I know we have talked about this a few times before, but it bears repeating – if a criminal already has a gun out and pointed at you, there is absolutely nothing you can do – nothing at all – to change the outcome of the situation, so you might as well give the criminal what he wants. And that is why this particular news story is obviously a complete and utter fabrication:
According to police, the man was attempting to use a Cash Points ATM on Eastway Drive at North Tryon Street around 11 p.m. A suspect seemingly saw that as an opportunity and tried to rob the victim at gunpoint.
However, that victim was also armed. He shot the suspect twice in the leg. Police officials report that suspect suffered non-life-threatening injuries.
CMPD officials are no longer interviewing the shooter in the case, who they say did cooperate with detectives in their investigation. No charges are pending against him.
The suspected robber will face charges once that person is released from the hospital.
Whoops. So much for that “argument”.
To be fair, we have absolutely no idea how the series of events transpired. However, we do know that the criminal in question approached a potential victim at an ATM with a firearm out and pointed at the victim, and then the victim was able to put two in the leg of his attacker while escaping unscathed himself.
Is this the inevitable, unavoidable outcome of fighting back against an armed-and-ready opponent? Of course not. Even if you were to be armed and fight back, you stand a very good chance of being wounded or killed yourself. But that decision should rightfully be yours to make, much though the anti-rights nuts of America would lie through their collective teeth and seek to strip you of it. Are you going to stand idly by and let them?
I’m glad you said we don’t really know what transpired. Aren’t you the one who often points out how stupid some criminals are. Maybe the guy allowed his gun to be pushed to the side while the ATM guy pulled his.
About disarming the populace, we’d be much better off in my opinion. Where do you think the two guns in this story came from? Answer: the same place. They both started out as legally owned firearms. The sloppiness or stupidity or criminality of some gun owner with a clean record accounts for one of them ending up in the hands of a robber.
So, yes the fewer guns, the better.
Wow, Sparky… That is, perhaps, the first comment you have ever left here that was not liberally laced with ad hominem attacks, fallacious allegations, and outlandish claims against me as a person, and, as such, I am going to go ahead and let it be published.
Of course, you still make outlandish claims in general, but that is pretty much par for you, is it not?
Way to miss the point of that particular statement. While we do not know exactly how it transpired, we do know this – by being able to defeat an armed-and-ready attacker, a legally-armed American citizen was able to defend his person and property, something he would have likely been incapable of doing without his own firearm. That perforates your incessant arguments that DGUs do not happen, that people should just given criminals what they want, that if a criminal has a gun out there is nothing you can do, and that firearms are only used for illegal or illicit activitities, so I kind of understand why you are maliciously missing the point.
No, I am not, but it does not matter. The victim in this situation may have been completely incapable of turning the tables, no matter how stupid the criminal in question, if it were not for the firearm – what if the victim is old, what if he is infirm, what if he is disabled? What is so disgusting about people like you is that you seem to be firmly of the belief that the old, infirm, disabled, weaker, and smaller should just roll over and accept whatever a criminal is going to do to them, without argument or defense. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?
And hypothesizing about the situation is just stupid, especially after you agreed that we do not know what actually occurred.
I think I have said this before, in fact I know I have said this before, but I am going to repeat it here since you appear to be memory-challenged: I do not care about your opinion. If you have the facts, the figures, the statistics, the reality to back up a logical, rational, and sound position, then feel free to field them… but you never do that. Why is that?
I am fairly certain I have said this before as well, but one person’s opinion is wholly and totally insufficient to abridge the rights of 300,000,000 other people.
False. False. And false. I could go on, but the point is well and truly made – as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, and have nothing to support your specious opinion. If you keep this up, I might add “supports his position” to the list of requirements you must meet in order to comment here.
Mikeb302000,
Let me add something to the wonderful reply Linoge made — we do know what happened.
Victim was minding his own business in a lawful manner.
Criminal was acting in an illegal and predatory manner. Do you get that ?
The criminal was breaking the law.
Victim was able to defend himself using protectionary violence — bad guy wouldn’t have two holes in his leg otherwise.
Bad guy went to hospital, good guy survived unharmed.
Those are known facts — not opinion.
Now, let me ask a question or two.
Do you think the bad guy would have still tried to rob someone if he was ‘just’ armed with a knife or a baseball bat?
Would it be illegal for the thug to try to rob someone with just a baseball bat or knife?
By the way, Sparky you lose the 2 points you gained with a semi-competent comment with the post you did at your site
Linoge posted an interesting article about a DGU that he found to be suspicious.
That is a complete and utter lie or complete and utter reading comprehension failure.
Either you are intentionally lying or you are a complete moron. (in the old school definition of intelligence)
Even if you were to be armed and fight back, you stand a very good chance of being wounded or killed yourself.
Not necessarily true. In fact if you are properly trained and with the right mindset, you will beat a criminal who has a gun pointed at you every time. Action will always beat reaction. It takes the human brain almost a full second (in the best of cases) to receive, process and act on a set of inputs and even longer if confronted by something totally unexpected and under the influence of stress. A well trained shooter will have a gun out and shooting before a criminal knows what’s happening. But I emphasize on well trained shooter
Great post and followup Linoge. It seems to be a semi-regular occurrence for Jade and Mike to attack you on their blog. It is nice to see you take them to the woodshed with rational arguments and not ad hominem attacks like they are so fond of.
*blink* Wait. Wait just a minute. He actually said that. He honestly, truly said exactly that?
*goes and checks*
Well God damn, he really did. Sparky, let me make this as perfectly clear for you as I can, since it is patently obvious that you not only missed the point of this weblog post, you completely missed it, by at least a parsec or so.
The first paragraph of this post was bald-faced, unbridled, complete, and utter SARCASM, with more than a little snark mixed in for good measure.
Crap on a crutch mate, I even tried to make that sarcasm as absolutely obvious as it possibly could be: the two posts I linked to in the very first sentence described situations almost exactly like this one – an armed criminal attacked his intended victim, the victim shot back, and the victim escaped more-or-less unscathed… while the criminal lay dead or wounded – and yet you still could not grasp that I was being sarcastic?
Y’know, Bob, I honestly think he really is that stupid – he would have to be to write something like that.
However, looking past the stupidity for a moment, let me make something else abundantly clear: I have absolutely no suspicions, whatsoever, that this was a legitimate Defensive Gun Use, based on the news reports available to us. I have no doubts that the basic facts of the story are just that, facts (in that an armed criminal with a firearm out attacked a citizen using an ATM (a favorite stomping grounds for predatory criminals), the citizen was able to draw his own firearm and shoot the criminal, and the citizen was able to escape), and while I am somewhat surprised that someone had both the skills and the speed necessary to pull the scenario off, I harbor no skepticism whatsoever.
I would strongly suggest you stop lying about other people, Sparky.
@Miguel – Well, I guess it all depends on what you consider to be a “very good chance”. For me, for that kind of situation, anything better than 0 fills that slot
, but other people may think differently. However, will that “very good chance” be sufficient to discourage me from at least trying to defend myself? Depends on the situation, but probably not.
I completely agree that training and practice are absolutely key in situations like this, though I would point out that, technically, the intended victim would be reacting to the action executed by the criminal…
@RuffRidr – Thanks! Now that Bob has convinced me to take a look at their webpage after a few months’ abstaining, I really do have to wonder if their collective obsession with me is broaching on “unhealthy”, but it certainly is already well-past “creepy”, especially once you factor in Sparky’s Best Buddy’s multi-year history of cyber-stalking and “exposing”/”outing” me.
In any case, MikeB302000, your co-author is currently using a picture that is copyrighted by me, and was taken by my camera, and I did not give him permission to do so. This comment stands as my official request to take it down immediately.
Linoge, I did miss your sarcasm. I should have read it again more carefully because it actually sounded more like the kind of response I would have to a DGU report.
When you strongly suggesting that I stop lying about other people, what exactly did that mean. Where was the lie?
And about my being obsessed with you, that’s a laugh. I popped over here today and came up with two posts out of the deal. That hardly makes an obsession. Why don’t we count up the posts you’ve dedicated entirely to me, and then talk about obsession.
And that is why you fail, and continue to fail – you read what you want to read, as opposed to what is actually on the screen. If you spent less time injecting your own personal beliefs an irrelevant opinions into the mix, you might, possibly, maybe not be viewed as the ridiculous idiot nearly everyone sees you as.
Seriously? Are you honestly asking me that question? You stated, unequivocably, that I found the above defensive gun use “suspicious”.
That. Is. A. Lie.
Can I be any more clear?
[Update] In fact, since you seem to be having so much difficulty with the concept of a “lie”, I will give you another example – in your post, you stated, quite plainly, that I have “banned” you at this weblog. This is clearly not the case, however, in a comment you admitted to reading, and in an email you responded to (I can repost both, if you magically “forgot” them), I very plainly told you that you are not banned here, but that your comments will be automatically moderated, and will only be allowed to see the light of day if I, personally, approve them, based on standards and requirements I explained to you. That is not a ban. That is a “I am being forced to control, but not stop, your ability to express yourself on my property because you have shown a remarkable tendency to abuse the privilege.” Thus, you lied. Again.
Are you starting to understand the concept? (Oh, and by the way, you are starting to abuse that privilege again…)[/Update]
Two posts today, more than a few posts from your Bestest Buddy now that you gave him the keys, your Bestest Buddy spending years cyberstalking me and my family, you standing up for and defending your Bestest Buddy (and thus voluntarily aquiring a significant amount of guilt by association – something you should have no argument with, given your “collective responsibility” positions), and how many posts in the past?
Y’see, Sparky, there is a difference between writing a post about a person, and writing a post about what a person says. I have absolutely no doubt that you do not understand the distinction, but it is an important one regardless. I will be perfectly honest (unlike, say, you) – I have written a few posts about you, specifically, in the past. But you are so very narcissistically self-involved as to believe that every single post that mentions your name is obviously about you.
Sorry, Sparky. Not so much.
Now, scamper along – you are using up what little patience I have for you and your antics in very short order.
Wonder if Sparky is wrong about this Defensive Gun Use — how many other times is he wrong?
It is quite likely… there do not appear to be any follow-ups to the original news article yet, but I would not be surprised if the whole “no charges have been filed” against the victim bit remains true for the forseeable future.
If a goblin points a gun at me, it is prima facie evidence that he intends to harm and possibly kill me. My responsibility, therefore, is to attempt to harm him as much as possible. Risky? Yes. But consider how many crooks shoot AFTER they get the money.
Point of Evidence that MikeB302000 is not interested in truthful dialog or in honest presentation of the facts —- as of 6:00 a.m. Central Daylight Time on Sunday July 18th — he still hasn’t corrected his post!
That’s right folks, he knows that Linoge does not find this DGU to be suspicious but still hasn’t edited his post to reflect that
@Beaumont – Unfortunately, the concept of “responsibility” is somewhat lost on anti-rights folks… Or, rather, it is so dastardly warped and twisted that it is nigh unrecognizeable. See, according to them, it is your responsibility that the criminal has the firearm, it is your fault that he is pointing it at you, and it is your duty to give the criminal exactly what he wants… y’know, because that makes sense.
Nevermind that the criminal, and only the criminal, is responsible for his own actions, nevermind that someone-not-you is responsible for the firearm falling into the criminal’s hands (either by an already-illegal action by the criminal, or an already-illegal action by the someone-not-you) – none of that matters. You own a firearm, and you believe in self-defense, thus you are repsonsible for all of the societal ills that result from firearms.
Unsurprisingly, Sparky goes damned near ballistic anyone takes that line of reasoning and applies it to him… like, say, computers and child pornography.
Regardless, I agree with you – it is our individual responsibility to proect our persons and our property, and while the action is undoubtedly frought with potential downfalls, fighting back is the best way to do so. Why would the anti-rights nuts – people who supposedly are interested in increasing the safety of society as a whole – discourage Americans from defending themselves against predatory criminals?
I like the idea of acting after giving the thug your money… distraction + action = higher likelihood of success.
@Bob S. – At this point, I am not wholly convinced Sparky knows what “truth” or “honesty” actually are, but, in any case, 0930 EDT, and the two lies remain on his webpage.
[...] Y’know. Not. (By way of clarification, since one particularly dim-witted reader appears to have difficulty with the concept, the two quasi-paragraphs before this one were entirely sarcastic. It is astonishing to me that I [...]