When everybody has a gun, armed robbery can be deadly to the thief

[RoeBear]

http://www.freep.com/features/living/wildcherry5e_20041205.htm

"The victim is on the ground, under an SUV on 8 Mile, with three bullet holes in his chest clustered in a tight pattern, or center mass -- it's the work of somebody with a steady hand, somebody comfortable with a gun."

Quite a headline for an anti-gun newspaper.

[tk2kewl]

1. Archie Bunker said this was the solution to airline hijackings as well /nt

[Old and In the Way]

2. Now that's funny.

Picture this: everyone in Manhattan packing their heater. Suddenly a car backfires. Everyone pulls their guns....one nervous Nate sees a person he's sure is the perp and unloads....another guy sees Nate shooting and unloads on Nate, the chain reaction begins....before you know it, NYC is Baghdad.

[slackmaster]

3. And if that happened it would be a BAD thing?

:shrug:

[Old and In the Way]

7. Yes, I think it would be a horrible thing, actually. Don't you?

[slackmaster]

8. The suggestion sounds so absurd I can't respond to it any other way

I've never heard of a single instance of someone getting shot by a person carrying a licensed, concealed weapon in response to a car backfiring.

[Old and In the Way]

15. Of course you haven't.

Let's arm everyone in NYC and see what happens. Let's see what happens if a gunfight erupts in Time Square.

[Columbia]

16. Sounds good to me

Let's arm everyone in NYC and see what happens.

You start the petition. I'll be first to sign.

[slackmaster]

18. See, OAITW, that's what you get when you post silly comments

Some of us have found that the best way to answer Straw Man arguments about where to draw the line on civilians carrying weapons for self-defense is simply to respond as if calling a bluff.

[Old and In the Way]

21. Silly?

Isn't that what you guys want? Turn this country into an armed fortress where no ne trusts each other? Thanks, but I never want to inhabit your world of fear and paranoia.

[slackmaster]

22. Another Straw Man

Isn't that what you guys want? Turn this country into an armed fortress where no ne trusts each other?

I can't speak on behalf of all of "you guys" (whatever the hell you are referring to), but that's certainly not what I want.

[Old and In the Way]

24. Than you agree that arming everyone in large population centers is a

stupid idea?

Hope that's not another straw man argument....

[slackmaster]

25. Not only stupid but immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional

Only people who really want to be armed and are willing and able to accept the responsibility for being armed should be armed.

Arming people who don't want to be armed would be just plain wrong.

[T Town Jake]

37. One thing you would definitely "see happen"...

...in such an instance: I'd bet that the incidence of muggings, assaults, and similar crimes would drop like a rock in NYC.

[Paladin]

12. Another Attempt At Humor, Slack?

I have a close relative and a number of friends who live and work in Manhattan, and I am un-fucking-amused. As if that area hasn't gotten slammed enough in recent years.

Try that line out on your local AM hate radio station. Ought to be a big hit......

[slackmaster]

13. Old and In The Way seemed to think it would be funny

In reply #2.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Old and In the Way]

14. Yes, tk2kwel's comment on Archie Bunker's solution to hijacker's was

funny, in an absurd way. I was pointing out why it might not be a good idea to arm millions of people in heavily populated urban centers; you apparently think turning NYC into the Wild West is a good idea.

Please don't misconstrue my responses to other posters.

[slackmaster]

17. You just couldn't resist the temptation to post a Straw Man, could you?

...you apparently think turning NYC into the Wild West is a good idea.

No, that's not what I think; and I don't believe I've never posted anything here or anywhere else that could reasonably be construed as expressing such a belief. I think your remarks here are, well, unreasonable and bordering on insulting.

I think your fantasy vignette of a shooting melee triggered by a backfiring vehicle was completely ridiculous and suggests to me you have an inappropriate negative stereotype about people who carry weapons for self-defense. If that kind of thing could happen surely it would have happened somewhere in one of the states that respect the right of honest citizens to carry a weapon.

[Old and In the Way]

23. It's such a silly fantasy, I don't know why all our major urban population

centers don't make manadtory CW the law. It worked for Tombstone, AZ.

[slackmaster]

26. Thanks for showing your ignorance of history

At the time of the shootout at the OK Corral in Tombstone, Arizona people were not allowed to carry loaded weapons within the city limits.

Gunfight At The OK Corral

Let me take you back to a cold, windy, overcast day, October 26 1881. This is the re-creation of the famous OK Corral G.unfight in Tombstone, Arizona Territory. The way it happened!

Let me set the scene: The night before in the Earps presence, Doc Holliday had a verbal confrontation and began threatening and openly challenging the life of an un-armed, intoxicated Ike Clanton. The next morning Ike Clanton armed himself in self defense and went looking for Holliday’s challenge. Before Ike could find Holliday, Virgil and Morgan Earp snuck up on Ike and buffaloed (pistol whipped) him to the ground. He was taken to court and fined $27.50 for carrying firearms in city limits.... (Underlining added by slackmaster for emphasis)

See http://www.clantongang.com/oldwest/gunfight.html - or Google to your heart's content for many other corroborating sources.

[Old and In the Way]

27. I'm crushed. Defeated.

You've convinced me to go out, buy a gun, and start protecting myself from all the criminals with guns (as opposed to all the law abiding citizens carrying guns).

[slackmaster]

30. One More Straw Man

Your response in no way relates to anything I have ever said or written.

[CarinKaryn]

19. WTF is wrong with you?

Everyone in NYC unloading on each other is NOT a bad thing?
Why don't you expand on your statement so there are no misunderstandings.

[slackmaster]

20. I was being sarcastic

I apologize to anyone who didn't see it, although I think it was pretty fucking obvious to anyone who isn't predisposed to attribute evil thoughts to me because of his or her prejudices.

For Pete's sake people, I'm really a nice guy once you get to know me.

:dunce:

[dogman]

4. You believe that story?

What if the victim had a gun and thought he was coming to the defense of the waitress? Can't ask him can we?

[slackmaster]

5. The police concluded it was a self-defense shooting

They have access to more information than you or I or anyone else on this board.

Why question their judgement?

And another thing - If you see two people arguing, even if one is pointing a gun at the other, as a civilian it's not appropriate for you to get involved by trying to come to someone's rescue when you yourself are not being threatened. Only the police can legally do that.

[dogman]

6. Yes, and they have a live local business owner and a dead guy.

I'm just skeptical after seeing the system work for a number of years. I'm not saying it didn't happen either, I just wouldn't hang my hat on that story.

[slackmaster]

9. They also have at least one witness

Crystal Hughes.

If there was any discrepancy between her account and Mr. Bales', any decent police investigator should have exploited it.

[dogman]

10. How many times has a lover's quarrel turned on the intervener?

Police are called to domestic disputes all the time and the victim of the abuse turns on the cops. I've known enough occasions where the police are happy with a story that lets them close the case. As I said it's just another possibility and I know longer take these stories at face value. Between lying cops and lazy reporters, I'm a skeptic. The tone of this article impresses me as a reporter trying to do a Mickey Spillane impression. Hell, they're on TV now telling what a great cop Kerik was, (yeah right).

[TX-RAT]

11. Well said " Slack "

[Factoid]

28. Correct.

If the dead individual were a law abiding citizen with a CCW, his CCW would be revoked for going out of his way to involve himself in a situation - especially since there was no gun out and aimed at anyone at that point.

law abiding owners/carriers have this drilled into them from day one when they get their permit.

[dogman]

29. How do you know there was no gun out?

You have a shooter and his girlfriend giving testimony. The dead man can't tell his story. Who knows if the cop cares? I personally am not familiar with the laws in Michigan. Are you? If the victim did not have a CCW does that permit someone who does to shoot him? Was it a throw down? My point is it's a poorly written story that proves nothing and has no point beyond the fact that guns are involved in deaths. Who would have thought that?

[slackmaster]

31. It doesn't matter if there was a gun out or not

Unless you are a police officer involving yourself in someone else's fight with deadly force is not lawful behavior, unless you are intervening to protect a loved one e.g. your spouse, child, parent, etc.

[dogman]

32. If you are not engaged in lawful behavior another person has the right to

shoot and kill you? That's an interesting interpretation. It sure does matter if there was a gun out, particularly who had their gun out.

[slackmaster]

33. You don't seem to comprehend what I wrote

If you are not engaged in lawful behavior another person has the right to shoot and kill you?

Where did I say that?

:shrug:

It sure does matter if there was a gun out, particularly who had their gun out.

It also depends on who is being threatened with the gun. Unless you are a police officer, it is unlawful to use YOUR gun against someone who is threatening someone other than YOU (or a loved one of yours) with deadly force.

I apologize if I have not been clear.

[dogman]

34. My point is not the act of self-defense.

It is that this poorly written article about an action that may or may not have been legitimate proves nothing. The police let the shooting go either because it was justified or because they wanted to clear the books. We will never know the facts because their is no one to tell the victims story. The witness is possibly prejudiced. What does this story prove to you?

[slackmaster]

35. I have to take the police at their word

Most police I've met are scrupulously honest people who take their role as public servants very seriously. There are a few crooked ones out there, but most are very good folks.

We will never know the facts because their is no one to tell the victims story.

From the limited information available it appears that the victim was largely or fully responsible for his own demise. If the shooting victim had survived there would surely be a discrepancy between his story and the shooter's, which could never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

The witness is possibly prejudiced.

True, but evidently her story agreed well enough with the shooter's that his version could not be impugned enough to prosecute him. He has the right to be presumed innocent of wrongdoing.

What does this story prove to you?

Nothing really, it just looks like an example of a legitimate defensive use of a firearm. People who are predisposed to not believe such events actually exist will see it differently.

[dogman]

36. That's something I've learned not to do.

The police are pretty much like everyone else and there are more than a few crooks and like everyone else there are a lot of lazy ones who callous quickly. Not that I blame them, I wouldn't want to deal with their world either. It's been my personal observation that cops and crooks are a lot alike in there mindset. I laugh every time I think of them be called expert testimony in court. I deal with them enough to know the average cop is no different than the average citizen.