These encounters don’t always end in death.
How would you feel about a rape victim shooting her assailant while being raped. Is THAT positive gun news or should we shed a tear for the rapist?
We don’t kill robbers after the fact when the crime is in the past. But while the robber is threatening life and limb, his life is forfeit.
Thats a bit of a silly argument isn’t it?
Sorry, missed that bit in 148. Here we go:
“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 agree that the events leading up to that part were negative. I am indifferent over which gun was used to stop the robber, whether it was his own or someone else’s. I think a criminal being stopped is a positive thing.
So, with that answered, can I repeat my question:
“A criminal with a firearm, being disarmed by an unarmed person…that’s positive gun news because a gun crime was prevented, right?”
Think of it as a lesser of two evils situation if that helps. The alternatives are not:
A) criminal gets shot and killed, or
B) criminal gets away after causing no harm to anyone.
The alternatives are:
A) criminal gets shot and killed,
B) criminal gets away after causing no harm to anyone, or
C) criminal gets away after killing the father, raping the mother and stealing all their stuff.
And many alternatives in between
Guns are not really necessary in a perfect world. They are necessary in an imperfect one.
So Bone posts three articles referring to disaster relief work but you insist on your own definition of disaster relief work?
What if you needed that money to pay your rent on the store? or on your home?
What if its not $200. What if its your life savings?
You’re right, its really all the guys fault for not locking his door.
What is the halfway part? Where is the gun control side coming half way? Where are you compromising?
Is getting only MOST of what you want without giving the other side any of what they want “meeting halfway?”
Hey, What Exit. Give me all your money. No? OK, then just meet me half way. Come on dude, be reasonable.
These things make sense to me. How about getting rid of a few gun laws that don’t make sense?
We can start with pre-emption. eliminate all state and local gun laws and replace it with a federal licensing and registration scheme that would require all gun owners to register their firearms and get licensed. Oh, you want to have your cake and eat it too when at least half the cake belongs to me? Does that sound reasonable to you?
Every murder costs society about $7 million. Most property crimes cost much more than what they thieves get away with.
This sort of money is much better spent on early childhood and education. We need prisons because education and opportunity won’t stop crime but it costs more to keep a convict in prison than to send them to college (including room and board).
Up to the point you posted this, I had linked 20-25 different articles, but hey, I guess you captured that with your “8 incidents or so”. That’s how you science!
An argument, oh no! Adults argue, nothing wrong with that. When it escalates to brick throwing, that’s a problem. Maybe the brick thrower presented an immediate threat that couldn’t be obviated by fleeing. When someone is threatening another person’s life, shooting to stop the threat then leaving the scene where the threat is present seems reasonable. Seeing as how witnesses corroborated the incident, police interviewed the shooter at the location that he drove to, arrested the brick thrower, and did not arrest the shooter, the police seemed to agree.
FYI - this isn’t intended as a thread for debate, though I claim no special powers of guidance.
Think I’ve got the hang of this now:
Police used guns to arrest a shooter before he could shoot more people. That’s positive gun news, right?
You’ve already answered the question:
How was the criminal stopped?
No, I was just guessing from recollection and from a lack of desire to go back to sift out all the stuff on New Jersey pardons and McAuliffe is terrible and stuff. But it looks like you’re right and I misrepresented the number of incidents you’ve linked to. My apologies.
So, you’re at about 3 incidents per week (even allowing for the dog shooting and the escalate the argument, shoot and drive away guy and the martial artist who didn’t have a gun). Great! Maybe about 1,100 DGUs per year.
By the way, counting links (or miscounting links) is not science. If you think that’s science, that might explain some of the problem here.
Well in two of your examples by unarmed people. You’ve got the Krav practioner who disarmed his armed assailant, and then the scuffle at the railway station.
I thought a positive outcome to be the bit where the assailants have been disarmed and dismissed as a threat, or does it only become positive when there’s a gun pointed at them?
You kind of sucks at grasping points, don’t you?
I see no “positive abortion stories” because when someone decides to have an abortion I consider it an unfortunate but necessary occurrence. Much like what I was told gun owners feel if they have the misfortune to find themselves in a situation where they must shoot somebody. But apparently that’s just one more positive thing about your favorite toys. Who knew?
Its not a little problem. It is only possible to disarm people who will obey the law. leaving only only criminals in possession of guns.
Australia had a murder rate approaching zero before the gun ban and the murder rate is about the same after the gun ban (IOW, your gun ban did little to nothing for you). The level of gun violence in Australia is similar to the gun violence in New Zealand which is culturally similar but does not have a gun ban. There is a lot more to it the difference in gun violence than differences in gun control laws. Gun control laws seem to be one of the least significant factors.
Would it surprise you to find out that concealed carry permit holders are not only more law abiding than the general public, they are more law abiding than the average police officer.
Winning WWII was a good thing despite the fact that the facts leading up to that event were not.