Just wondering, MEBuckner , how the fuck do you get all this news piped into you??? I mean, this thread is basicly you, and you alone. Are you like some kind of Gun News Bureau?
It’s called “the Internet” and “search engines”. There are gun-rights websites (which tend to have very right-wing politics that I don’t agree with on any other subject) which also collate this stuff, but the right search terms in Google News can pretty much always find some story of interest.
Your Google-Fu is strong! Most of my searches come up with pictures of cats wearing costumes.
I have a rifle in my closet. Personally I like my odds vs the handgun that a home invader is likely to have.
It’s what I would use, were it right at hand.
Surprising that the homeowner had one ready to go, as fast as home invasions happen.
From last month in Chicago, a man pulled a gun in a store in an attempted robbery, but a store employee with a concealed-carry license drew his own gun and fatally shot the would-be robber.
Ballsy. Action generally beats reaction. Though YMMV, a typical ‘good’ elapsed time to draw from concealment, present, and get an aimed shot on target, is in the 1.5 to 2 seconds range. Most people are slower. Good practice helps.
A lot can happen in two seconds’ time when someone is already pointing a gun at you.
Positive gun news that a gun owner was there to stop that other gun owner!
I guess it’s possible that the 48-year-old man who was killed had up to that point been a perfectly law-abiding citizen who “just snapped” and decided to commit armed robbery. It doesn’t seem very likely though.
So, “positive gun news” that a law-abiding gun owner (with a concealed-carry license) was able to defend himself from someone who (I’d be willing to bet) was already not legally able to possess a gun of any kind, but had one anyway.
I just mean it only became positive gun news because of negative gun news. You see that, right?
Wait a sec, are you saying it wouldn’t have been positive gun news if the store employee didn’t have his conceal carry license?
I agree with your point, but by that logic this thread basically shouldn’t exist.
Well, it’s positive gun news if you shoot some unarmed attacker, otherwise it’s break even gun news.
When I see that an unarmed attacker was shot, I generally wonder if there had been a way to take him alive so he could stand trial for his crimes and be brought to justice instead of being gunned down.
If an attacker is shot non-fatally or if a gun is used to scare away a criminal without anyone being hurt (or even better, if the criminal is apprehended) THAT would be positive news, IMHO.
I suppose that’s best case but scaring away a thief usually doesn’t make the news.
A few points: Shooting an “unarmed” attacker might be a little hard to justify to anyone, regardless of their position on gun rights. (There is such a thing as “disparity of force”; conceivably an elderly person might justifiably use deadly force against a strapping young person who had no weapons, or any person might use firearms to defend against a mob of unarmed people.) In terms of positivity of gun news it’s true that “Law-abiding citizen with gun kills/wounds/scares off/holds at gunpoint attacker with an axe” is a bit more straightforward. It’s certainly also true that it’s better from a humanitarian standpoint to see stories like the one that was posted today in Macon, Georgia, in which a pizza shop employee was able to successfully hold a would-be armed robber at gunpoint until the police arrived (and no one was hurt).
But, we are certainly assured in debates about gun rights that, for example, “good guys with guns” never, ever actually do any good–if the other guy has a gun, there’s just no way the “good guy” will be able to successfully defend themselves once the “bad guy” has made the first move, or that “more guns will only make things worse”. Stories like the one from Chicago do show that, yes, law-abiding people can successfully defend themselves using firearms. (And, if someone in Chicago has a concealed-carry license, then they have definitely passed a background check, so it’s not unreasonable to call them a “law-abiding gun owner”.)
I don’t want violent criminals to have guns (or other weapons, for that matter). But, I don’t want to disarm law-abiding people. And I reject facile equivalencies of people trying to commit armed robbery (or worse), and people defending themselves against armed robbery (or worse), as all just being “gun owners”.
I don’t think anyone argues that a good guy with a gun can never do good. I certainly wouldn’t argue so, and I would ban all private ownership of firearms in a heartbeat.
The question is whether guns are a net positive for society or not. But that question, of course, is one for another thread, so I shall bow out of this one.
From last week in Chicago, a man hit someone with a “weapon” (type unspecified), and was then shot in the arm by a woman. (A previous article indicates the shooting took place during an “argument”, so it sounds like it may be the woman herself who was shot.) The man has been arrested on several charges (“unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and being an armed habitual criminal”); the woman was also taken into custody but was later released without any charges.
From last week in Shreveport, Louisiana, an 18-year-old man tried to break into a house after midnight on Thursday, but the homeowner shot him (causing injuries that apparently weren’t serious–the article described it as “grazing him in his right hip”) and then detained the intruder at gunpoint until police arrived.
From two days ago in Loris, South Carolina, witnesses reported two trucks pulled in to the pumps at a gas station. A man got out from the second truck with a knife in his hand and approached the first truck, opening its door; the driver of the first truck then shot and killed the knife-wielding assailant. Police are calling the shooting an act of self-defense, following an apparent “road rage” incident.
The article doesn’t give any details on the “road rage” that apparently led to the fatal shooting, and the whole thing is still under investigation. We therefore don’t know which driver was primarily at fault in that “road rage”, or if it’s even possible to neatly divide whatever it was that happened into a case of an “aggressor” and an “innocent victim”. However, if you’re at the point of following someone off the main road and then yanking open the door to the vehicle that person is driving, with a deadly weapon in your hand, by that point you are definitely in the wrong.