We had a discussion yesterday about the case of Kayson Helms who was shot dead trying to rob an A.A. meeting in Columbia South Carolina. What I don't understand is the seemingly hard attitude on the part of the pro-gun crowd. Basically they all say the same thing: "If a criminal is stupid enough to show a gun and one of us is around, he deserves whatever he gets. He asked for it."
Now, that may be perfectly true, the "asking for it" part, but what is it with that attitude, that macho, tough-guy talk? It's usually followed by referring to the dead criminal as a "mutt" or a "goblin." What kind of talk is that? I'll tell you what kind. This is typical pro-gun, us-against-them mentality. It's the pro-gun guys against the anti-gun liberals. It's the pro-gun guys against the criminals. I say the pro-gun crowd are as anti-social as the criminals. It's difficult to find one of them who can take criticism and disagreement without resorting to personal attacks and insults. I believe they make the society worse not better. Here's an example.
When an armed robbery takes place how often does it result in loss of life? When an armed robbery takes place and one of you concealed carry guys is present, how often does it result in loss of life? The answer to the first one is very low; the answer to the second one is very high. That's why educated and intelligent anti-gun pro-safety experts recommend that cooperation with the robber is the best bet.
I know what the gun crowd says, what about this and what if that happens, well I suggest it's not the variations and possible twists on the scenario that worry them. What worries them is that the idea of allowing a thief to take what he wants, even if it means that statistically your chances of survival are greater, is contrary to their macho thinking. It's absolutely opposed to their don't-tread-on-me mentality. It's about their feeling like real men, regardless of the true benefit to themselves and those nearby.
What's your opinion? I thought the last Anonymous comment was quite compelling, the one about the gun having been put in the face of the writer's daughter and that Kayson got just what he deserved. The only problem is that even staunch supporters of the death penalty usually don't recommend death for robbery.
What do you think about that dilemma we talked about yesterday? What should the responsible gun owner do, shoot first and worry about the morality later?
What's your opinion.