Guns and the art of victim blaming

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

They were idiots. That's a situation where a gun isn't likely to be of use.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 problem is you are assuming a robbery is just a robbery, that cooperation ensures the victim's safety.

Plenty of people have gotten hurt because the robber thought the victim was holding out. People also get killed because the robber's mask fell off or they were otherwise recognized. Or just because the robber was jumpy because he needs his next fix.

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.

You're assuming the bad guy can continually point his gun at his hostage.

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.

You're looking at using a gun offensively against an intruder. The much more sensible course of action is to choose an ambush position from which you can defend all the people in the house. Clearing the house is not the job for an individual unless they have no choice.

- - - Updated - - -

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."

Of course not. If it's not useful then don't draw it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Then quit using mass shootings as reasons against guns.

And you're also assuming the situation is static.

 

[Artemus]

The problem is you are assuming a robbery is just a robbery, that cooperation ensures the victim's safety.

No, no one assumes that all. She said that at one point she thought "OK, he calmed down so it looks like we'll be okay," but then realized he could still decide to eliminate the witnesses. But once someone has a gun on you it is completely out of your control and all you can do is play the odds. And the best course of action by far is to cooperate. Look at the stats and read the DEA brochure (or any recommendation by any law enforcement agency, for that matter) I linked.

You on the other hand are ignoring the real problem: Any dickhead out there can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, because of the idiotic gun laws we have here.

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem is you are assuming a robbery is just a robbery, that cooperation ensures the victim's safety.

Plenty of people have gotten hurt because the robber thought the victim was holding out. People also get killed because the robber's mask fell off or they were otherwise recognized. Or just because the robber was jumpy because he needs his next fix.



You're assuming the bad guy can continually point his gun at his hostage.

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.

You're looking at using a gun offensively against an intruder. The much more sensible course of action is to choose an ambush position from which you can defend all the people in the house. Clearing the house is not the job for an individual unless they have no choice.

- - - Updated - - -

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."

Of course not. If it's not useful then don't draw it.

Of course I am assuming a robbery is going to be a robbery, and not more, because that is what most robberies are; and if the robbery is more, once you are drawn upon, your game is lost... And they have another gun for their armory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course I am assuming a robbery is going to be a robbery, and not more, because that is what most robberies are; and if the robbery is more, once you are drawn upon, your game is lost... And they have another gun for their armory.

And nobody is advocating drawing when someone has a gun pointed at you.

 

[Patooka]

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.

They were idiots. That's a situation where a gun isn't likely to be of use.

I find it curious that you find in this particular instance "they were idiots" is a valid argument, yet you throw up every Chuck Norris wet dream scenario whenever gun control debates are raised in this forum.

Oh, and if you are going to ask me for facts, don't bother. Irony cuts both ways.

 

[Trausti]

Compare and contrast.

 

[zorq]

Compare and contrast.

Both are cherry picked videos of gun tragedies.

One is a video of an idiot accidentally killing the person they are trying to rob.

The other is clearly a video of a person deliberately and likely needlessly killing a person they thought was going to rob them.

Guess what legal policy might have prevented both of these senseless deaths?

 

[Artemus]

You're assuming the bad guy can continually point his gun at his hostage.

And nobody is advocating drawing when someone has a gun pointed at you.

No, you are advocating drawing when the gun is pointed at someone else but you think they looked away for a second. This is exactly the attitude I addressed in the OP:

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: "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."

Pharmacist and a tech or two are dead? Unfortunate, but you got to shoot (at) the bad guy. That what really counts. RIght?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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."

I'm not sure that is the inverse argument.

 

[fast]

Nevermind

 

[Jarhyn]

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."

I'm not sure that is the inverse argument.

I can't help but identify that this isn't an answer to his question.

We want to know, do you really believe that the few situations where a gun could be useful justify all the times where it is a needless and/or lethal complication?

That a body on the floor where there wouldn't be is EVER justified?

 

[James Brown]

Jason did answer the question here.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jason did answer the question here.

No, he didn't. He is still using "it's useful in (insert rare scenarios where a gun MIGHT 'help')" to justify all the situations where a gun exacerbates the situation, just more of, what was the term? Chuck Norris wet dream scenarios? Seems appropriate as a descriptor.

Yes, I can think k of some situations where having a personal nuclear device would do a lot of good, myself. Does this mean that personal NUKES are justifiable as public personal protection devices?

 

[Gun Nut]

Jason did answer the question here.

No, he didn't. He is still using "it's useful in (insert rare scenarios where a gun MIGHT 'help')" to justify all the situations where a gun exacerbates the situation, just more of, what was the term? Chuck Norris wet dream scenarios? Seems appropriate as a descriptor.

Yes, I can think k of some situations where having a personal nuclear device would do a lot of good, myself. Does this mean that personal NUKES are justifiable as public personal protection devices?

Yes they would if the "nukes" were less than 26 inches in total length, implementing a barrel no longer than 18 inches in length, used to propel a static projectile using a single charge of black or smokeless powder.

 

[Elixir]

Jason did answer the question here.

No, he didn't. He is still using "it's useful in (insert rare scenarios where a gun MIGHT 'help')" to justify all the situations where a gun exacerbates the situation, just more of, what was the term? Chuck Norris wet dream scenarios? Seems appropriate as a descriptor.

Yes, I can think k of some situations where having a personal nuclear device would do a lot of good, myself. Does this mean that personal NUKES are justifiable as public personal protection devices?

Yes they would if the "nukes" were less than 26 inches in total length, implementing a barrel no longer than 18 inches in length, used to propel a static projectile using a single charge of black or smokeless powder.

Right. They'd incinerate the user. That would be good.

 

[bilby]

Yes they would if the "nukes" were less than 26 inches in total length, implementing a barrel no longer than 18 inches in length, used to propel a static projectile using a single charge of black or smokeless powder.

Right. They'd incinerate the user. That would be good.

Not necessarily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

Although admittedly the Davy Crockett was five inches longer than the limit suggested above, at 31" in total.

 

[Elixir]

Yes they would if the "nukes" were less than 26 inches in total length, implementing a barrel no longer than 18 inches in length, used to propel a static projectile using a single charge of black or smokeless powder.

Right. They'd incinerate the user. That would be good.

Not necessarily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

Although admittedly the Davy Crockett was five inches longer than the limit suggested above, at 31" in total.

Yup. Non-conforming. Lock him up!
Alternately, we could waive the max length and mandate a higher yield...

 

[fast]

Statistics does not an obligation make.

If I am confronted and find myself at the receiving end of a deadly weapon, statistics be them as they may, do not guarentee a near-term casket free ending. If I can act, it is morally permissible to do so if I choose—even if doing so escalelates the dangers for myself or others.

If you choose to allow others to dictate whether you live or die, that’s your choice, but my choice will be what it is regardless of what statistics have to say.