And your idea of a positive gun story is that a person who was able to illegally obtain a gun attempted to rob people, fired at them three times, but then had the gun taken off him by one of the victims?
You are effectively saying that really nasty events that didn’t go as badly as they could have are good things.
Of course.
Her son will grow up with his mother, her husband will continue life with the woman he loves, and the young woman will get to spend the rest of her life enjoying countless birthdays, Christmases, summers at the pool, her son’s growth to adulthood and beyond, her grandchildren, etc., etc., etc. All the things her would-be killers would have deprived her of had she not been able to arm herself.
If your point is that in the ideal world you imagine where no criminal ever has a gun then this woman wouldn’t have been shot in the first place, I’ll agree that in that fictional scenario she wouldn’t have been shot. Of course she still could have been stabbed or bludgeoned or killed in any number of other ways that criminals in countries with strict gun control kill their victims (and, given how attractive she is, probably raped in the bargain), so I’d still prefer she be armed with a gun. Guns are great equalizers. They put 105 lb. women on even ground with 225 lb. thugs and allow them to escape all manner of evil which they’d otherwise be unable to escape. Knives, swords, clubs or simple brute strength can inflict all sorts of harm on their victims. A gun more than equalizes such a threat.
A good ending means that what happened to create that ending is a good thing. Would you not agree that had those three shots not missed or the shooter hadn’t been unarmed and the people being robbed killed, that would have been a bad thing?
Of course it’s a good thing they were able to disarm the shooter. This stuff is dog simple. I can’t believe it’s even open to argument. And if your stance is that it would have been better had the robber not been armed to begin with, I refer you back to what I said two paragraphs above.
Never mind
Of course not - the positive part is that the robbery suspect was shot with his own gun. The events leading up to that point were negative. Wouldn’t you agree?
I am saying that even in the face of horrible circumstances, people can use guns in a positive way.
And in other news, Homeowner shoots suspect during home invasion
As a general rule I wouldn’t answer the door for uninvited or unscheduled people. Another DGU with no one dead.
OK, let me see if I’ve got the rules for this Positive Gun Event thing then.
Sure the judge was shot, and suffered an extremely serious injury…but the police have arrested someone, presumably using guns as they did so, so all in all it’s a Positive Gun Event, right?
Apropos of this thread, I quote Francis from *Stripes *:
“All I know is I finally get to kill somebody.”
Nope, you still don’t get it.
Neither does Jack Batty.
Would you prefer they played out in the most atrocious possible way?
You are ignoring, willfully I suspect, that the robber decided when he initiated events that the contents of the cash register were worth somebody’s life. He was betting that the life would not be his. It is a positive outcome when the robber loses that bet.
Exactly. And banning guns isn’t going to make it any harder for him. It will just make it impossible for the rest of us.
The positive news is that governors are handing out pardons for violations of stupid laws.
You must be a pretty good shot if you can place your bullets well enough to prevent death.
BTW, how do you know if the guy pointing the gun at you is just a robber or a murderer?
Would it surprise you to find out that the felons that are most likely to become murderers are violent felons including armed robbers?
OK, explain the difference. Why is your story (woman gets shot, fires back at attackers) more of a positive event than mine (woman gets shot, armed police arrest suspect).
How about this one:
Gun owner shoots person who had committed extensive criminal acts - that’s positive, right?
Actually no. But then again I’m not the one rushing to describe events that sound pretty damned horrible to me as “positive”
Until you come up with a reliable method of identifying those who would rob, rape, and/or kill before they commit those crimes, we must take our positives where we xan find them.
I think we have the capacity to evaluate components of an event, rather than the event in total. Do you think that’s true? Do you think the fact that a victim of a crime was able to defend them self sounds horrible?
Your misleading synopsis is not even clever. Are you saying that a person committing suicide is positive? I think you’re confused which thread you’re in.
Since people are doing this, I randomly came across:
Home Alone Boy, 13, Shoots Suspected Burglar Dead With His Mother’s Gun
No, it’s not Macaulay Culkin.
But I thought you wanted examples of incidents where guns stopped the bad guy? Doesn’t this count? He was a criminal. He was shot by a gun. I’d have thought that’s exactly what you wanted?
By the way, regarding the Auraria West light rail station, I’ve been thinking about it and I’m not sure if that’s really a good one for this thread.
I think that should be in a “positive scuffle news of the day” thread. What do you reckon?