So Sheriff Dudley Do-nothing-Wright here wants........what? Shootouts between armed women and kids when the children pull guns?
Over CANDY?
Yeah, THAT's worth killing for (not).
ANYONE here think that idea makes for safer streets in S.C.?
This MikB is where I think your one-strike rule should apply - Grandpa should lose his gun rights and his guns. He should not get them back if he stores them so sloppily that two kids can get their hands on both the guns and ammo.
This is appalling. There was a story recently about a child being taken away from it's parents over a misunderstanding about $5 worth of sandwiches.
Given these were guns,not sandwiches, maybe these two kids shouldn't have been returned to their parents until someone checked to make sure the home was safe.
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
922. Unlawful acts
(6) (A) (i) A juvenile who violates section 922 (x) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, except that a juvenile described in clause (ii) shall be sentenced to probation on appropriate conditions and shall not be incarcerated unless the juvenile fails to comply with a condition of probation.
Thomas - I find it hard to believe that there are existing laws that should have prevented this from happening. Obviously the law needs to be changed to make it extra extra illegal and this will never happen again.
Question, was the gun that the 10 year old kid had real? Or a part of his costume.
Another question, what does the halloween story have to do with the sherrif's comment about women should be arming themselves against the rapist's out there bold enough to attack a female in broad daylight and in public.
Follow the link; both guns were real, but not loaded at the time the police arrived; both kids had magazines fully loaded with ammo for the weapons.
The link is that the kid presented this woman with a threat that would have justified her shooting him if she were carrying a firearm.
That would have been a tragedy. That the kid's brother, also 10, had a second gun, and ammo, could easily then have created a situation where HE started firing at the woman.
That would have been a totally avoidable tragedy. Fortunately the woman, as an adult, did not over react, although I'm sure she found it a distressing event.
Both stories are from SC. The Sheriff in Spartansburg is urging everyone to get a concealed weapon so they can defend themselves. He's a moron OR he's looking for a big increase in his annual budget and decided that telling people his department couldn't protect them was a good way to get it. He could be both an opportunist and a moron; telling the community you can't do the job that they elected you to do is a recipe for term limits.
Spartanburg is 106 miles from Aiken, well inside the radius of teh burnin' stoopit which is Sher'f Wright.
Ah, ok. I see how the connection could be made, but for me its still to different stories. I had to run this by my brother in-law who is in law enforcement but not in that state. Here this woman would have been fully justified in defending herself from a gun being pointed at her. At least she made a good judgement. Sometimes it may not turn out as well.
Shooting a 10 year old would have ruined many lives. Hers, those kids and the kids parents. Those parents should be charged for criminal negligence and the woman has grounds for a civil lawsuit against the parents. CPS (child protection services) can legally remove those kids from the parents as well for endangering those kids lives as well as the kids actions that could have led to endangering others. In other words, those kids parents are in a world of hurt!
I cant blame the sheriff for the comments he made. Since the courts won't keep criminals in jail and they are released to just repeat offending again and again. He is hoping that someone will permantely resolve the issue. Its not his fault for releasing the bad guy. Its the legal system. If he had 200 more officers, for example, the courts will keep letting them out. The bad guy knows this and will still keep on being the bad guy and just gets a vacation if he is caught. I just wouldnt want to be the one that had to take out the bad guy even if it was legal for me to do so.
I have a couple of horror stories that changed my life, if you would want to hear about them. They are somewhat connected as well and did involve kids in one. These are true events and are on record in the city in which I used to live in. I will share if you wish.
Now you can help me. How exactly is the sherriff in question a moron for recommending that women protect themselves from rapists? What would you suggest that women do? Glower and use misspelled words?
The proximate cause of the two 10 year olds being armed is not their parents negligence; it's their grandfather's negligence and irresponsibility in improperly storing/securing his weapons. IF their parents were complicit then they too are responisble. As for CPS removing those kids from their parents' custody, highly unlikely if history is a guide.
The LEO in Spartansburg is a moron for suggesting that people's arming themselves and becoming vigilantes is a good idea. If the cops and the courts can't do the job it's time to change the cops and courts. One of the BIG reasons that we don't keep people that are dangerous off of the streets is because there are no alternatives to incarceration in a penal institution, aside from setting them free. The war on drugs, a completely failed effort, sucks billions upon billions of dollars into the maw of a for profit industry of prisons. Prisons are filled with non-violent drug offenders and thus have no room for more prisoners. CA is currently furloughing violent prisoners for this very reason.
In a perfect world (which cannot exist) we would have no crime. In a less perfect world we would have sufficient resources to properly train and lead police and maintain social services to ensure the safety of the populace and prevent the abuse of both criminals and law abiding citizens by overzealous police and prosecutors. In a really, REALLY fucked-up world we have county sheriffs abdicating their own responsibility and suggesting that citizens (who are paying for them to do the job) protect themselves with CCW. An armed society is a society where every person gunned down IS a criminal.
"We can't keep them in jail, so why don't you just shoot them so we don't have to waste our time with them.
Thomas, Thanks for showing us the very law which the grand-daddy violated. The problem is twofold, one they don't often enforce that kind of law and two, when they do the guy gets a slap on the wrist.
As firearms instructor and author of CorneredCat.com, Kathy Jackson, says, I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop. If we did exactly what you suggest, pampering criminals so they'll feel better about themselves, we'd still have crime. I want a world in which anyone--man, woman, or child--can walk down a dark street in safety, but that world doesn't exist. In the real world, it makes sense for responsible people to be able to protect themselves. Your proposal leaves the same people having to call 911 and hope that the crime isn't over before the police can arrive.
The best advice for a woman wishing to avoid rape is picking her friends and acquaintances more carefully.
BTW the term "firearms instructor" is meaningless. Anyone can advertise or claim to be a firearms instructor. This is not a minor attraction for many gunloons--how many other professions allow you to claim to be an instructor or authority without any testing or standards?
Thomas, Thanks for showing us the very law which the grand-daddy violated. The problem is twofold, one they don't often enforce that kind of law and two, when they do the guy gets a slap on the wrist.
Turno says the boys got them from their grandfather without his permission.
Thomas, read this slowly so perhaps it might just have a chance of sinking in.
Laws requiring that firearms be stored safely and securely would penalize old gun nut geezers like Grandpa here when he is negligent in storing his firearms.
That he was unaware of them even being missing suggests negligence to me. It doesn't sound like he was a guy who used gun safes, trigger locks, or stored ammo separately under lock and key.
Rather it sounds to me like he showed off the firearms or otherwise allowed them to know what he had, where they were, and where the ammo was, and that it was unsecured.
I think for that, given that one of those guns was pulled on another human being, the old guy should LOSE his gun rights for the rest of his life.
The problem with women carrying guns to protect against rape is the same as the problem of folks carrying guns for any other reason. The chances of using that gun for preventing a rape or any other true DGU is extremely unlikely. On the other hand, the chances of that gun being MISused in some way is much higher.
Only an idiot would carry a gun and recommend it to others, well not only an idiot, you've also got your insecure, frightened men who suffer from various psychological inadequacies.
"I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop. If we did exactly what you suggest, pampering criminals so they'll feel better about themselves, we'd still have crime. I want a world in which anyone--man, woman, or child--can walk down a dark street in safety, but that world doesn't exist."
So, you're advocating for people, including kids to be confident about walking down a "dark street" in safety, because they are holding a gun? Kidz with gunz is one of the two news stories that were the subject of this post. Really, you want kidz to have gunz--or is it okay for momz and dadz and single adultz but not for kidz?
The flaw in what you said is that a person who carries a gun can train in how to use it. Self defense with a handgun is a skill. Those who want to learn it can do so. Of course, that's inegalitarian, but so is life. I practice with my handgun as often as I can, both because it's fun and because it's a useful skill to have.
Jeff Cooper gets maligned here, but if you study his color code system, you'd understand that a person carrying a gun needs to be on Condition Yellow--alert, paying attention to one's surroundings, etc. Carrying a gun isn't a magic talisman. It doesn't mean that I get to go places that I wouldn't go without the gun. It just means that I have a chance to protect myself if something bad happens. The more training I get, the better my chances will be.
Democommie,
1. Buy yourself a dictionary. Spelling matters.
2. Children are minors, not adults. I never said that children ought to carry guns. I do think that adults have the right to do so, and I think that they are safer if they do.
"Jeff Cooper gets maligned here, but if you study his color code system, you'd understand that a person carrying a gun needs to be on Condition Yellow--alert, paying attention to one's surroundings, etc. Carrying a gun isn't a magic talisman."
Jeff Cooper is not maligned here, his credentials are simply not exaggerated.
A person needs to be aware of his or her surroundings at all times, regardless, with or without a weapon.
While I do not wish to blame a victim for a crime, the woman who went to sleep in the tent of a stranger in the alleged rape - which is what it is until proven, for those of us who actively value presumption of innocence - used poor judgment, made a naively too trusting choice.
Part of empowering women is to help them to make better decisions about what does and does not put ourselves in danger.
This is what you originally submitted as part of your comment:
" I want a world in which anyone--man, woman, or child--can walk down a dark street in safety, but that world doesn't exist."
She does not apparently differentiate between the three classes of which she speaks. How is one to interpret her words? Does she only mean two thirds of them should have guns and the rest of them are okay in "dark streets" without one? 66% is a failing grade where I matriculated.
Also, too and additionally--if you're in a "dark street" how do your percieve a threat and act on it. Your "condition yellow" only works if you have a clear, definable target that you can observe as it the distance decreases. Now, I don't know about you, but in a "dark street" I might be trying hard enough to see a perceived threat clearly that I could completely miss the other threat, the guy with the Louisville Slugger that steps out of a shadowed doorway and swings for the fences.
I'm not the one with reading comprehension problems.
As for getting a dictionary, I own several. Spelling is important, but no more so than saying, "Aren't" instead of "ain't". Misspellings that are the result of being in a hurry or ones that are deliberate (which a hole shitlode of mine are) I don't generally worry about. If the intent of the sentence is unclear because of misspelling, then it's important. Please point out where something I've typed is not understandable because of misspelling and I'll fix it. Otherwise, try just taking a deep breath.
By the notion of walking down a dark street in safety, I was giving a paradise, not describing our world. That was exactly my point. We don't live in paradise. We live in a real world in which violence happens. Yes, we need to make intelligent choices about where we go and what we do. I just think that having a firearm with me is part of that intelligent choosing. I don't have to take what comes.
Cut the crap. We don't live in a perfect world--with all that living in an imperfect world entails.
Unless you KNOW who you're shooting and why, you're simply guessing as to their intentions and capabilities.
If I'm looking to kill somebody or rob them, I'm just as likely to jum them with no warning as I am to pull back the bottom of my jacket to let them see my weapon. If, as a criminal with even minimal intelligence, I think robbing people is a good idea--and I know that a lot of them are carrying guns in their hidey holsters or handbags, why would I give a potential victim the luxury of a warning.
The other thing which is conveniently overlooked by the people who advoate for vigilante* justice. When you are walking down a dark street and are confronted by a perp who, gallantly, gives you notice of his intentions while you are still far enough away to pull your weapon and fire, you might not see the bus stop a hunfred feet up te street, with several people waiting for a bus; or the single mother, pushing her baby stroller back home after shopping for groceries.
The world is a dangerous place, you're right. Armed yahoos and yahooettes, people whose firearms training consists of "ready, aim, fire, OMFG, THAT IS LOUD!" will not make the streets any safer.
* and it is vigilante justice we speak of here, the extra-judicial punishment of those considered to have committed a criminal act. That punishment, in and of itself, may be extra legal, but aside from that, many jurisdictions will punish the vigilante for their acts if they are caught.
Greg, the fact that one can train with a gun like you do has nothing to do with it. The chances of your needing the gun someday to save yourself or another is lower than the chance that you'll have some sort of mishap with that gun. That can take many forms, accident, negligence, getting it stolen, or you yourself going off. Of course I'm assuming you're not working the night shift at the gas station in the ghetto. All things being equal, your gun does you more harm than good.
It's nice to know that today's youth still respect the advice of their elders?
ReplyDeleteAn armed trick'r'treater is a polite trick'r'treater?
So Sheriff Dudley Do-nothing-Wright here wants........what? Shootouts between armed women and kids when the children pull guns?
ReplyDeleteOver CANDY?
Yeah, THAT's worth killing for (not).
ANYONE here think that idea makes for safer streets in S.C.?
This MikB is where I think your one-strike rule should apply - Grandpa should lose his gun rights and his guns. He should not get them back if he stores them so sloppily that two kids can get their hands on both the guns and ammo.
This is appalling. There was a story recently about a child being taken away from it's parents over a misunderstanding about $5 worth of sandwiches.
Given these were guns,not sandwiches, maybe these two kids shouldn't have been returned to their parents until someone checked to make sure the home was safe.
Now THAT is funny, democommie!
ReplyDeleteEnforce the law,
ReplyDelete922. Unlawful acts
(x)
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
922. Unlawful acts
(6)
(A)
(i) A juvenile who violates section 922 (x) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, except that a juvenile described in clause (ii) shall be sentenced to probation on appropriate conditions and shall not be incarcerated unless the juvenile fails to comply with a condition of probation.
....give them each one year probation.
Thomas - I find it hard to believe that there are existing laws that should have prevented this from happening. Obviously the law needs to be changed to make it extra extra illegal and this will never happen again.
ReplyDeleteQuestion, was the gun that the 10 year old kid had real? Or a part of his costume.
ReplyDeleteAnother question, what does the halloween story have to do with the sherrif's comment about women should be arming themselves against the rapist's out there bold enough to attack a female in broad daylight and in public.
I just need the connection.
Follow the link; both guns were real, but not loaded at the time the police arrived; both kids had magazines fully loaded with ammo for the weapons.
ReplyDeleteThe link is that the kid presented this woman with a threat that would have justified her shooting him if she were carrying a firearm.
That would have been a tragedy. That the kid's brother, also 10, had a second gun, and ammo, could easily then have created a situation where HE started firing at the woman.
That would have been a totally avoidable tragedy. Fortunately the woman, as an adult, did not over react, although I'm sure she found it a distressing event.
Sorry, I did not know that the artical contained links, newbe here.
ReplyDeleteThe kids having real guns, wow! The parents need to be jailed for their careless oversite of those kids, to put it politely.
But I still need the connection to the sherrif article. Or is this post about two seperate things?
Both stories are from SC. The Sheriff in Spartansburg is urging everyone to get a concealed weapon so they can defend themselves. He's a moron OR he's looking for a big increase in his annual budget and decided that telling people his department couldn't protect them was a good way to get it. He could be both an opportunist and a moron; telling the community you can't do the job that they elected you to do is a recipe for term limits.
ReplyDeleteSpartanburg is 106 miles from Aiken, well inside the radius of teh burnin' stoopit which is Sher'f Wright.
Ah, ok. I see how the connection could be made, but for me its still to different stories. I had to run this by my brother in-law who is in law enforcement but not in that state. Here this woman would have been fully justified in defending herself from a gun being pointed at her. At least she made a good judgement. Sometimes it may not turn out as well.
ReplyDeleteShooting a 10 year old would have ruined many lives. Hers, those kids and the kids parents. Those parents should be charged for criminal negligence and the woman has grounds for a civil lawsuit against the parents. CPS (child protection services) can legally remove those kids from the parents as well for endangering those kids lives as well as the kids actions that could have led to endangering others. In other words, those kids parents are in a world of hurt!
I cant blame the sheriff for the comments he made. Since the courts won't keep criminals in jail and they are released to just repeat offending again and again. He is hoping that someone will permantely resolve the issue. Its not his fault for releasing the bad guy. Its the legal system. If he had 200 more officers, for example, the courts will keep letting them out. The bad guy knows this and will still keep on being the bad guy and just gets a vacation if he is caught. I just wouldnt want to be the one that had to take out the bad guy even if it was legal for me to do so.
I have a couple of horror stories that changed my life, if you would want to hear about them. They are somewhat connected as well and did involve kids in one. These are true events and are on record in the city in which I used to live in. I will share if you wish.
Thanks for being patient with me.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteNow you can help me. How exactly is the sherriff in question a moron for recommending that women protect themselves from rapists? What would you suggest that women do? Glower and use misspelled words?
Center lead:
ReplyDeleteThe proximate cause of the two 10 year olds being armed is not their parents negligence; it's their grandfather's negligence and irresponsibility in improperly storing/securing his weapons. IF their parents were complicit then they too are responisble. As for CPS removing those kids from their parents' custody, highly unlikely if history is a guide.
The LEO in Spartansburg is a moron for suggesting that people's arming themselves and becoming vigilantes is a good idea. If the cops and the courts can't do the job it's time to change the cops and courts. One of the BIG reasons that we don't keep people that are dangerous off of the streets is because there are no alternatives to incarceration in a penal institution, aside from setting them free. The war on drugs, a completely failed effort, sucks billions upon billions of dollars into the maw of a for profit industry of prisons. Prisons are filled with non-violent drug offenders and thus have no room for more prisoners. CA is currently furloughing violent prisoners for this very reason.
In a perfect world (which cannot exist) we would have no crime. In a less perfect world we would have sufficient resources to properly train and lead police and maintain social services to ensure the safety of the populace and prevent the abuse of both criminals and law abiding citizens by overzealous police and prosecutors. In a really, REALLY fucked-up world we have county sheriffs abdicating their own responsibility and suggesting that citizens (who are paying for them to do the job) protect themselves with CCW. An armed society is a society where every person gunned down IS a criminal.
"We can't keep them in jail, so why don't you just shoot them so we don't have to waste our time with them.
Thomas, Thanks for showing us the very law which the grand-daddy violated. The problem is twofold, one they don't often enforce that kind of law and two, when they do the guy gets a slap on the wrist.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie,
ReplyDeleteAs firearms instructor and author of CorneredCat.com, Kathy Jackson, says, I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop. If we did exactly what you suggest, pampering criminals so they'll feel better about themselves, we'd still have crime. I want a world in which anyone--man, woman, or child--can walk down a dark street in safety, but that world doesn't exist. In the real world, it makes sense for responsible people to be able to protect themselves. Your proposal leaves the same people having to call 911 and hope that the crime isn't over before the police can arrive.
Greg Camp produces another crop of hooey.
ReplyDeleteWhat you quoted presupposes that there are no other solutions than carrying a gun to prevent crime.
BULLSHIT.
Actually, the sheriff is a moron.
ReplyDeleteThe best advice for a woman wishing to avoid rape is picking her friends and acquaintances more carefully.
BTW the term "firearms instructor" is meaningless. Anyone can advertise or claim to be a firearms instructor. This is not a minor attraction for many gunloons--how many other professions allow you to claim to be an instructor or authority without any testing or standards?
Thomas, Thanks for showing us the very law which the grand-daddy violated. The problem is twofold, one they don't often enforce that kind of law and two, when they do the guy gets a slap on the wrist.
ReplyDeleteTurno says the boys got them from their grandfather without his permission.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/sc-police-10-year-old-pulls-gun-on-woman-who-joked-shed-steal-his-halloween-candy/2011/11/01/gIQAxT4tcM_story.html
Yeah that is a crime since the grandpa did not know that the kids stole his weapon and that they don't enforce the law on the two juvi-thugs.....
And how exactly is making more laws going to stop theft?
Thomas, read this slowly so perhaps it might just have a chance of sinking in.
ReplyDeleteLaws requiring that firearms be stored safely and securely would penalize old gun nut geezers like Grandpa here when he is negligent in storing his firearms.
That he was unaware of them even being missing suggests negligence to me. It doesn't sound like he was a guy who used gun safes, trigger locks, or stored ammo separately under lock and key.
Rather it sounds to me like he showed off the firearms or otherwise allowed them to know what he had, where they were, and where the ammo was, and that it was unsecured.
I think for that, given that one of those guns was pulled on another human being, the old guy should LOSE his gun rights for the rest of his life.
The problem with women carrying guns to protect against rape is the same as the problem of folks carrying guns for any other reason. The chances of using that gun for preventing a rape or any other true DGU is extremely unlikely. On the other hand, the chances of that gun being MISused in some way is much higher.
ReplyDeleteOnly an idiot would carry a gun and recommend it to others, well not only an idiot, you've also got your insecure, frightened men who suffer from various psychological inadequacies.
"I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop. If we did exactly what you suggest, pampering criminals so they'll feel better about themselves, we'd still have crime. I want a world in which anyone--man, woman, or child--can walk down a dark street in safety, but that world doesn't exist."
ReplyDeleteSo, you're advocating for people, including kids to be confident about walking down a "dark street" in safety, because they are holding a gun? Kidz with gunz is one of the two news stories that were the subject of this post. Really, you want kidz to have gunz--or is it okay for momz and dadz and single adultz but not for kidz?
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThe flaw in what you said is that a person who carries a gun can train in how to use it. Self defense with a handgun is a skill. Those who want to learn it can do so. Of course, that's inegalitarian, but so is life. I practice with my handgun as often as I can, both because it's fun and because it's a useful skill to have.
Jeff Cooper gets maligned here, but if you study his color code system, you'd understand that a person carrying a gun needs to be on Condition Yellow--alert, paying attention to one's surroundings, etc. Carrying a gun isn't a magic talisman. It doesn't mean that I get to go places that I wouldn't go without the gun. It just means that I have a chance to protect myself if something bad happens. The more training I get, the better my chances will be.
Democommie,
1. Buy yourself a dictionary. Spelling matters.
2. Children are minors, not adults. I never said that children ought to carry guns. I do think that adults have the right to do so, and I think that they are safer if they do.
Greg Camp - you write:
ReplyDelete"Jeff Cooper gets maligned here, but if you study his color code system, you'd understand that a person carrying a gun needs to be on Condition Yellow--alert, paying attention to one's surroundings, etc. Carrying a gun isn't a magic talisman."
Jeff Cooper is not maligned here, his credentials are simply not exaggerated.
A person needs to be aware of his or her surroundings at all times, regardless, with or without a weapon.
While I do not wish to blame a victim for a crime, the woman who went to sleep in the tent of a stranger in the alleged rape - which is what it is until proven, for those of us who actively value presumption of innocence - used poor judgment, made a naively too trusting choice.
Part of empowering women is to help them to make better decisions about what does and does not put ourselves in danger.
Greg:
ReplyDeleteThis is what you originally submitted as part of your comment:
" I want a world in which anyone--man, woman, or child--can walk down a dark street in safety, but that world doesn't exist."
She does not apparently differentiate between the three classes of which she speaks. How is one to interpret her words? Does she only mean two thirds of them should have guns and the rest of them are okay in "dark streets" without one? 66% is a failing grade where I matriculated.
Also, too and additionally--if you're in a "dark street" how do your percieve a threat and act on it. Your "condition yellow" only works if you have a clear, definable target that you can observe as it the distance decreases. Now, I don't know about you, but in a "dark street" I might be trying hard enough to see a perceived threat clearly that I could completely miss the other threat, the guy with the Louisville Slugger that steps out of a shadowed doorway and swings for the fences.
I'm not the one with reading comprehension problems.
As for getting a dictionary, I own several. Spelling is important, but no more so than saying, "Aren't" instead of "ain't". Misspellings that are the result of being in a hurry or ones that are deliberate (which a hole shitlode of mine are) I don't generally worry about. If the intent of the sentence is unclear because of misspelling, then it's important. Please point out where something I've typed is not understandable because of misspelling and I'll fix it. Otherwise, try just taking a deep breath.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteBy the notion of walking down a dark street in safety, I was giving a paradise, not describing our world. That was exactly my point. We don't live in paradise. We live in a real world in which violence happens. Yes, we need to make intelligent choices about where we go and what we do. I just think that having a firearm with me is part of that intelligent choosing. I don't have to take what comes.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteCut the crap. We don't live in a perfect world--with all that living in an imperfect world entails.
Unless you KNOW who you're shooting and why, you're simply guessing as to their intentions and capabilities.
If I'm looking to kill somebody or rob them, I'm just as likely to jum them with no warning as I am to pull back the bottom of my jacket to let them see my weapon. If, as a criminal with even minimal intelligence, I think robbing people is a good idea--and I know that a lot of them are carrying guns in their hidey holsters or handbags, why would I give a potential victim the luxury of a warning.
The other thing which is conveniently overlooked by the people who advoate for vigilante* justice. When you are walking down a dark street and are confronted by a perp who, gallantly, gives you notice of his intentions while you are still far enough away to pull your weapon and fire, you might not see the bus stop a hunfred feet up te street, with several people waiting for a bus; or the single mother, pushing her baby stroller back home after shopping for groceries.
The world is a dangerous place, you're right. Armed yahoos and yahooettes, people whose firearms training consists of "ready, aim, fire, OMFG, THAT IS LOUD!" will not make the streets any safer.
* and it is vigilante justice we speak of here, the extra-judicial punishment of those considered to have committed a criminal act. That punishment, in and of itself, may be extra legal, but aside from that, many jurisdictions will punish the vigilante for their acts if they are caught.
Greg, the fact that one can train with a gun like you do has nothing to do with it. The chances of your needing the gun someday to save yourself or another is lower than the chance that you'll have some sort of mishap with that gun. That can take many forms, accident, negligence, getting it stolen, or you yourself going off. Of course I'm assuming you're not working the night shift at the gas station in the ghetto. All things being equal, your gun does you more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteAnd very little coverage here in the upstate, where it occurred. Not good advertising.
ReplyDelete