Maybe he just didn’t like his wife very much and he actually missed.
Could be.
And then she wants to reward him for saving her life, probably during his favorite TV show.
As well as the knowledge that a straightforward street mugging in which nobody is hurt will draw little if any real attention from law enforcement, even if caught they will probably at most spend a 6 mo or so in county lockup. The same bad guy knows even if only academically, that if someone ends up seriously hurt or dead the police will throw serious effort into finding the perpetrator who will go to prison for a very long time if caught.
This seems related to a thread I posted here about the rate at which mugging turn to shootings. Even if we know the odds of getting ourselves shot by pulling a gun, we can’t actually make a useful cost-benefit analysis unless we know the odds of getting shot without pulling the gun (although, of course, even that is of limited utility since statistics and averages have little bearing when your mugger might be on seven different narcotics).
My understanding is A) there are no serious, useful statistics on how gun brandishing without gunfire involved affects mugging scenarios, and that B) trying to draw on someone who’s closer than twenty or so feet is a fool’s game even for a trained pistol shooter who practices quick draw-aim-fire scenarios.
So for one mugger, one victim? Gun is no help in any reasonably common scenario.
And I say this as a “gun nut” and tactical pistol shooter. I’m with Chuck–giving the guy my wallet is the easiest and safest solution.
Given that the guy is going for things to steal, it seems pretty clear his motive is profit not killing. And trying to shoot someone in this scenario with a pistol like that is very dangerous to the hostage. It’s the sort of thing that a trained sniper with a rifle and time to prepare pulls off safely; not some old guy hopped up on adrenaline with a (by nature less accurate) pistol.
I worked with a guy who lived in a very tough neighborhood. He was short money one day and asked to borrow 5 bucks. When I gave it to him, he put it in his wallet with a 50. I asked what was that about.? He said if you were robbed you better have money. They would get mad and shoot you if they took the risk for nothing. He called it his" walking around money’.
Spoilsport.
When I was mugged, the guy didn’t leave me the option of pulling a gun out of my pocket instead of my wallet. He insisted that he put his hands through my pockets and help himself to the contents.
If I had had a gun on me I might have pulled it out anyway, because he didn’t show me the gun he claimed he had, and I was skeptical as to whether he actually had one. But as it happened I didn’t have a gun, or a lot of money either - only some loose change.
But my point with all this is that if the guy actually had a gun, I would not have had the opportunity to get hold of it.
I don’t know if this is SOP for muggers, but this was my experience. It would make sense if other muggers worked the same way, but I don’t know. (This guy seemed like a bit of a pro - he also insisted that I walk away from him rather than the other way around, no doubt for similar reasons.)
Re the old guy, I don’t know why everyone just assumes that he was some goofy old guy with a gun. He could well have been a guy with extensive experience. Practiced shooters get old too.
Practised or not, it’s probably not a great idea to wheel round at high speed to fire a gun at a guy’s head when his head is pressed up against your wife. Unless you’re Jack Bauer.
Yeah, that’s the point I was trying to make: if Bad Guy has a knife against your wife’s throat, you’re taking a big chance in assuming you’re going to be able to pull a pistol out of a dresser drawer, point it at him, and shoot him, all before he can do something with the knife – even if you **are **a “practiced shooter”.
Is there any cite from this story other than compilations of “see how good guns are”? Because those always struck me as being somewhat similar to Penthouse Letters.
It doesn’t matter if it’s true, and it probably happened sometime in history. But any cite supporting it would be unlike to contain info about how many other times a husband tried such a thing and ended up shooting his wife, Even if it worked once or twice doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, as I’m sure you know.
I turned 48 last week. I can see the finish line from here.
I practice with something like thisoften.
I always ingore/deny it, because I don’t like to re-live it, but the fact is I did drop a guy with a head shot when he grabbed my wife and held a knife to her side. A guy had hit our car and took off, but I caught him and stopped him. His passenger jumped out and grabbed my then girlfriend and pulled out a knife and told me to take off. I pulled my pistol and put two shots in his face while he was still talking. Driver took off.
I don’t get upset because of the shooting. I get upset for putting my wife in danger when I didn’t have to. Been 25 years. We don’t mention it much.
Anyway, the future may change things, but right now I can shoot as well as I did that day.
Don’t want to, but I won’t hesitate one moment if it’s called for.
If someone’s pointing a weapon at me or mine, it’s called for. Mozambique time.
Muggings should be dangerous for the mugger. Maybe they’ll stop.
Muggings are always dangerous. You never know if your jumping a Bruce Lee or a pro boxer. There are no safety guarantees. They always have to anticipate the worst. It is just business.
So, you don’t find an armed robbery a terrorist attack?
hh
If you cannot think of how it would, then, please, do not carry, or even touch a gun.
hh
The English language doesn’t find an armed robbery to be a terrorist attack.
Please elaborate.
You seem to be using Mr. Webster or the OED to ridicule someone’s opinion.
**Lamia’s **point is that the standard definition of terrorism broadly involves (or used to involve) the concept of causing severe mayhem (usually death and injury to relatively random sections of the public or the threat thereof) for an indirect political purpose. Armed robbery does not fit that definition in any real way. Firstly the goal is simply direct material gain, and secondly the threats or violence are precisely targetted at the persons who have or are defending the material in order for the robbers to obtain it.
Since 9/11 “terrorism” and “terrorist” have been thrown around by some as broad perjoratives applied to anyone committing signficantly violent acts. I’m no language prescriptivist and if the current loose usage of “terrorism” is now widely understood then so be it but I don’t think it has reached that point, and certainly I don’t think it serves any purpose to start using what used to be a precisely defined term in a manner so broad as to make the term lose its usefulness.