remove the line from my post.

[PavePusher]

34. The "4-paragraph rule" was 4 paragraphs maximum, not a flat requirement.

This became an issue on websites everywhere due to those fucks at Righthaven.

[DrDan]

37. and that was what the OP did - stopped after 4 paragraphs

that was the point.

[pipoman]

38. No the point of the OP was to

change the context of the article, and in fact make an assertion which was completely opposite, and dishonest about the point of the cited article.

[DrDan]

40. by posting the first 4 paragraphs verbatim . . . uh huh . . . . gotcha

[GreenStormCloud]

42. In other thread starters he skips among the four paragraphs.

He isn't consistent about always posting only the first four.

[aikoaiko]

33. If there is no NRA outrage, does it prove the chicago sun times doesn't know much about the NRA?

[Logical]

36. One rule is "never shoot a fleeing suspect", I agree with it!