...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.
To give credit where credit is due, at least Linoge isn't one of those Lott/Kleck types who count every possible incident in order to reach their incredible numbers. But the certainty with which Linoge rejects this one seems weird.
Here's my comment, which may not be published over there since he's banned me like so many of the other pro-freedom and pro-rights gun bloggers.
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.
What's your opinion? Do you think pro-gun folks purposely leave out the inconvenient fact that unlike illegal drugs, guns all start out legally owned? Shouldn't the legal gun owners take some responsibility for this, start doing the right thing, stop denying the obvious connection between themselves and the criminals who are using their guns?
Please leave a comment.