Guns and the art of victim blaming

[Artemus]

I've considered starting this thread several times in the last couple months, but there was always a recent mass shooting and associated gun thread and I didn't want to start another, plus I know how certain forum members will react and I haven't wanted to deal with it. However, the recent thread on the security guard who was shot by the police has upset me enough to finally push me over the edge...

Earlier this year my wife, as she puts it, finally got to check off the last box of being a career pharmacist. Right at opening when they were preparing for the day's business a man was in and had a gun to a tech's head before anyone realized what was happening. Wife heard her scream and came around the corner to "put a stop to whatever horseplay was going on" and saw the gunman. She said that training and instinct kicked in ("if anyone gets hurt it's not going to be one of these kids working for me"), signaled to him that she was the one that could get what he wanted, and stepped between the gun and the staff member. He gave her a list and a backpack and she started "filling the prescription," making sure she kept her hands visible and making no sudden moves. The gun was pointed at her the whole time. She was able to give him a fairly unique narcotic that was purchased for a specific customer that would be easy to track. It ended when a customer yelled "is there anyone in there" through the drive-through window and he ran out the back door.

I had the following, essentially identical conversations, with several "gun-rights advocates" in the next couple days:

Them: "I heard about the robbery. Don't they have a gun there?"

Art: "He was in and had a gun to a girl's head before they could react. A gun wouldn't help."

Them: "Sometimes they get distracted and you can act."

Art: "He had a gun pointed at people the whole time. 'Acting' would get someone killed."

Them: "Why didn't she hit a silent alarm?"

Art: "He was watching every move with a gun pointed at her. He would have seen a sudden move or a disappearing hand."

Them: "Why did she give him drugs??? She should have given him Tums or something!!!!"

Art: "He was watching what she was taking and...HE...HAD...A...GUN...POINTED...AT...HER. You don't do anything to piss them off."

Them: "Well too bad someone with concealed carry didn't come in."

Art: "Did you miss the part about her making sure that no one was hurt? I fail to see how bullets flying around an enclosed space would have improved on the situation.

Them: "Well they could have made sure that he never did it again."

By the third time I had printed out this brochure from the DEA and was saying "She followed the 'What to do during a robbery' steps listed by the Drug Enforcement Agency precisely and kept everyone in the store safe. Now, if you have determined that the top drug law enforcement agency in the country is training pharmacists improperly then it is your responsibility to contact them immediately and correct their errant ways. But until you do, you're really just making a fool of yourself."

A couple months later I was at a dinner with one of these "gun-rights advocates." Someone asked him how many guns he owned, which he declined to answer. Someone else said "They don't like to advertise that because they are afraid that someone will break in and steal them," to which he nodded.


The true sickness of our gun culture came through in so many ways. First was the implied/direct blame of my wife for not only not pulling out a gun like Joe Mannix would have and stopping the robbery, but also letting him get a way with some narcotics. This isn't a fucking television show, assholes. Her only responsibility was keeping the people working for her safe (priority) and keeping herself safe (secondary). Protecting property is irrelevant once the gun is pointed at a 20 year old's head. But the need to believes that more guns makes everyone safe requires that the victim be blamed. This came out very clearly in the security guard thread as well, where facts had to be invented on the spot to blame the guard. The second is the attitude that "mak(ing) sure he never did it again" was more important than "everyone was safe." The real desire is to have the opportunity to kill a bad guy, not to keep themselves safe. Which is also supported by the third observation. The gun-right advocate who wouldn't say how many guns he had recognized that not only was he not safer owning guns, it in fact made him a target for crime and that people like him were the ones who were arming the bad guys in the first place!

I spoke with a couple police officers a few days later and told them about my conversations, and they confirmed that her actions were exactly what she should have done (I'll say heroic, putting herself between her employees and a loaded gun), that everything else that she "should have done" would have been incredibly stupid, and someone with concealed carry trying to draw and stop the robbery would have been an unimaginable disaster. (Plus, concealed carriers are the first to lose it anyway because they are afraid that the gunman will notice that they carry and preemptively eliminate the threat.)

I'll probably regret posting this, but I had to say something. The attempts to blame the victims of gun crimes while refusing to admit that they are the ones arming the bad guys in the first place is a symptom of a very serious cultural illness. This was apparent before but became much more personal.

And if you are planning to tell me "But she should have done...", please go read the DEA brochure I linked and reconsider your position. And then go fuck yourself.

 

[marc]

I think this can't be pointed out enough. A pro-gun group tried to show how being armed would have changed things in the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris. But after several reenactments, the only civilian to 'survive' was the one who ran away. Being armed didn't help any. Maybe pro-gun groups should do these simulations more often, until they see how rarely it actually works out for them.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah. Pretty much what I would expect.

Most situations involving guns have game theory which perfectly describes them, and the presence of more guns almost always makes the situation worse for everyone.

When a gun is involved in a robbery (most situations involving "bad guy with gun") the victim is almost always going to be caught flat footed. At that point, there is a hostage, and any second gun will make things worse for the hostage. Period. The only thing the robber wants in most situations is going to be the thing they are stealing: drugs or cash or expensive stuff. It's just stuff, that took a grand total of maybe a few human-months MAX of work. Usually it is going to represent less than a few human-hours of work. That is NOT worth risking 60 human-years of lost life.

The only situation where a gun would 'help' is the situation where someone sees the armed person come in and shoots them before they take the hostage... which means shooting someone before they commit any crime (if their gun is legal) or at least before a normal person could generally evaluate the situation, making the pharmacy a murder scene (losing days of business, and more human-hours of front end sales), and traumatizing the staff not only with the robbery itself but also with the mess of a shot person. Oh, and the criminal is DEAD. Not good for anyone in reality.

On the street, if guns are involved, one gun will almost always be pulled unilaterally before the other. In many ways it ends in all the same ways as the pharmacy robbery. The bigger issue with a street situation is that such robberies are more likely to be more than a simple mugging.

We already saw how well an armed guard handled an active shooter; they succeeded in stopping the shooter, and then the cops shot them for their trouble. I know how I would personally handle an active shooter, but that doesn't involve a firearm either; it involves getting the fuck out of there, if I can, and setting up an ambush with a blunt object if I cannot. At no point would I want to tempt or provoke a firefight, by seeking a shooting position from which I would ultimately be seen, especially when my opponent probably has an assault rifle that will certainly penetrate any interior cover. Even so, I would probably die.

In my own home, having a gun at all is a dangerous proposition: it would make my home a target of robbery if my gun ownership became popular knowledge, it would make me and my husband categorically less safe FROM EACH OTHER, and it wouldn't stop an armed robber in the house; there are no good sight lines or cover positions in my home. Again, my best shot would be to acquire an appropriate melee weapon and set up an ambush.

So yeah, I just don't understand why people defend this fantastical notion that 'good guys with guns', solve problems. The only thing that 'good guys with guns' produce is corpses on the ground, usually including their own.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Exactly. Because a gun isn't useful in every situation, it isn't useful in any situation.

 

[Jarhyn]

Exactly. Because a gun isn't useful in every situation, it isn't useful in any situation.

This is a disenguine message. Of course, some rare situations are helped with guns. But they are dwarfed in frequency by the number of situations exacerbated by (additional) guns. The price of having guns available where they may be useful is all of the situations where they are not useful or where public carry allows the situation in the first place.

You are saying the price of removing guns from the public space - the loss of a small percentage of games - is higher than the loss of all the games where guns and their availability and lack of oversight CAUSE that loss. That's just fucking stupid.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Exactly. Because a gun isn't useful in every situation, it isn't useful in any situation.

Of course, some rare situations are helped with guns. But they are dwarfed in frequency by the number of situations exacerbated by (additional) guns.

If you say so.

 

[Artemus]

Exactly. Because a gun isn't useful in every situation, it isn't useful in any situation.

Thus making my point with a strawman. Please address one of my points:

1. Gun crime victims are not to blame.
2. Many gun advocates are more motivated by the desire to kill a bad guy rather than a desire to keep people safe.
3. Gun owners are ultimately largely responsible for the bad guys becoming armed in the first place.

 

[Jarhyn]

Exactly. Because a gun isn't useful in every situation, it isn't useful in any situation.

Of course, some rare situations are helped with guns. But they are dwarfed in frequency by the number of situations exacerbated by (additional) guns.

If you say so.

So in other words, the fact that this situation described in the OP is far and away the most common of situations involving gun crime, wherein heroes would make cadavers happen, makes no difference to you. Either address the game theory I presented with some real rebuttal or get called out on things. If I need to remind you,you already admitted that cops shouldn't have guns, and seeing as civilians are even LESS likely, due to a lack of training, to handle gun incidents wisely, I say this implies that civilians should have them in public LESS than cops should. Would you like me to provide the quote when I get home?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Exactly. Because a gun isn't useful in every situation, it isn't useful in any situation.

Thus making my point with a strawman. Please address one of my points:

1. Gun crime victims are not to blame.

This point is not disputed.

2. Many gun advocates are more motivated by the desire to kill a bad guy rather than a desire to keep people safe.
3. Gun owners are ultimately largely responsible for the bad guys becoming armed in the first place.

Yeah, you know gun owners just wanna strap on them thair shootin-irons and go get them some bad guys, aye-yup. Why, just to make the fight fair, gun owners go out and get guns for the bad guys just to they can make shootin em down some sort of fair sport.

 

[James Brown]

Exactly. Because a gun isn't useful in every situation, it isn't useful in any situation.

Would you also agree with inverse argument? "Because a gun is useful in some situations, a gun is useful in every situation."

 

[Jarhyn]

This point is not disputed.

2. Many gun advocates are more motivated by the desire to kill a bad guy rather than a desire to keep people safe.
3. Gun owners are ultimately largely responsible for the bad guys becoming armed in the first place.

Yeah, you know gun owners just wanna strap on them thair shootin-irons and go get them some bad guys, aye-yup. Why, just to make the fight fair, gun owners go out and get guns for the bad guys just to they can make shootin em down some sort of fair sport.

It doesn't matter whether guns are strapped on out of bravado or fear; to be sure, it's a little of both. The most common end to this is going to be more corpses on the ground. Guns allow humans to make bad decisions too quickly, and escalate the stakes of those bad decisions to lethality. You have already admitted that this is the case with police, and everyone else is just as human but more poorly trained, so this should be an easy extension of logic for you.

 

[Artemus]

This point is not disputed.

And yet multiple gun owners demanded to know, both of me and of her at the pharmacy, why she didn't use a gun to stop the gunman.

Yeah, you know gun owners just wanna strap on them thair shootin-irons and go get them some bad guys, aye-yup.

Yes, I believe that this is very much true for a large percentage of the concealed weapon carriers that I have interacted with.

Why, just to make the fight fair, gun owners go out and get guns for the bad guys just to they can make shootin em down some sort of fair sport.

Another strawman. Please tell me, how do "bad guys" get their guns if not ultimately from "good guys"?

 

[Gun Nut]

Your wife was very brave and heroic. You don't need a gun to do the right thing. I am especially impressed with her thought to give a particularly traceable item to the thief. That was awesome. That he had a list of items he wanted may mean he will discard that item, exactly because he knew what he wanted for just that reason... sounds like a somewhat sophisticated plan that had a pending buyer for particular items. All the more reason to not have acted in resistance. I'm assuming they were opioids, mostly... but if it were like heart medication and such, I would be very interested to know that... tells a completely different story, right?

There are only two courses of immediate action for the personal defender, and whichever you take defines how everything else will follow...
You either are unnoticed, and you immediately disable the threat, if safe (does not sound like that would have been safe if he was 'covering' her the whole time). OR, you comply, and "wait your turn". That sounds like what I would have done if I happened to have been in the store as a bystander and gone unnoticed. "my turn" would have come up when he started for the door... and only because he was steeling drugs that could harm others. If he just took cash, "going for the door" would be the end of it... let him go and let the cops get him later.

Your fear of what "gun nuts" (like myself) would say is based on internet outrage by uneducated people that don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip, or think an AR-15 is an Assault Rifle because it says AR right there in the name... and those that say "I'd bust out my .45 and just blast the sonnabitch" are just as bad... and full of shit.

If your story ended with, "and then he proceeded to shoot everyone in the store and my wife is in the hospital right now", how would your post have been different? The difference with the personal defender in the store is that only one shot from the thief would have gotten off before he was neutralized... unless he indicated he was going to get rid of the witnesses or some other dumb ass thing to say... then "my turn" would have been made at the slightest of barrel movement off his target. But that is all fantasy... didn't happen that way.. wasn't there to really assess anything.

 

[Trausti]

Your wife did the right thing. But this is not every scenario. No one knows what the criminal with the gun is going to do. Many cases where the criminal gets the loot but kills the clerk anyway.

source

 

[Gun Nut]

I think this can't be pointed out enough. A pro-gun group tried to show how being armed would have changed things in the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris. But after several reenactments, the only civilian to 'survive' was the one who ran away. Being armed didn't help any. Maybe pro-gun groups should do these simulations more often, until they see how rarely it actually works out for them.

This one time... in band camp....

No one (with an education on these things) is arguing that a defender with a gun will always draw, shoot, and eliminat the threat. That comes from complete misunderstanding. It is basic knowledge that any defender is already behind the curve. it's right there in the name.. DEFENDER. 9 times out of 10, the defender is waiting their turn for the threat to make a mistake.
If two men with automatic rifles burst in on an entire office filled with advanced tactical firearms professionals, until they made a tactical mistake that exposed them, they are going to win. Why? Science. It is physically impossible to draw on someone that is already drawn on you. Not knowing for 100% sure that your concealed shot will instantly disable and therefore not prompt a wild spray of bullets from the injured attacker prevents action. Feigning compliance is always a good option, if your weapon is hidden.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your wife did the right thing. But this is not every scenario. No one knows what the criminal with the gun is going to do. Many cases where the criminal gets the loot but kills the clerk anyway.

source

Irrelevant. The event of the OP was not an active shooter event.

It is IRRELEVANT because an active shooter is a different game, one in which all paths for the shooter end in them being shot. Their priorities are merely to consummate death of some subset of targets. Provoking them will not cause them to suddenly decide to shoot someone when they would not; if they have their gun pointed at someone, it is to KILL them, likely immediately. Pointing a gun at them will not make them more resolved, nor less. But it may stop them. The calculus of armed robbery is not like this. Provocation of an armed robber can at best result in a stalemate and at worse, lead to the shooting of the hostage, who they presumably are not intent on killing.

Further, it is irrelevant in the face of the fact that there are far more armed robberies than active shooter events, robberies ill-suited to vigilante idiots slinging guns around. You gun will not help you if you are under threat as a hostage and it is still in your holster, and even Gun Nut's idiocy about 'waiting his turn' is foolish because it makes a corpse and a murder scene of a pharmacy, and all the additional trauma that entails... not to mention turning a robbery into a murder scene.

In short, you are ignoring all those tragedies which happen BECAUSE there are guns out there, and on the street, in favor of some 18% reduction of a loss of life in an extremely rare, but still too-common scenario, which would be similarly served by the reduction in mass shootings that would follow from sensible and sensibly enforced gun control laws.

 

[Trausti]

Your wife did the right thing. But this is not every scenario. No one knows what the criminal with the gun is going to do. Many cases where the criminal gets the loot but kills the clerk anyway.

source

Irrelevant. The event of the OP was not an active shooter event.

It is IRRELEVANT because an active shooter is a different game, one in which all paths for the shooter end in them being shot. Their priorities are merely to consummate death of some subset of targets. Provoking them will not cause them to suddenly decide to shoot someone when they would not; if they have their gun pointed at someone, it is to KILL them, likely immediately. Pointing a gun at them will not make them more resolved, nor less. But it may stop them. The calculus of armed robbery is not like this. Provocation of an armed robber can at best result in a stalemate and at worse, lead to the shooting of the hostage, who they presumably are not intent on killing.

Further, it is irrelevant in the face of the fact that there are far more armed robberies than active shooter events, robberies ill-suited to vigilante idiots slinging guns around. You gun will not help you if you are under threat as a hostage and it is still in your holster, and even Gun Nut's idiocy about 'waiting his turn' is foolish because it makes a corpse and a murder scene of a pharmacy, and all the additional trauma that entails... not to mention turning a robbery into a murder scene.

In short, you are ignoring all those tragedies which happen BECAUSE there are guns out there, and on the street, in favor of some 18% reduction of a loss of life in an extremely rare, but still too-common scenario, which would be similarly served by the reduction in mass shootings that would follow from sensible and sensibly enforced gun control laws.

You don't know what's going to happen. Cooperate with the perp and give xir the loot, sure. But you don't know. Some dudes want to eliminate any witnesses. Some are psychos. When it's your life, you might think differently.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your wife did the right thing. But this is not every scenario. No one knows what the criminal with the gun is going to do. Many cases where the criminal gets the loot but kills the clerk anyway.

source

Irrelevant. The event of the OP was not an active shooter event.

It is IRRELEVANT because an active shooter is a different game, one in which all paths for the shooter end in them being shot. Their priorities are merely to consummate death of some subset of targets. Provoking them will not cause them to suddenly decide to shoot someone when they would not; if they have their gun pointed at someone, it is to KILL them, likely immediately. Pointing a gun at them will not make them more resolved, nor less. But it may stop them. The calculus of armed robbery is not like this. Provocation of an armed robber can at best result in a stalemate and at worse, lead to the shooting of the hostage, who they presumably are not intent on killing.

Further, it is irrelevant in the face of the fact that there are far more armed robberies than active shooter events, robberies ill-suited to vigilante idiots slinging guns around. You gun will not help you if you are under threat as a hostage and it is still in your holster, and even Gun Nut's idiocy about 'waiting his turn' is foolish because it makes a corpse and a murder scene of a pharmacy, and all the additional trauma that entails... not to mention turning a robbery into a murder scene.

In short, you are ignoring all those tragedies which happen BECAUSE there are guns out there, and on the street, in favor of some 18% reduction of a loss of life in an extremely rare, but still too-common scenario, which would be similarly served by the reduction in mass shootings that would follow from sensible and sensibly enforced gun control laws.

You don't know what's going to happen. Cooperate with the perp and give xir the loot, sure. But you don't know. Some dudes want to eliminate any witnesses. Some are psychos. When it's your life, you might think differently.

It's been my life before, and the other scenarios are equally IRRELEVANT, because they are rare cases.

Edit: and as GN pointed out, once you are drawn upon, your gun is already worthless. Or stolen.

 

[Trausti]

You don't know what's going to happen. Cooperate with the perp and give xir the loot, sure. But you don't know. Some dudes want to eliminate any witnesses. Some are psychos. When it's your life, you might think differently.

It's been my life before, and the other scenarios are equally IRRELEVANT, because they are rare cases.

So it's always the scenario you experienced? All others irrelevant? Ah, no.

 

[RavenSky]

The gun-right advocate who wouldn't say how many guns he had recognized that not only was he not safer owning guns, it in fact made him a target for crime and that people like him were the ones who were arming the bad guys in the first place!

This is a very very good point that I don't think I have ever seen before.

As for your wife - yes... she absolutely is a hero! - but I am so sorry that she had to go through that. I hope that she is taking good care of herself in the aftermath, and is not feeling any PTSD.