A 53-year-old South Austin man with a valid concealed carry permit was able to shoot at two men who tried to accost him outside of his home early this morning.
The incident happened about 2:40 a.m. on the 5400 block of West Van Buren Street, said Chicago Police Department News Affairs Officer Michael Sullivan.
The man was walking from his garage to the front of his home when two males in hoodies appeared in a gangway between his home and the neighbor's home, Sullivan said.
One of the two men pulled a handgun from his waistband and pointed at the man who took out his own gun and managed to fire several times at the males, Sullivan said.
The males fled the area without being struck and the shooting did not result in any property damage, police said.
After the shooting, police responded and determined that the man was shooting in self-defense. The man had a valid firearm owner's identification card, a valid concealed carry permit and police were able to determine that he had completed a required concealed carry class and was properly trained, Sullivan said.
The man is not facing charges as police search for the two males, described as a tall male and a short male. Those two face charges.
By my count, that's one good one and one bad one - so far.
To you, the Chicago CCW scoreboard reads 1-1, but do you think that matters worth a damn to this guy who was now able to successfully defend himself because of the 5th district's ruling? To you he should have "taken one for the team" to prevent that other guy from threatening someone with their lawfully carried gun.
ReplyDeleteWell, we don't know what would have happened. He probably would have only lost a wallet or some cash in his pocket. So, "taking one for the team" is not always as dramatic as you guys say in your exaggerated attempts to justify gun ownership. We just don't know.
DeleteOne thing that is clear, he was a lousy shot. Do you think that was due to inadequate training? We know the requirements are minimal.
Well then, Mikeb, since you don't need the money in your pocket, send it to me.
DeleteWe don't know what they would have done to him because he had a gun.
DeleteTo you, the Chicago CCW scoreboard reads 1-1, but do you think that matters worth a damn to this guy who was now able to successfully defend himself because of the 5th district's ruling? To you he should have "taken one for the team" to prevent that other guy from threatening someone with their lawfully carried gun.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Even if we accept the dubious contention that the "greater good for the greatest number" is served by restrictive gun laws, because without them, criminal violence will outweigh the good of self-defense, restricting gun rights for that reason constitutes human sacrifice. I again quote the brilliant Jeff Snyder:
DeleteTake, for example, gun prohibition as a means of eliminating gun crime, on the assumption that the evidence is clear that if gun crime can be eliminated more people's lives will be saved than lost (the avowed greatest good assumed to be the preservation of the greatest number of lives). All are deprived of arms to eliminate the harm caused by those who would otherwise abuse their freedoms by using firearms to commit crimes. Let's assume this law works, that is, in fact achieves its goal of eliminating all gun crime, and thereby maximizes lives saved.
It is evident from this example, first, that the individual's liberty to own firearms depends on whether sufficient others are using them to produce desired results. In this case, we have posited that they have not, that is, that more people are dying from gun crimes than are being saved by persons defending themselves with guns. The utilitarian "solution" to maximize aggregate welfare is thus to deprive all individuals of the liberty to own firearms. The scope of an individual's freedom, then, is not a function of the respect due him as an independent agent having free will, and does not depend on his own conduct, but is instead a function of how his fellow citizens behave and the results they achieve.
Second, the individual's private good is not merely subordinate to realization of the aggregate greatest good, but is freely sacrificed to securing that greatest good. The obverse of the fact that more lives are saved by gun prohibition is that some, having been deprived of an effective tool of self-defense, will of necessity lose their lives, so that others, admittedly more numerous, will live.
In short, some are sacrificed so that others, comprising a greater number, may live.
Utilitarianism sanctions human sacrifice, both great and small, as long as it is for "the greatest good of the greatest number." Utilitarianism justifies using some people as cannon fodder merely as a means to the fulfillment of others' ends-- so long as those who are to be sacrificed are not too numerous.
"Human sacrifice." Hahahahahaha. I'm not surprised he's one of your heroes, Kurt. Anyone who could come up with a twisted spin job like that deserves your adulation.
Delete"Human sacrifice" describes it perfectly.
DeleteMike,
DeleteTake guns out of the equation--just look at utilitarianism as a philosophy of morality--can you really argue that it doesn't justify the sacrifice of some people or their happiness so long as it results in a net gain in utility? That's the definition of the philosophy and why so many reject it in favor of other systems.