Looks like bringing your guns to work just stopped a murder

[krispos42]

At the very least, a violent person without a concealed-carry permit but with anger issues was arrested and removed from the streets.

Armed standoff between West Palm Beach customer, store workers ends in arrest

By Jerome Burdi
10:55 AM EDT, April 29, 2008

WEST PALM BEACH - Memo to shoppers: Next time Mr. Whipple tells you to stop squeezing the Charmin, pay attention. He might be packing heat.

<snip>

Marshall Grant, 72, is charged with attempted murder, shooting in an occupied building, aggravated assault and carrying a concealed firearm in connection with the 5 p.m. Monday incident at the IGA Supermarket at 1000 36th St.

Police said the problem started when store manager Marino Hernandez shouted at Grant that he was walking into the store through the wrong doors.

The men got into an argument, and when Hernandez told Grant he should take his business elsewhere, Grant pulled out a revolver, police said.

<snip>

"They have a right to protect their business and themselves," police Capt. Pat Maney said. "They showed great restraint by not firing back ... That store has been robbed several times."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-429storestandoff,0,1376760.story

Another employee, assistant manager Espinal, drew his own handgun after Grant pulled out his and threatened Hernandez. Grant began backing out of the store, while Hernandez also pulled out his handgun. Once outside, Grant shot at the store itself three times, which had customers inside. Hernandez told Grant to stop and drop the gun, at which point Grant took cover behind a car and took a shot at Hernandez.

Hernandez and Espinal moved to surround Grant, yelled that the police were on their way, and that he should drop the gun, which Grant finally did. Hernandez and Espinal covered him until the police showed up.

[shain from kane]

1. Started when the customer pulled his gun. What was he doing with a gun in the store?

[krispos42]

5. Article does not say. However, since the guy was so free and easy about whipping it out...

... maybe he was going to rob it anyway. Illegally carried gun, entering the store through the wrong entrance... might have been trying a discreet armed robbery.

Of course, the guy was 72. That's a pretty old criminal. Perhaps some kind of mental illness?

[slackmaster]

16. He was carrying it illegally, probably intending to commit a crime

:shrug:

[facepalm]

72. shopping

That's what most people do with guns in stores. They shop.

Carrying a gun isn't some big event in most areas of the US. It's just part of getting dressed.

[maxidivine]

74. Hmmmmmmm..........

I'm gonna go ahead and ask you if you carry a cellphone, or keys into the store with you. Why, were you planning on calling someone from inside the store? Were you going to drive around in the store? Do you carry a knife of some sort? Why were you carrying that into the store?

Just having something in your possession does not mean you are intending on using it every single place you happen to go. I was wearing my CZ when I went to pick up my fiances mail from her moms yesterday, do you think that's "weird", or wondering, "what were you doing with a gun at your fiances moms house?"

[iverglas]

77. mmmm hmmmm

I'm gonna go ahead and ask you if you carry a cellphone,

No. But I gather some people do in case they need to receive or make a call. Is there a chance that when they do so they might put a projectile in someone else's body?

or keys into the store with you.

Sometimes, back before I decided to stop paying the insurance on the car. Probably will again soon. What should I do with them? Leave them in the car? Against the law where I'm at, doncha know. Because the risk of someone stealing my car is then hugely higher, and my car being stolen is contrary to the public interest because (a) higher insurance costs resulting from car theft are a matter of legitimate public concern, and more importantly, (b) stolen cars create a very elevated risk of personal injury and death for members of the public because of the driving habits of car thieves.

Where were we?

Oh yeah. Mich likelihood my keys will be putting a projectile in someone else's body?


Why, were you planning on calling someone from inside the store? Were you going to drive around in the store?

1. Not applicable. 2. Asked and answered, stupid question though it obviously is.

Do you carry a knife of some sort?

Uh ... no. Should I? The store I've been picturing myself in, while answering your questions, is the Canadian Tire. Yes, a knife might come in handy to debone some horrible bubble pack so I can see the thing inside properly, but I get along without. Frankly, I can't really see why someone needs to carry a knife around the Canadian Tire when s/he has a perfectly good car to leave it in, but I'm not aware of too many pedestrians and passers by getting killed by stray airborne knives.

Why were you carrying that into the store?

.........

Just having something in your possession does not mean you are intending on using it every single place you happen to go.

Okay. But I don't actually feel any need to haul my vacuum cleaner around shopping with me, pretty much because I don't intend to use it.

I was wearing my CZ when I went to pick up my fiances mail from her moms yesterday, do you think that's "weird", or wondering, "what were you doing with a gun at your fiances moms house?"

If I'm to assume a "CZ" is a firearm, then you betcha. I think that's totally fucking weird, beyond weird, way out in left field loony, and well beyond. Utterly fucking nuts. Either psychotic or psychopathic, frankly. Sociopathic, for sure.

Now let's remember that you asked for thoughts, and those are mine. I'm not saying I'd *say* any of that, especially here. But I'd sure as hell think it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Brave guys

There was a movie years ago (fictional) about a small town where all citizens were required to carry weapons--after being properly trained. Liked what the film taught--like that shoot a person would be messy, that guns are dangerous and you HAVE to act responsibly around them--AND the results of the ordinance. Two guys drove off the interstate, intent on robbing the convenience/gas station--until they realized EVERYONE inside was packing heat. They decided to go elsewhere.

[texastoast]

7. What a crazy world

But contrary to all the hand-wringing about licensing to carry concealed in Texas, apparently it is making a lot of would-be criminals think twice about one-on-one crimes. You just never know who's packing. I think it has helped people remember their manners a little better. ;-)

[slackmaster]

22. No license is needed to carry a concealed firearm at your place of business in most states

Including Florida and California.

[iverglas]

47. damn, eh?

apparently it is making a lot of would-be criminals think twice about one-on-one crimes

And yet ... it didn't ...

[mike_c]

3. yeah, a bunch of people shooting at one another...

...over somebody ENTERING THE OUT DOOR is a real victory for second amendment rights!

[krispos42]

6. Read the article

Get a clue.

[mike_c]

11. the point is that if NONE of the clueless idiots had guns...

...they and the people around them would have all been a lot safer. Somebody might have gotten a bloody nose instead of risking death over utterly silly shit like entering the wrong door.

[krispos42]

14. Ah, "idiots".

Plural.

Forgive me, I still harbored some hope for a rational discussion.

I'll be in the corner now, being disappointed.

[mike_c]

26. you're pretty adept at diverting the conversation away...

...from the parts of this story that are really important, as are many of the other folks who've responded. Let's accept that my comments should have been "If none of these fine upstanding citizens had guns they and the people around them would have all been a lot safer."

The salient point is that a rather silly argument erupted over a downright stupid matter-- a store clerk took exception to the manner in which someone entered the store and the customer reacted angrily. Consider three possible outcomes:

1) Clerk and customer shake their heads, say "WTF was that about?" and go about their business, forgetting the whole thing within minutes.

2) Clerk and customer escalate their angry display of indignation, the store manager gets involved, and all three end up brawling on the floor. Lacerations and contusions are exchanged.

3) Clerk and customer escalate their angry display of indignation, the store manager gets involved, and someone pulls out their gun. The others pull their guns in self defense. With no where else to escalate as tensions increase, someone begins shooting, either at one of the other angry men or at bystanders. A hail of bullets is exchanged in a public place.

The third scenario is the one that occurred, more-or-less. It is the only outcome that depends upon the participants having guns. If none of the participants carried guns, only the first two outcomes would be possible. Would you rather live in a world where arguments are routinely settled like outcomes one or two, or in a world where even stupid disputes have an even chance of developing into firefights?

[iverglas]

29. and writ large

It is the only outcome that depends upon the participants having guns. If none of the participants carried guns, only the first two outcomes would be possible. Would you rather live in a world where arguments are routinely settled like outcomes one or two, or in a world where even stupid disputes have an even chance of developing into firefights?


http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security/issues/sudan/2006/0406curse.htm

"The majority of people who are killed by guns are not killed in situations of war but in those of crime and personal attack. It is often a conflict over resources. It is very difficult to stop but more can be done to curtail and control this trade than is being done by governments currently, which is very little."

... As well as being caught up in the civil war, the nomads have continued their age-old conflict with the other cattle-keeping tribes, in particular their great rivals, the numerically superior Dinka. Armed raids to steal cows from the herds of "enemy" tribes have been commonplace since time immemorial. But the arrival of guns has changed these battles from skirmishes conducted hand-to-hand with spears and bows and arrows to ambushes conducted by an enemy that often cannot be seen.

About 1,000 Mandari live in the clearings around Kwajroji. Tribal chiefs said that before the arrival of the guns during the war (fought broadly between the Arab Muslim government in Khartoum and the Christian or Animist peoples of the south, and each side's allied bandit militias) they expected no more than two or three injuries a year. Now they average 25 killings each year and dozens of injuries.

... Juru Bontend Mula, the 85-year-old supreme chief for the Mandari in the Juba region, said: "Before the guns, to take a life in a raid was a serious matter. It meant you were a great warrior but the life taken had to be atoned for. Both spear and warrior had to be cleansed. The gun makes that impossible. You cannot throw a spear at someone with a gun. Instead you shoot from far away - you don't look your enemy in the eye. You don't receive or pay blood money because you cannot know who carried out the killing. Life has become cheap."

... Machar Butis, 50, who heads one of the family groups in Kwajroji, said: "This is how bad life has become - they no longer want just our cattle but also our children. All the rules that once applied have been rewritten." At the Juba teaching hospital, the only one in an area the size of England, there are 50 people who have been shot in the town in the past six weeks. One doctor said: "Everyone still has these guns (from the war) and they are being used to settle even the most minor dispute. They are being used to protect and gain wealth." Andria, whose cow name is Macher, said: "When I was a boy, the only thing I was afraid of in the bush was that a lion might attack and kill me. "Now a man might attack and steal all my cattle. That would kill not only me but all my family. This is what guns do."

Ordinary people the world over know what firearms are used for, and what the horrible results are when it happens.

[mike_c]

30. that has always been my foremost objection to gun ownership...

...especially handguns. They are almost universally used in situations that might otherwise be resolved with either relatively minor violence or without violence altogether. I don't have some rainbow tinged belief that without guns we'll all just live in peace and tranquility-- but commonplace disputes are much less likely to escalate into fatal violence if guns are removed from the equation. We will still have conflict. We'll still hurt one another. But the consequences of conflict without guns are far less likely to include fatality or crippling injury, and when so many of those conflicts are not about life-and-death matters, why should we be killing or maiming one another just to avoid some bullying or loss of pride?

[slackmaster]

33. The problem for you gun controllers is how to get from here to Happy Safe Handgun-Free Land

The people who are MOST likely to be a problem are also the LEAST inclined to give theirs up.

I sure as shit am not willing to give up my weapons until I get a rock-solid guarantee that all current and potential criminals will be disarmed first.

[iverglas]

36. well, you could ask Robert Kennedy

He dreamed of things as they could be, as I recall, and was presumably doing something about making them that way, instead of whining about how it could never happen.

Oops. Somebody shot him.

[Indy Lurker]

37. didn't work out so good for him

Reality vs dream, and reality won.

[iverglas]

39. if only he'd had a gun!!!

Eh?

[gorfle]

42. precisely.

The most likely outcome of the banning that Mike is proposing is that the customer would become angry and just shoot all the unarmed folks in the store.

[mike_c]

51. if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns...?

You've just pledged that if guns are outlawed you'd rather join the criminals and refuse to surrender your guns rather then act in a law abiding manner. That willingness alone makes your judgment in the matter suspect, IMO.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. So if they outlawed criticizing republicans would you stop?

Would you continue to speak out as an act of protest against the wanton violation of your Constitutional Rights?

David

[mike_c]

58. if nazi angels flew out of my butt would I accept that Hitler was right...

...about the Catholic church?

Why don't we stick to the topic of guns and using gun violence to settle common disputes?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. Ok then, is it your opinion that most incidents of gun violence stems from common disputes?

i'll check the FBI data at work tomorrow but if my memory serves (it often doesn't) I don't think that's the case. As to your answer I guess that's a vote to not abide by the law. So should we question your judgement? I know you like to belittle the people who disagree with you but, my question was nearly identical to yours just about a different Constitutionally protected right. I would be curious to know your opinion on the Constitution specifically the 2nd Amendment.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. The FBI Crime Statistics

Of the 14,990 firearm homicides committed in 2006. 449 of them were encounters that you describe. There were also 241 justifiable homicides by private citizens. That should put this in perspective.

David

[slackmaster]

61. Why have you intentionally misrepresented what I wrote?

You've just pledged that if guns are outlawed you'd rather join the criminals and refuse to surrender your guns rather then act in a law abiding manner.

No, that is not what I wrote. Go back and read it again.

[mike_c]

62. that's how I interpreted your statement....

"I sure as shit am not willing to give up my weapons until I get a rock-solid guarantee that all current and potential criminals will be disarmed first."

Since such guarantees are impossible, this suggest you won't give up your guns, even if required to do so by law. Is that an incorrect interpretation?

[slackmaster]

67. I see that nuance is lost on you, as is usually the case with authoritarians

Since such guarantees are impossible...

I'll give you partial credit for admitting that you cannot provide assurance that your idea would actually fix the problem.

...you won't give up your guns, even if required to do so by law. Is that an incorrect interpretation?

No. I said I wouldn't do it willingly. How much force would you be comfortable with applying in order to impose your will on me?

Whatever your answer, wouldn't it make more sense to direct all that energy toward the people who actually commit malum in se crimes?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. How many firearm homicides do you believe start out as a simple argument?

I guess we could go to the FBI database and find out. Maybe I'll do that tomorrow at lunch so we can continue this deep conversation.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. But you said idiots.

If you had said an idiot criminal carrying a gun illegally, then a lot of us would have agreed with you. But calling the employees idiots when they did nothing illegal and showed a tremendous amount of restraint it just way over the top.

David

[mike_c]

49. and you will apparently refuse forever to go beyond that most superficial...

...of points to discuss the underlying issues. There are always ways to avoid the issues.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. Let's go then

Are the men, who defended themselves when accosted by a criminal with a firearm, idiots for doing so with equal force? Let's have a serious discussion about it.

David

[mike_c]

54. that isn't the point....

I made my points in post #26. Now I'm going to bed but if you have something substantive to add I'll be happy to reply tomorrow.

In the meantime, my answer to your further dwelling on the matter of who was or wasn't an "idiot" is that it was UTTERLY idiotic for all parties concerned to brandish guns in response to such a silly dispute-- and that is the core of my comments on the matter throughout this thread. If you want to parse that further, be my guest. Like I said, it is hard to imagine why grown men in a mexican standoff over whether someone walked in the out door is any sort of victory for second amendment rights.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. Okay thanks for the answer.

I might have handled it differently, but I wasn't there. Some people have a tendency to cause situations to escalate and some people seem to defuse situations. In my many encounters with violent people many of whom are mentally ill I have managed to avoid injuring them and avoid being injured. I should state the exception of my beating of a man who punched my wife. So i tend to be someone who defuses situations, maybe this situation could have been defused. Having not been there though I wouldn't judge the men who did stop the assailant without firing a shot. No sense in my calling someone an idiot without knowing all the facts. Again thanks for clearing that up.

David

[maxidivine]

70. The Point

Is that you seem to think that the two store employees are "idiots" for responding to an armed assailant (yes threatening someones life is assault, and a serious crime, especially when the means and opportunity are satisfied, like when they have means {deadly/dangerous weapon, there is no distinction between a firearm and any other weapon, no matter how bad it chafes you to think about} and the opportunity, like being in proximity to the person they are threatening.

The two employees did not draw their weapons because the man came through the wrong door, they drew because he was threatening the life of a fellow employee and by proxy every other person in the store at the time. Their response was flawlessly executed and worked perfectly, they drove the man out of the store, to protect the man he was threatening, but in the process potentially saved the life of everyone else in the store, and then they maneuvered around him and persuaded him to stop firing and stay still waiting for law enforcement.

Something that I've noticed about strong anti-gun people is that they seem to think that Concealed Carry laws are written and enacted to prevent serious incidents from happening, such as school shootings. They aren't. They are a separate part of the solution to violent crime and attacks on innocent people. Counseling, adequate mental health care, etc. are not the same. Those are part of the Preventative aspect of it, whereas cementing citizen's right to live by not tying their hands during a lethal situation is part of mitigation, like the "warning systems" being put in place at many schools around the country. People carrying concealed are not supposed to 'guarantee' that no one will ever hurt someone around them, they aren't even responsible for the anyone around them, minus their families. However, when someone is firing, clubbing, slashing, burning a group of people, if one of the people at risk happens to be a concealed carrier, when they hopefully put an end to the attackers threat to their life, they are putting an end to the threat to the surrounding groups lives as well.

[krispos42]

63. Ah, discourse. Excellent

Naturally, any situation that I'm involved in I want an ending Scenario Variant #1. I like my hide very much, thank you, and my plan to die at the age of 95, murdered in the bed of a Victoria's Secret underwear model (by her jealous boyfriend) is very dependent on me becoming age 95 in the first place! :-)

And possibly Viagra. But I digress.

However, in Scenario Variant #2 the operating assumption is that because guns are not present, nobody will die, which, since about 4,000 people a year in this country are killed by "not a gun" annually, is far from realistic.


And, of course, the various scenarios with which conflict occurs have a virtually endless array of factors to play with.

I could come up with a similar pro-gun scenario based on a similar newspaper report about, say, a home invasion. And we could go back and forth on this matter for a dozen or so posts until one of us lost interest. :shrug:


The fact is, it is foolish to assume that any kind of attempt at removal of guns from our society, whether explicity or implicity, will affect only one kind of crime. Yes, some sort of disarmament policy would probably reduce the "flash of anger" killings that happend between friends or family. But the same disarmament policy would probably increase the number of burglaries, home invasions, and robberies, each criminal event with its own possiblity of violent assault or death occuring. The introduction of strict gun-control laws and governmental policy that discourages citizen ownership of guns in Australia and the UK has not affected homicide rates, assault rates, or home-intrusion rates in any positive manner. While it has certainly lowered Britian's gun homicide rate to historic lows, the UK's total homicide rate remains at or near 40-year highs.

At the same time, across the pond here in the good old US of A, in a 10-year period starting in 1993, homicide rates, violent crime rates, and burglary rates fell by about 50% to rates not seen since the early 1960s. And yet the numbers and types of firearms owned by or available to US citizens had no significant change.



If you goal is less violence and less murder, the fastest, best, and most progressive means would probably be a combination of legalization of recreational drugs, effective anti-poverty measures, and strict sentencing of people that commit violent crimes with guns. Bring good jobs back to America so the single-income middle class is both common and vibrant wouldn't hurt either.


If you goal is to remove guns from society because you believe it is antithetical to civilization, well, then that's your goal, isn't it?

<edit: spelling>

[iverglas]

71. ah yes, Queen Victoria's bed

More impressive in person. She was about 4 ft tall, and so is the stack of mattresses. I can certainly see wanting to die in that, especially since it's located in Brighton Pavillion, although I found the gilt everywhere a tad overdone and tacky.

Now ... it's possible ... another night of no sleep and all work ... yes, I think I may have mixed something up there.

Oh. The bed of a Victoria's Secret underwear model.

Never mind.

[maxidivine]

73. Had to fix something for ya

"If you goal is less violence and less murder, the fastest, best, and most progressive means would probably be a combination of legalization of recreational drugs, effective anti-poverty measures, and strict sentencing of people that commit violent crimes. Bring good jobs back to America so the single-income middle class is both common and vibrant wouldn't hurt either."

Check out that smooth edit. Now it's perfect.

Really a strong +1 to your post overall though.

[spin]

18. In my opinion, there was only one clueless idiot...

The man who first pulled his weapon.

Marshall Grant, 72, is charged with attempted murder, shooting in an occupied building, aggravated assault and carrying a concealed firearm in connection with the 5 p.m. Monday incident at the IGA Supermarket at 1000 36th St.

The other two got a lot of respect from the police.

"They have a right to protect their business and themselves," police Capt. Pat Maney said. "They showed great restraint by not firing back ... That store has been robbed several times."

You know, it is possible that if the two employees hadn't been armed, someone might have died.

[slackmaster]

19. Some-WHERE O-ver the rainbow way up high...

Here, you need these:

[iverglas]

25. only need to go up above the 49th

and heck, Windsor's even closer than that.





And of course Niagara Falls. You note that the rainbow is on *this* side.


54-40 ... I don't recall at all; didya fight??

[slackmaster]

27. No, we didn't fight to have the border placed at the southern tip of Alaska where it belongs

There is still time.

[krispos42]

65. Nah, most of the good stuff's below 51° anyway

Except maybe we'd need to take over all of British Columbia so Alaska would be part of the continental US.



I'm sure we have plenty of troops left to invade and occupy BC and everything below 51° latitude. I mean, it's only an area of four or five times that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined!

What can possibly go wrong? :-)

[krispos42]

64. Nah, we decided to leave the Brits to our north alone...

:-)


If we had, and you live below 54° 40'N, you'd be using degrees Fahrenheit and what color your new furniture should be! :-)

[iverglas]

66. ah yes

Just like happened in 1812. That's why my chesterfield is gray, and not grey?

Oops. It's grey!

[SteveM]

23. Law-abiding citizens + criminals = "idiots" to some gun-controllers...

Your kind of argument is what gives rise to the notion of "culture war": you are so opposed to people defending themselves with guns you equate them with idiots and criminals even as they take defensive measures toward an armed assailant. I'll presume you are not romancing criminals here; nevertheless, you show a contempt for your fellow citizens, a rather common practice among gun-controllers.

The crim was told to leave. He didn't and pulled a gun. Citizens took action to defend themselves. Citizens did NOT fire even as the crim did fire. And you call these citizens "idiots."

By the way, what are the chances that "NONE of the clueless" CRIMS have guns?

[mike_c]

28. so let's agree they were fine, intelligent gentlemen....

See #26.

[SteveM]

34. But one wasn't a "fine, intelligent gentlemen...," prima facie...

Your premise rests upon a utopian scheme of prohibition. I can understand this. From complete prohibition we draw the most haughty senses of morality and compassion; so let's agree this is a more likely reality.

Argument of entrance/egress in a store (the rationale for which is usually security-related) does not justify confrontation, let alone guns; yet this charged-felon chose to pull a gun on two (as far as the arrestee was concerned) "unarmed" store employees. This is the "road rage" scenario CCW opponents always cite; this is the "blood in the streets" or "wild west" scripts gun-registration advocates slap. But what happened? The two store-owners took completely defensible action by properly brandishing their weapons. (You would agree at this point the action was defensible?) Further, they forced this armed and dangerous man to back out of the store and take cover. Here, the arrestee fired on the store. Still, the store owners did not fire, but persuaded the arrestee to give up. Also prima facie: the two store owners were quite humanitarian.

It is pointless to pose questions of logic or preference based on utopian hypotheticals.

[Indy Lurker]

38. As long as your dreaming

why not dream of a world where criminals don't exist, and not just guns.

[gorfle]

43. Bwhahahahaha

why not dream of a world where criminals don't exist, and not just guns.

Exactly! Why not just ban criminal behavior?

[mike_c]

56. fear of crime is way overblown among gun owners....

Most crimes-- like walking in the out door, theft, petty assault, and so on-- do not require that the victim kill someone or even threaten them with death as a means of self defense. The particular "crime" described in the OP was nothing more than a common dispute, and a silly one at that, until folks started pulling guns. Who pulled a weapon first isn't the issue-- that all three men were armed and prepared to settle a silly dispute with deadly force is the real issue that gets to the heart of why we should not allow people to carry handguns in this country.

[slackmaster]

68. Did you read the same story that I did?

The particular "crime" described in the OP was nothing more than a common dispute...

O RLY?

It sounded to me like the guy was planning to ROB the place.

...that all three men were armed and prepared to settle a silly dispute with deadly force is the real issue that gets to the heart of why we should not allow people to carry handguns in this country.

Can you provide any concrete evidence that the proliferation to nearly all states of "shall-issue" laws, i.e. objective standards for issuance of concealed weapons permits, has adversely affected public safety?

I don't believe you can. If anything is overblown, it's your unfounded fear of honest people being armed.

[Indy Lurker]

78. you couldn't be more wrong.

You said "Who pulled a weapon first isn't the issue-"

It certainly is.

Pulling out a gun in a store is a crime. (at least disorderly conduct, and in this case also carrying a concealed gun without a license)

Responding to a drawn weapon with a firearm is NOT a crime.

You see one action is a crime one is not.


Also, the store managers did not pull out firearms to end a "silly dispute" they pulled out firearms to confront an armed criminal.


See the difference.


Had the store managers pulled out weapons first when a shopper entered thought the wrong door, they would have been the criminals. But that's not what happened.

[Firethorn]

82. I have to disagree.

<i>that all three men were armed and prepared to settle a silly dispute with deadly force</i>
<i>Who pulled a weapon first isn't the issue</i>

I SERIOUSLY disagree with these parts. While I will admit to thinking that the two manager's actions might of had a touch of poor conflict management/deescalation skills, though there's not enough information to be sure. I wouldn't underestimate the ability of somebody illegally carrying a firearm to escalate conflict/look for a fight.

It's the one who entered the exit door, got into an argument, and pulled the firearm first who escalated it. If he hadn't pulled his illegally concealed* firearm, the managers wouldn't have pulled theirs. If the dispute had continued, they would have most likely simply called the police to remove him(possibly charging him with trespass). The managers didn't even shoot him, after he opened fire on the store.

I am a CCW permit holder. I'm not going to draw until I see a serious threat to life/limb that a firearm might be able to prevent. Going solely by the article, mind you, I would have likely shot the man, possibly killing him. Keep in mind that I'm fully aware that a car, except for the engine, is more concealment than cover.

An argument over somebody entering through the exit door isn't near enough to make me think about drawing. Drawing a gun will. Drawing a gun and going to point it at me or innocents will likely result in me opening fire.

* Because he doesn't have a legal CCW permit recognized by florida.

[sandnsea]

8. They checked guns with the sheriff in the old west

That's how they stopped this shit then. I can't figure out why these fanatics always forget that detail when they call for a return to the gun-packing wild west.

[bossy22]

12. wait...

isnt it the gun controllers who are always using the wild west arguement

[SteveM]

17. Violent crime has always been more prevalent in the cities.

[slackmaster]

21. That didn't always work out

There were, occasionally, people who didn't check their guns and committed crimes.

Rules don't apply to people who choose to disobey them.

[Firethorn]

83. Gun-packing wild west, not so violent.

Which was real useful when the visitor didn't bother to mention to the Sheriff all the weapons he or she was carrying. Not all sheriffs did this, some only did it for visiting cowboys and such who he knew full well was going to go off and get drunk at the first opportunity.

Besides this, the 'wild west' often had less violence than back east.

By the same token, the Sheriff wouldn't have any problems with the shopkeeper, bartender, blacksmith, other random 'upstanding citizen' carrying whatever they wanted. The local rancher(not his hands, necessarily) who stops by every couple months for business? Not a problem. The local railroad representative who's coming by with the payroll? He could bring a gatling for all the sheriff was concerned.

CCW permits are essentially the same deal. You go through a bit of hassle to prove that you're an 'upstanding citizen', know which end of the gun is the dangerous part, and that you won't go off shooting in celebration or for minor insult.

[aquart]

4. Pathetic.

I can see you all in your backyards, practicing your quick draw. Because, honey, if you can't whip yours out before the other guy whips his out, there was no point in having it at all.

Why don't you asses just unzip?

[Warpy]

10. Well, be fair. The other guy had already brandished a gun

and the assistant manager achieved what they called a Mexican standoff in old spaghetti westerns.

When somebody points a gun at you, you pretty much have to assume they're ready to fire it. It should be recognized that the store managers didn't fire a single shot. All shots were fired by the bad guy. It appears he was all too ready to shoot somebody that day.

The problem with the headline, at least, is that guns are statistically more likely to kill your family than get rid of a bad guy. The guns in this case didn't really get rid of the bad guy because he started shooting, although they might have saved the manager's life. They were lucky the asshole's aim was as poor as his morals.

I'm really pretty neutral on the subject of gun ownership because I recognize that out here in the wild west, they're necessary tools for people who live outside town. I will never own one myself because I'm a menace who is an equivalent shot to the bad guy in this story. I'll leave them to the folks who need them and know how to use them, and it appears the two managers in this story fall into that category.

[Firethorn]

84. bad study...

The problem with the headline, at least, is that guns are statistically more likely to kill your family than get rid of a bad guy.

If this is from the study I remember, it's tragically flawed. It included illegal guns, and the deaths included incidents where there was simply a gun in the house - the gun actually used to commit the murders was brought in from outside.

The biggest cause of death is suicide, and substitution is extremely high with that(IE if the person who wants to commit suicide can't get a gun they'll simply do it a different way).

edit: fix html. gotta remember which sites use [] and which <>

[SteveM]

15. Why are you so fascinated with "zippers" and "whipping it out?"

[iverglas]

9. somebody pulled a weapon on the clerk in my local 7-11 a few years ago

When I went in a few minutes later, the clerk was still laughing.

The weapon was a keychain-pocket knife.

The clerk told the guy to get lost, then stopped laughing long enough to call the cops.

Had the incident taken place 100 miles south, the guy with the pocket knife would very likely have had a handgun.

But since it was Canada, he would no more have known how or where to get one than I would.

Yes, Virginia ... and Illinois, and Georgia, and California ... a world where people don't walk into grocery stores carrying firearms does exist ...

[bossy22]

13. my local deli

has gotten robbed 6 times in the last 4 years- none of the time the assailant had a gun- once the guy had a crow bar and attacked the guy at the register

[iverglas]

24. anybody die?

Let me guess.

[bossy22]

35. no

my town has had only one murder in the last 5 years

A taxi-cab driver was brutally beaten to death 5 years ago at the train station- sometime in the middle of the night

[slackmaster]

20. The US-Candian border - Magical line where knives turn into guns

Fifty-four forty or fight.

[spin]

31. Damn good thing there aren't many guns in Canada...

Canada ranks #10 in the top ten countries with the highest crime rate. Iceland comes in a #1, England and Wales at #6. The United States didn't make the list.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html

Strangely enough most crime in Canada occurs in the rural areas not in the urban environment.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html

Who would have thought?

[iverglas]

32. good thing there are people in the world stupid enough to believe that shit

-- or at least you'd better hope there are.

Christ a'mighty -- who wouldn't believe that the top 10 countries in the world, crime rate-wise, are the Nordic and British countries, Canada and New Zealand?

Oh. And Grenada.

That was my guffaw for the day. Ta.

My guess about the map you have linked to -- given that, as far as I can tell, it cites no sources itself -- is that it took 10 countries and ranked them, and they were the only countries included in the comparison. That's about the only credible explanation I can see.


Strangely enough most crime in Canada occurs in the rural areas not in the urban environment.

Not nearly as strangely: that's total bullshit.

How memes start ...

Someone says that rural areas in Canada have a higher rate of FIREARMS HOMICIDE than urban areas (an assertion I haven't bothered to investigate, and will treat as empty smoke unless some facts are offered, in any event), and suddenly we have most crime in Canada occurring in rural areas.

If I whisper "George Bush is an asshole" in your ear, will you pass it on to two people and get them to pass it on to two people, etc etc, and then we'll check in an hour or so and see how many people have heard "most crime in Canada occurs in the rural areas"? Or heck, you can just start it off with that now, if you like.


http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070718/d070718b.htm

You'll want to note a couple of things, in case you're considering producing any more stunningly bizarre assertions involving crime rates in Canada.

First, Canada includes common assault, now apparently called "assault level 1" -- the lowest level of assault -- in "violent crime" figures. The US does not. Assault Level 1 accounted for well over half of all "violent crimes" in Canada in 2006. There is no possible way of comparing "violent crime" rates between Canada and the US, or between most two-country couplets, without identifying the crimes included in each country's calculations and factoring out those that are not common. The same would obviously apply to "crime rates" in general: if the crimes being counted are not the same, the comparative rates are meaningless.

Second, Canada no longer has an offence called "rape". The way that sexual assault offences in Canada are broken down is based on the level of violence / whether a weapon is used. There is no possibly way of comparing sexual assault crimes in Canada with sexual assault crimes in the US or most other places.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071017/d071017b.htm

2006 homicide stats, in case they're of any use to you.

But at that point you're on your own -- because I don't see any Statcan breakdowns of crime by rural/urban areas.


So maybe you could just provide your source, eh?

[spin]

46. I thought I might provoke a response from you...

I found the map while doing research for another post. I admit that it surprised me and that I found it a little suspicious. I'm glad it gave you a good laugh as it did me.

To be fair to Canada, I'll post another link that puts your country in a slightly better light. Canada ranks #12, The United States #8 and Great Britain #6. While not as bad as the U.S., Canada still is no Utopia.

Total crimes (per capita) (most recent) by country
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

As you point out, the problem with comparing crime statistics between nations is that without uniform definitions you end up comparing apples to oranges. Also many nations tend to fudge the data to make it look better. Makes the government look better and helps the tourist industry.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics! - B.Disraeli

Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say. ~William W. Watt

But I learn something interesting everyday. Today you taught me that daily lesson:

Second, Canada no longer has an offence called "rape". The way that sexual assault offenses in Canada are broken down is based on the level of violence / whether a weapon is used.

All I can say is "How Bizarre"! How does a woman report a rape? Does she say something like, "I just had an assault level 5"?

********
The source for the rural/urban crime rate was CBC news:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/06/28/crime-stats.html

The overall crime rate in small urban areas — home to at least 1,000 people — was 43 per cent higher than in large urban areas with a core of at least 100,000, indicates the Statistics Canada study of 2005 crime rates that was released Thursday. Only in Quebec were crime rates higher in bigger cities.
________________________________________________________________
The finding is in contrast to American statistics that show homicide rates are highest in large urban areas. A University of Pennsylvania study shows that big American cities have nearly double the firearm homicide rate of most rural areas.

Another source: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/cp-rc/2006-2007/ann/ann11-eng.asp

A comparison of urban and rural crime rates

A new comparison of urban and rural crime rates using 2005 police-reported data showed that crime is not necessarily a big-city phenomenon in Canada. The study found that, small urban areas had higher overall crime rates than both large urban areas and rural areas. Rates of total violent crime, total property crime and break-ins were also highest in small urban areas. Homicide rates were highest in rural areas, while rates for robbery and motor vehicle theft were highest in large urban areas. (Statistics Canada, The Daily, June 28, 2007)

So why are the small urban areas and the rural areas more dangerous than the cities.

The cop that rooms with us said, "Possibly the snow slows down the response time for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police."

[iverglas]

48. hm

Canada ranks #12, The United States #8 and Great Britain #6. While not as bad as the U.S., Canada still is no Utopia.

Mm hm. And we all have about 4 times as much crime as, oh, Russia. And 5 times as much as Belarus. That's likely, eh?


How does a woman report a rape? Does she say something like, "I just had an assault level 5"?

If someone beats you over the head with a shoe until you're senseless, do you say "I just had an attempted murder"?

The approach we take is that sexual assault is assault, a particular kind of assault. The mechanics of it aren't the important thing, any more than it matters much whether someone beats you on the left or right side of your head.


The finding is in contrast to American statistics that show homicide rates are highest in large urban areas.

Well, the CBC has itself a fine basket of fruit. It is comparing *crime rates* in Canada to *homicide rates* in the US.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071017/d071017b.htm

605 homicides in Canada in 2006.
303 -- about exactly half, eh? -- in census metropolitan areas with populations over 500,000.
One would have to figure out what % of the population lives in CMAs of 500K+ ...


Myself, I might tend to think that people in settlements of <1,000 could be more inclined to report property crimes, e.g., than your average big-city dweller. Seriously, for property crime, I do suspect reporting rates are a factor.


Oh, okay, here's TBS's source:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070628/d070628b.htm

The study found that small urban areas had higher overall crime rates than both large urban areas and rural areas, and that homicide rates were highest in rural areas.

So why are the small urban areas and the rural areas more dangerous than the cities.

You realize what kinds of numbers you're looking at, right?

If there is one homicide in Pembroke, it will have a homicide rate of something like 3/100,000.

You're also looking at the fact that related-person homicides are the norm in Canada:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071017/d071017b.htm

The large majority of homicide victims were killed by someone they knew. About one-third of victims were killed by an acquaintance, 17% by a spouse, 19% by a family member other than a spouse and 12% by someone known through criminal activities. Strangers accounted for the remaining 17%, similar to previous years.

The odds of being killed while being robbed by a stranger, for instance, are vastly lower in Canada, precisely because of the extremely low rate of firearms use in robberies. Firearms robberies are a large urban centre phenomenon. I have no doubt that this factor alone would account for a good chunk of the difference between Canada and the US, in terms of the rural/urban homicide rate reversal.

In Canada, husbands kill wives. And husbands in rural areas have more guns than husbands in urban areas.

However, women are still much more likely than men to be victims of spousal homicide. In 2006, a total of 56 women were killed by their husband, 6 fewer than in 2005 and the fifth consecutive annual decline. One-quarter of these were committed by a separated or divorced spouse.

It's very hard to determine homicide trends in Canada because of the small numbers. This month, a man in BC killed his three children. That alone will cause a blip in the parent-child murder figures/rate. A decade ago, the entire deal was thrown out of whack by the man in BC who had been killing prostitutes for years -- I think the recognized total is 43 victims. Their deaths were counted in the years their bodies were discovered, although some had been killed years earlier. When your total number of homicides per year is ~600, adding 10 can skew the whole thing.

Gotta do some work.

Damnation, speaking of the RCMP. There was a news special about the Mayerthorpe killings sometime last week and I forgot about it. Somebody's been arrested apparently (the killer himself killed himself on the scene, after killing the 4 Mounties). Gotta see whether it's rerunning ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

59. Nice post Iverglas

I agree with you very low rates of incidences and low population levels make it difficult to compare percentages. This little string of posts is a great example of how numbers can be skewed without much work. Sorry about the Mounties.

David

[spin]

69. Interesting insight into Canada...

In Canada, husbands kill wives. And husbands in rural areas have more guns than husbands in urban areas.

However, women are still much more likely than men to be victims of spousal homicide. In 2006, a total of 56 women were killed by their husband, 6 fewer than in 2005 and the fifth consecutive annual decline. One-quarter of these were committed by a separated or divorced spouse.

I recently watched a program about "cabin fever". I wonder if this might be a contributing factor to homicides that occur in winter months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_fever

I researched the story on the Mayerthorpe killings. What a tragedy! The killer was a real scum bag.


Links about the Mayerthorpe incident for those reading this string of posts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayerthorpe_Incident
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/29/mayerthorpe-report.html?ref=rss
http://www.ctv.ca/generic/WebSpecials/rcmp/shooter.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/04/14/bail-hennessey.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. So there aren't any robberies with handguns in Canada?

Wouldn't have thought that was the case.

David

[iverglas]

44. I dunno

Why don't you ask google?

Information is free.

[iverglas]

45. but what the hell

That could take all year.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080220/d080220b.htm

Study: Firearms and violent crime
2006

The 2006 rate of violent crime involving the use of firearms in Canada remained stable for the fourth consecutive year, according to a new study examining trends in gun violence.

Canadian police services reported just over 8,100 victims of violent gun crime, ranging from assault to robbery and homicide, accounting for 2.4% of all victims of violence. Handguns made up nearly two-thirds of all firearms used.

That would look like just over 70,000 violent gun crimes if we transposed it to the US population. You have 10,000 firearm homicides alone.

Generally, the highest rates of gun violence in 2006 were found in Canada's largest cities. Vancouver had the highest rate among all census metropolitan areas (CMAs), followed by Winnipeg and Toronto. Among youth, however, the rates of violence involving firearms were highest in Toronto and Saskatoon.

Huh. So much for that violent countryside.

Police reported nearly 4,000 robberies and almost 2,400 assaults that were committed with a firearm. However, these types of offences were much more likely to be committed by physical force than with a firearm or any other type of weapon.

Homicide and attempted murder, while fewer in number, were far more likely to be committed with a firearm. Guns were used against about one-third of all victims of attempted murders and homicides in 2006, compared with 14% of victims of robbery and 1% of victims of assault.

4,000 robberies with a firearm. Again, transposed to the US, that would be about 36,000.

Imagine a world ...


Nation-wide firearm-related robbery rate: 11.3/100,000. And yes, most of them would be handguns.

Some of those handguns were stolen from lawful owners who obviously failed to take proper steps to secure their firearms, some were trafficked into Canada from the US, some may have been left over from a time when they evaded official notice somehow, and I doubt that any were used by the sports shooters or collectors in lawful possession of them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. Interesting thanks for the info.

[maxidivine]

75. Yep

That's why I don't have friends who have been robbed by cocaine addicts in montreal.


Unreal.

[iverglas]

76. you talkin to me?

It looks that way, following the dotted lines ... but I'm not hearing anything ...

Your friends been robbed by cocaine addicts in Montreal? Cocaine addicts with handguns?

[bossy22]

79. i don't think so

did the poster mention your name anywhere in the post...not the last time i checked

[iverglas]

80. uh

I mean, I know I'm having little visual and auditory hallucinations from lack of sleep, and feeling the paranoia creeping up behind me, but still ...



maxidivine
Wed Apr-30-08 12:52 PM
>>>>> Response to Reply #9
75. Yep



Now check Reply #9 ... or just do what I did, as I mentioned, and follow those dotted lines ...

[bossy22]

81. woops

i followed the wrong dotted lines

you do have a point

[beevul]

85. Is this story from the onion?

This story can not POSSIBLY be true.

Its missing far too many "required" ingredients:

Some things that we have been assured so many times would happen by those that oppose concealed carry, or gun ownership in part or as a whole - in general...


The "shoot out". You know, the one we so often hear will inevitably happen.

Innocent bystanders inevitably killed or wounded during the gun battle by each other because they misidentify the threat. That gets play hereabouts.

Innocent bystanders inevitably killed or wounded during the gun battle by a stray round. Again, commonly prognosticated.

Innocent bystanders inevitably killed or wounded during the gun battle by a poorly aimed or poorly judged shot? An oldie but a goodie.

And last but not least, the confused police - the ones who might shoot and kill an innocent - because they mistook him/her for the perpetrator because he/she had a gun . Once again, bandied about commonly.




Those things are made mention of often, hereabouts, and pretending they aren't wont wash.


I just want to know from those of you that make mention of such things and sell them as such, why none of the above happened here? So often were assured by you - practically guaranteed even - that those things are a SURE end result of concealed carry, and of widespread gun possession. What stars were in alignment that these "highly probables" failed to materialize?

If this incident beat the odds, surely there are hundreds of incidents like this one with comparable parameters that did not.

It is curious if thats the case, that were hearing about this exception rather than the multiples of times this incident or one like it would happen with the predicted results.

Curious indeed.