That would have been a lot more deadly to the people attacked, it would have been a lot more dangerous to the police. The delusion of the attacker about his deadly weapon of choice wouldn't have been that different; his intent was still harm in either case.
Light saber or firearm, there was no prior requirement of sanity.
And it is still a better outcome, despite the fact that this man was attacking people, that he was not shot, that he was not killed, that he was not substantially injured, and that no one else was either.
THAT is what makes a more civilized society, where problems with people are resolved without ANYONE being harmed, where the person who is creating the problem is held accountable, by due process and through the actions of law enforcement and the courts.
We have greater resources for this than existed at the time of the founding fathers; there have been significant changes. Guns are more lethal. We have greater ability to respond with law enforcement, including the 911 emergency services. We have surveillance capability that we did not have at the time. We have better non-lethal weapons, including tasers and stun guns and various spray products. We have passive defensive protection that exceeds anything that existed at the time of the founding fathers, like kevlar. Most of all, we have communication that was not conceived of at the time of by the founding fathers that allows the summoning of help and the coordination of efforts to overcome a person behaving badly.
Even with a toy stick, this man was wielding a weapon with the intent to harm. Clearly, the police recognized that this man wasn't right in the head and that he was confused and ill. But he could still have harmed someone; someone can be injured even by the bare hands of another person, with or without a weapon.
This looks like an angry and disturbed man. I imagine he is unhappy and resentful when he realizes how foolish he was, how delusional he was, in attacking people with a science fiction / fantasy toy. He should be relieved that he himself was not harmed, and that he is alive and able to get help. I hope he does so, and I hope if he doesn't do so voluntarily, because some kinds of mental illness interferes with a person's ability to make that kind of decision, then I hope he will be compelled to do so for his own sake and for the sake of people around him.
Thank god this man ONLY had a toy, and not a gun, but how terrible that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, preventing him from having obtained one.
From MSNBC.com and the AP :
Would-be Jedi jailed over lightsaber attack
33-year-old targeted shoppers, police with 'Star Wars' toymsnbc.com staff and news service reports
PORTLAND, Oregon — An Oregon judge has used his force to order a 45-day jail sentence and mental health evaluation for a would-be Jedi who attacked toy store customers with a pair of lightsabers.
David Allen Canterbury, 33, told Judge Kenneth Walker that he is already seeking mental health treatment. Canterbury also apologized to his victims.The Oregonian reported that Canterbury pleaded no contest Monday to assault and resisting arrest.
Canterbury had a "Star Wars" lightsaber in each hand as he swung at three customers last Dec. 14 at a Toys R Us store, Portland police said. He carried the lightsabers outside the store and swung at police.
According to The Oregonian, police attempted to shoot Canterbury with a Taser but the suspected deflected one of the wires away.
Officers eventually wrestled him to the ground.
No one was injured, the newspaper reported.
Canterbury has been banned from the toy store.
"Thank god this man ONLY had a toy, and not a gun, but how terrible that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, preventing him from having obtained one."
ReplyDeleteYou don't know that he wasn't a prohibited person. If he wasn't a prohibited person, perhaps he made a conscious decision not to purchase a firearm.
Oregon: Shall issue state for concealed carry, no permit for open carry. Few restrictions on open carry and even fewer on concealed carry.
I wonder how many customers were armed that didn't shoot the attacker.
"According to The Oregonian, police attempted to shoot Canterbury with a Taser but the suspected deflected one of the wires away. "
I wonder if he used the Lightsaber or the Force
someguy You don't know that he wasn't a prohibited person. If he wasn't a prohibited person, perhaps he made a conscious decision not to purchase a firearm.
DeleteThere is no restriction on anyone making a private firearm transaction, effectively.
So even though the crazy man didn't have a firearm, even though the only people with real weapons were the police, this is still evidence that private citizens shouldn't have guns? This is why I call you obsessed.
ReplyDeleteI do have to wonder if the man in question made whooshing noises as he swung his light saber.
No, Greg. I made the point that this guy could just as easily have purchased a gun and used it aggressive intent.
ReplyDeleteYOU don't want to see people like this screened out from gun ownership.
He was delusional.
I've argued that private citizens LIKE THIS GUY shouldn't have guns.
I've also argued that there is no valid right to have guns and that not engaging in more careful screening is part of why we have the gun violence committed by the gun culture devotees, both legal and illegal, in this country, and that much of that is preventable / avoidable.
Your response is NOT any form of effort to limit that gun violence. Your response is lets just assume everyone is fine and that we should never do anything to limit guns or gun violence.
That is stupid.
You're the one you dragged in speculation and irrelevant notions, but my comment is stupid? Given this man's behavior, he's likely a prohibited person. If he wasn't before, he will be now. If you can tell me how we'll deny firearms to him, but not to those without his condition, I'll listen, but nothing that you've proposed can accomplish that.
DeleteYes, you've argued that we have no right to firearms. I suppose that we're required to believe everything that you argue, even when you're wrong?
Being a prohibited person is meaningless to prevent crazy people from obtaining and using firearms, so long as people like you make NO effort whatsoever to research those to whom you sell or trade firearms, and so long as states are not REQUIRED to provide information on crazy people to the NICS.
DeleteSo, yes, emphatically yes, your comment is stupid.
I have no real assurance that even NOW he will be in the NICS data base.
I'm not wrong. YOU haven't argued successfully that there is a well-recognized right to own a firearm. Certainly you have utterly failed to argue it as a moral right, or as a widely accepted legal right, and the limited recognition given to it by the SCOTUS is likely to be undone and is inconsistent with the prior law and legal precedent and therefore likely to be found invalid.
I know that your side doesn't recognize any right to own firearms, but you're hardly the final word on the subject of rights.
DeleteWith regard to reporting prohibited persons and to running a background check for all sales, you have yet to offer anything in return for our agreement to that proposal. It's not a bad idea, but we want something in return. I've suggested universal carry in public in exchange for universal background checks. Is that a deal that you'd be willing to support?
Dog Gone,
DeleteCitizens have a right to life. Citizens have a right to defend themselves. What an oversight that the Framers failed to state those rights in the U.S. Constitution. And I am stunned at their even greater blunder that they failed to state those rights in the Bill of Rights.
Could it be that those rights are so basic and obvious that it isn't even necessary to state them? I wonder if other rights fall in the same category? For whatever reason we don't have to guess about the right to bear arms since we have the Second Amendment. But even if the Second Amendment didn't exist, we still have the right to bear arms for the purpose of defending ourselves, our communities, and our country. There is hardly a more noble activity than defending your life, your family's lives, fellow citizen's lives, or your country. Like it or not, firearms are quite often the only effective way to defend someone's life.
But back to your assertion that we have no right to bear arms. How is a 120 pound woman supposed to defend herself from a 200 pound male attacker if she cannot have a firearm? How is a 120 pound mom with an infant supposed to defend herself from two male attackers armed with knives if she does not have a firearm? How is an average sized male without a firearm supposed to defend his life against two 200 pound male attackers with pipes? How is a father supposed to protect his teenage daughter from a gang of young men that intend to drag her away and rape her if he is not armed? How is a woman supposed to stop a gang of men from dragging her away and raping her if she is not armed?
Your non-lethal "solutions" to those violent attacks above do not work. Tasers do not work. Pepper spray does not work. Asking the attackers to kindly wait for 10 minutes while you call 911, explain the situation to the dispatcher and wait for the police to arrive, doesn't work.
We have a right to life and to defend ourselves. And since firearms are the only effective means to save many lives in many situations, citizens have a right to bear arms just like they have a right to have air to breath. Thus government has no legitimate authority to prohibit citizens from carrying firearms.
This is the system working as it should. He was arrested for his behavior and the judge ordered a mental health evaluation. That is all they needed to do for Loughner to get him in the NICS, but they failed to follow through on at least two opportunities. More importantly than getting them into the NICS, it gets them the treatment that they need. But you’d rather have those doctors neglect our young Padawan learner so they can concentrate on screening millions of perfectly sane people.
ReplyDeleteDog gone: “We have better non-lethal weapons, including tasers and stun guns and various spray products.”
But Tasers seem to be easily defeated by plastic toys. And this makes acceptable defense of life and body? Why did you turn to a gun instead of a Taser in response to your stalker? Note that police use Tasers as compliance and torture devices- never in lieu of a firearm. When the Taser didn’t work, they went to plan B, which was to tackle him- not shoot him. Police don’t carry Tasers instead of guns, nor do they use them instead of guns.
Dog gone: “Being a prohibited person is meaningless to prevent crazy people from obtaining and using firearms, so long as people like you make NO effort whatsoever to research those to whom you sell or trade firearms…”
Whoa, whoa, whoa- hold on there, Dog gone. People like YOU prevent private sellers from being able to request a background check. Gun control supporters hate the idea because it doesn’t ban private sales. We are not ALLOWED to contact the NICS. Are we to hire a private investigator rather than make a simple phone call or internet query? And you said “trade firearms”? Think about that one for a little bit.