A 51-year-old man stopped a masked man from robbing a Southside grocery store and held him at gunpoint until police arrived.
It's a short article, nothing too John Wayne. It just reinforces the folly of those that think eliminating handguns will stop murders. As we see here, it stopped a robbery in which no one got hurt (including the assailant). Who's to say it didn't prevent something worse?
I know. It doesn't always happen this way. And if it does, it gets a little article buried somewhere (in the back sections). No doubt, if there had been a shootout and people were dead as a result of it, the entire scenario would lead the headlines locally and likely get national coverage.
But it didn't. And another cold hard example of why the anti-gun lobby is wrong, has surfaced with minimal fanfare. Doesn't it make you wonder where they get their logic?
Kind of ties in with what I said in the previous post, if you think about it.
11 comments:
it may not have been a Sergio Leone, but I can picture the whole development. I wonder if the perp defecated himself?
This is a good example of the proper use of the 2nd as a deterrant. Note to bad guys, do not rob this grocery store.
Something to consider. If the robber didn't have a handgun because guns were banned and the ban seriously enforced he may not have tried to rob the store.
//If the robber didn't have a handgun because guns were banned and the ban seriously enforced he may not have tried to rob the store.//
Rocket, do you really think that a robber cares anything about a law banning handguns? He has already proven that he didn't care about the law that states armed robbery is a felony, punishable by prison time.
//This is a good example of the proper use of the 2nd as a deterrant. Note to bad guys, do not rob this grocery store.//
Obob, this also says much about home invasions. If a robber wants to take a chance that a home owner is armed, he puts his life into his own hands. Therefore, we'll never know how many people have thought about it and then thought better of it, after some badly needed reflection.
Rocket, do you really think that a robber cares anything about a law banning handguns? He has already proven that he didn't care about the law that states armed robbery is a felony, punishable by prison time.
I think I'm more worried about the "seriously enforced" part of any handgun ban. Talk about images of jack-booted thuggery..
I agree with AC. When all handguns are seized by the government, only the bad guys will have hand guns.
Now think about this: if state law required every citizen to maintain a firearm in their house, how many burglars do you think would run the risk of a shotgun blast in their abdomen?
People who use guns in self-defense must be held to a high standard, however. No "by" just because you have a registered firearm and shot someone. The use of deadly force is well defined and should be adopted as a universal standard.
But I do think it should be legal to shoot cars whose radios are blaring so loudly it can be heard from inside a house.
(Okay, just kidding)
Semper Fi
HI LA
I entirely agree with you. It would be a dream to believe that by banning guns, the criminals wouldn't have access to guns. That has been the crux of the question for decades. In fact this question is so complex that , given the American thinking about the right to defend oneself, including with firearms may have no answer.
I think one of the possible starting points may be dealing with the violence on tv and movies, rap songs etc and through education but now I'm starting to sound like a bleeding heart liberal. Certainly an economic effort is necessary.( Now I'm really sounding like a bleeding heart liberal!)
So then more enforcement is needed to make sure that the guns in circulation only go to those who are responsible.(Sorry AC, Now I'm starting to sound like a jack booted fascist thug)
In essence. Yes this is a very difficult question indeed.
Anybody have any concrete suggestions (other than "from my cold, dead hands.") that for example may have saved Sean Taylor's life and the nearly 10,000 others who die by firearms every year in the US.
Rocket, I lived in Japan for about nine years (total). I enjoyed living there, but I am not fooled into believing that the Japanese are any better, or worse than people living anywhere else in the world. While there, I received a continuous stream of snide comments about crime in the United States. The prima facie evidence of their belief that Americans were all criminals, was a film produced called some thing like “Crime in America,” or “American Gangsters.” It was very popular in Japan.
Of course, there is crime in America — just as there is crime everywhere else in the world. But here’s the thing: as the Japanese were quick to criticize Americans based on a Hollywood production, they are equally quick to ignore the fact that per capita, the Japanese have the same percentage of capital offenses in any given year. No, guns aren’t the problem. Most murders are perpetrated using knives, swords, broken bottles. One Japanese woman killed her husband, cut his body into pieces, and stored them in jars that investigators found in her refrigerator.
Ultimately, human behavior is decided by parenting, or lack of it. If John Doe is a freaking nut job because his parents abused or neglected him, or if he was simply following the genetic code, I should have the ABSOLUTE right to defend myself and loved ones with whatever it takes. I have many firearms in my house. They are all loaded. That is beside the point. We cannot tie off the tubes of Mrs. Doe because she and her husband are idiots; they are free to harm society by nurturing John who has one too many Y-chromosomes. But until parents start doing their jobs and raising children in a healthy, productive environment, there won’t be any solutions to crime. Meanwhile, I think I’ll keep my guns.
Mustang.
I'm glad you know Japan because I do too. In fact I have visited the country and most of my clients are Japanese and there is no way you are going to convince me that the Japanese crime rate is anywhere near that of the US especially when it comes to murder rates which was the subject of my post. I apologize if that wasn't clear.
http://tinyurl.com/r7het
Now for crime in general
http://tinyurl.com/2fkpp6
on the above please take population differences into consideration and it look as as if Germany has the highest percentage among the top countries listed. Japan with just under half the population has one tenth the crime
Plus I don't understand how Japan got into the discussion.
"I received a continuous stream of snide comments about crime in the United States."
Mustang. I have lived in France for 30 years so you can imagine the amount of snide comments I have heard.
mustang said: But I do think it should be legal to shoot cars whose radios are blaring so loudly it can be heard from inside a house.
(Okay, just kidding)
The thought has seriously (and NOT kidding) passed my mind many times. The summer in my neighborhood is unbearable, with a certain population of people blaring their "music" at high decible. I swear we are going to have a whole generation of deaf young men.
A little OT, but along the lines of what Mustang said about crime levels, I was watching the great PBS documentary about Appalachia, and one of the "experts" suggests that the civil war, with all its brutality against neighbor and relative, conditioned people (especially in Appalachia where people fought on both sides) to violence as a way to settle scores. Seemed like a viable theory worth pursuing. It may also be, as Mustang suggests, that we have about the same level of crime as other countries.
Either way, I've never understood the alleged connection between gun ownership and crime levels. I don't personally want a gun in my house, but if I had one, I wouldn't exactly be itchin' to use it.
Post a Comment