CCW saves man's life- It must be a lie

[michreject]

We all know that don't happen.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090825/NEWS07/90825046/1320/Detroit-mugger-critical-after-victim-retaliates

Detroit mugger critical after victim retaliates

BY TAMMY STABLES BATTAGLIA
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Read Comments(49) Recommend(6)PrintE-mailLetter to editorShare
FacebookTwitterDiggDel.icio.usRedditNewsvineBuzz up!

A 32-year-old suffered a graze wound to the head but seriously injured a 17-year-old trying to rob him at gunpoint in Detroit early today, according to police.

The intended robbery victim, who has a permit to carry a weapon, pulled out his gun when he was confronted behind the apartment building at 1670 Oakman Blvd. near Linwood Street at 5 a.m. today, Detroit Police spokesman John Roach said.


Score one for the good guys.

[Jackson1999]

1. That poor 17 year old....

Another child victim of gun violence.

[frebrd]

5. Yeah, my heart bleeds for him!

:sarcasm:

[proteus_lives]

16. You're kidding right?

He's not a child and he's not a victim.

He's a criminal who picked the wrong victim.

[iverglas]

21. I just love it when they fight among themselves

I remember the time all the good and decent people collectively threw a sickie and didn't post in the Guns forum for a couple of months. By the end, they were eating their own young.

[proteus_lives]

22. Yes, we know you need attention.

Wait...do you consider yourself one of the "good and decent people" ??? :rofl: Thank you, I needed that.

It's funny because I rarely see one of your posts outside of the guns forum.

[paulsby]

44. and that's a good thing

so don't draw attention to that.

[Howzit]

56. Eating of young appears to be of special interest to people up north

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6395422

What is up with that?

[Jackson1999]

24. of course i was nt

[paulsby]

43. according to HCI

if he is under 20, he's a child. lol

that was the metric iirc that they used for "child victims" of GUN VIOLENCE.

[Arctic Dave]

2. Even a blind nut finds a squirrel somedays.

Plus, how do you know he's a "good guy", what if he beats puppies. Blanket assumptions help no one.

[rd_kent]

7. Even if he is a puppy beater....

he legally used his legal gun to legally defend himself. Whats your point?

[Arctic Dave]

8. My point was at the end of my post.

To bad the puppy doesn't have ccw, he would have probably taken down that good guy.

[iverglas]

9. it's an amazement, isn't it??

Don't hope for an answer, though.

If umpty-dozen point five per cent of them have never been convicted of a crime, we may (sorry, must) call them all "law-abiding". -- Well, hm, in the gun dungeon we must, but here in the light of day, hm, I dunno.

Yup, they might beat puppies, terrorize their intimate partners and children, drive drunk, sexually assault their dates and cheat on their taxes. But no convictions = law-abiding.

Don't like this thread? Wait for the next one.

Here, it's all bad-guys-bad-guys-bad-guys.

In the next one, it will be all end-the-war-on-drugs and solve all our problems.

Now, who are the casualties of the war on drugs? I mean, why are we wanting to end it?

Not punk kids holding up strangers in parking lots, and so that punk kids aren't holding up strangers in parking lots ... I don't suppose ...

They seem to have cast-iron craniums, that they don't explode. If one is not so equipped, one might change course.

Abandon all reason, ye who enter here ...

[gorfle]

12. On law-abiding.

But no convictions = law-abiding.

No one has ever claimed that all gun owners are law-abiding, even those with no convictions. Just about everyone in their lives has committed some kind of crime, such as speeding, or jaywalking, even if they never got caught.

What has been claimed is that when talking about total serious violent crime as defined by the FBI, such as rape, attempted rape, aggrevated assault, or robbery, even involving family members, there are well over 35 to 75 million more firearm owners than such crimes that have been committed. So even if every such serious violent crime was committed by a firearm owner, well over 90% of firearm owners cannot be involved in such crimes each year. There just aren't enough serious violent crimes committed compared to the number of firearm owners.

So, when we talk about people who commit serious violent crime, it is a true fact to say that each year over 90% of firearm owners are not involved, because they obey the laws concerning such crimes. Because when we are talking about gun owners and crime we are almost exclusively talking about crimes committed with guns, and those would fall under "serious violent crime" per the FBI, we legitimately tend to refer to such firearm owners as "law-abiding".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. You really don't like that whole innocent until proven guilty thing do you?

[iverglas]

15. we have a thread talking about PREVENTIVE DETENTION

and you're telling ME that I don't like innocent until proven guilty?

Take a look around you, Davey. C'mon, step out of Guns. There's daylight up there.

Who in that thread that got bumped into the universe as others know it is proposing that people be IMPRISONED FOR LIFE because they are statistically likely to commit a crime?

Ye fucking gods and little freaking fishies.

[Jackson1999]

18. Textbook Iverglas nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. So you only feel that way when it relates to guns. Got it. Thanks.

[iverglas]

51. So you can't tell the truth. Got that months ago. No thanks.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. Says the queen of not telling the truth.

[Statistical]

33. Innoccent until proven guilty and proven guilty and proven guilty and proven guilty...

habitual offenders have multiple chances at due process.

Nobody is talking about denial of due process (well nobody except you).

They get due process over and over and over and after the 4th, 5th, 10th, 20th (draw the line where you want) violent repeat offense they get a sentence modifier that increases the sentence 20 years to life.

No violation of due process. It is an opt out system. If they simply stop raping and pillaging and join the 20th century by the 4th, 5th, 10th, 20th offense they can avoid longer incarceration.

If they don't their ACTION determine the punishment.

The statistical side is simply the outcome which is the single largest reduction in violent crime.

[michreject]

20. In English please nt

[Scout]

52. if you can't understand post #9, you have serious reading comprehension problems

is English your second language?

[rd_kent]

41. "Abandon all reason, ye who reads iverglas' posts....."

[michreject]

19. Well he beat his assailant to the draw

That's pretty good if you ask me.

[spin]

3. Maybe the bad guys will learn to avoid robbing people at gunpoint...

in Detroit.

Perhaps they could teach this in the school system.

[jody]

4. When attacked by a criminal and seconds count, police are only minutes or hours away. n/t

[ieoeja]

6. Saved a life?

He was being mugged, not murdered. If the mugger had originally intended to kill him, he'd have been dead before he knew he was being attacked. So it saved his money, not his life.

In that regards, the intended victim would have been even safer carrying the firearm openly as the mugger would have most likely passed him by. Of course, the mugger would then have just gone after someone else not openly carrying a weapon (which is the point of allowing people to carry weapons concealed).

[Pavulon]

10. Umm no. Then he loses surprise.

the life of the meatpuppet who got shot is not of concern. He might as well have shot himself in the mouth on his way out to "work". You point a gun your intent is to kill, so simple, yet you miss it.

Worked out pretty well in this case, dead bg, good guy goes home.

[Statistical]

11. So nobody has ever died in a mugging?

Strange the FBI seems to disagree.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_11.html

Looks like in 2007 924 people died in a murder related to a robbery.

The idea that they only want the money is a dangerous myth.

Maybe they don't want a witness either? Or maybe they are scared? Or maybe they are high? Or maybe they freak out over the time/lack of money/noise/circumstances? Or maybe they just don't plain give a shit?

Of course that doesn't include the tens of thousands that live but suffer injury sometimes permanent as a victim of a robbery.

It has nothing to do with money. The risk exists for death or bodily injury and that is why self defense statutes allow lethal force.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. If he had been carrying his firearm openly he would have been shot in the back of the head,

Then his firearm would have been stolen and used in another gun crime which the gun grabbers would have attempted to use as a reason to ban firearms.

[Statistical]

23. Come on Dave that isn't a foregone conclusion.

Cops carry weapons every day and while they do have their weapons taken it is in the progress of an arrest.

Someone being arrested steals and uses the weapon not to get a firearm but to lash out in an attempt to escape.

There is no evidence to indicate criminals routinely life weapons and execute people to gain access to firearms.

There are much easier methods that have much lower consequences if they fail.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. Well we were dealing with speculation. I should have used could.

Of course given the 17 year olds propensity to actually use a firearm in the commission of a crime I and the isolated scene, I would propose it wouldn't have been an unlikely outcome.

[spin]

36. Most criminals know that shooting a cop is a bad idea...

given half a chance, his fellow officers will make damn sure you never make it to trial.

[jeepnstein]

45. Cops are also constantly...

reminded of weapon retention, situational awareness, and how vulnerable they are. Think about it, you dress up in a relatively silly outfit, drive a circus wagon of a car, and generally advertise to the criminal set that you're hostile to their way of life. Yeah, at times you get a feeling of having a bulls eye painted on your back rather than an aura of invincibility.

[GunGuyinPA]

42. Get a clue. People who get mugged are murdered somtimes.

http://ccwsaveslives.blogspot.com/

[proteus_lives]

17. If you try and rob someone they might shoot you.

I hope the mugger survives to serve his prison sentence.

[billh58]

25. But hasn't

that always been the case? There have been armed robbers since before Christ was a miracle zygote, and there have been armed citizens who resist them for just as long. What is the common denominator here? Hint: we have progressed from sharpened wooden sticks, to more powerful thundersticks. Grok and Zorg would be proud of us.

Until we, as a society, begin to realize that there must be a better solution to anti-social behavior other than killing each other, Man's Inhumanity To Man, will never end. I know, that makes me a bleeding-heart Liberal, and unrealistic, but I find it interesting to observe people applauding the use of deadly force, rather than exploring all of the causes which made it necessary. The reality is, that we have progressed very little over the centuries in terms being truly civilized.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. Nice of you to gloss over the anti-social behavior of robbing people at gunpoint.

The causes and possible solutions have been discussed here at length.

[billh58]

30. But that

was exactly my point -- to highlight the anti-social behavior of criminals since the dawn of civilization, and that our response to them hasn't substantially changed in thousands of years. I did not "gloss over" anything, and I apologize if I haven't seen the at-length discussions on the causes of, and solutions to, anti-social behavior on DU. Just as an observation, many animals use force and intimidation to steal from each other in the wild, so maybe it is just one of many inherited, natural, and, instinctive traits which civilization has not been able to eradicate from humankind.

I have, however, seen many discussions on DU which advocate addressing violence with yet more violence, and while I don't totally disagree, it is the celebration of this phenomenon that strikes me as odd. And no, I am neither a pacifist nor a coward, and I would defend myself and my family in a heartbeat. I would not, however, brag about it, or expect to be called a "hero," anymore than I did after returning from the combat zones of Viet Nam.

Maybe there is no definitive answer to, or cure for, anti-social behavior, and we are all doomed to an eternity of killing each other. I would hope not, but if so then an orderly "civilization" is really a fool's goal -- no?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Well, many gun owners here are tired of being called cowards with small penises.

I post defensive gun stories all the time. Not to celebrate them in anyway just to make people aware that despite the VPC's assertions guns are used for something other than spousal abuse, deadly childhood accidents and homicidal rampages. Everyone once in a while I might throw in a righteous shoot phrase but never anything that could be considered celebration.

[billh58]

35. I've noticed

a lot of defensiveness in the "gungeon," but I don't believe that I've ever purposely fed it. My position regarding ALL rights is fairly simple: if it's legal, go for it, but be responsible and use common sense in the process.

I have also seen a fair amount of cheer-leading and backslapping in the aftermath of a "righteous kill," and to me that is a sign of weakness, or at the very least immaturity. I might expect that attitude from right-wing God-guns-and-gays fanatics who have never fired a shot in deadly earnest, but not on a Liberal/Progressive Democratic board.

I gravitated to the Guns forum shortly after becoming active on DU, because I noticed an unusual amount of reasonable and level-headed discussions about a sensitive subject going on. During my short stay, I have learned much about many things, and especially the NRA. I get a kick out of the "penis-envy" analogies, as it reminds me of my grandchildren: "Poopy head! Penis breath! (I might make an exception for someone with a Desert Eagle strapped to their skinny-assed leg, wearing a 10-gallon hat, a big belt-buckle, and a big watch, however).

I also find the attempts to stretch the Constitution around all sides of the discussions entertaining -- but that's another discussion, for another forum.

Best,
Bill

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Not much defensiveness.

I think much of the righteous shoot talk is just to piss of the gun grabbers for fun. Of course I don't see someone saying they got what they deserved as cheerleading especially when a woman shoots a sex offender, etc. I think the Constitution is fine the way it is.

[spin]

37. To me it merely indicates that they realize that their arguments...

have little merit. Insults are all the ammo they have left.

edited for typo

[Statistical]

34. anti-social repeat offenders make up 2% of the population.

98% of humans have evolved past that but obviously evolution teaches us that the process is incomplete. Some % of the population will always be habitually violent and anti-social.

This isn't to say more humans aren't prone to the occasional burst of violent that number is much higher however some evolutionary or societal control has kept the violence in check. 98% of the population is the majority of the time non-violent. 2% however are near constantly violent as a result 2% of the population causes as much crime as the other 98%.

Say we cut our violent crime rate in half there is nothing to indicate that this uneven distribution of crime would change. 2% of the population would still cause more violent crime than the other 98% combined.

Say we cut it in half again (a laudable and likely impossible goal in our lifetime) there will still be an ultra violent anti-social element.

This cut to the heart of why gun control is so futile. 50% of the crime is caused by 2% of the people. So hypothetically lets say you banned all guns, melted all the legal ones down, strongly protected police arsenals and rapidly found and destroyed street guns over a 20 year period at immense cost (financial and in terms of our freedoms). If the number of guns drops 90% would we see a 90% reduction in "gun crime"?

Unlikely. The uneven distribution of crime means if that small percentage of habitual offenders will likely remain armed and continue to offend at the same rate (and now against a disarmed population). Even the 10% remaining "street gun" pool is more than enough to keep that 2% armed. We would see a reduction in gun crime as access dries up but it wouldn't nearly be as great as the reduction in firearms might initially suggest.

[billh58]

39. Thanks for the

stats, and I would have guessed that the percentage of repeat-offender anti-social members of society would be higher. Are there stats about one-off "crimes of passion," and "under the influence" first-timers?

[Statistical]

47. Let me clarify because I was "casual" with some terms.

The 2% stat comes from the fact that a CA penal system study found that 4% of males (2% of population) caused over half of the violent offenses.

So there are habitual offenders outside that 2% they just aren't the worst of the worse. There are also criminals w/ anti-social personality disorders that aren't habitual offenders.

The larger point is that crime isn't equally distributed. We don't have a very large number of criminals that cause an average amount of crime each. We have some criminals that cause a moderate amount of violent crime, the vast majority of the population which causes a negligible amount of violent crime and a small sub population that causes a massive amount of violent crime.

Our current crime statutes are based around a normal distribution. The idea that we need to target all criminals equally.

However the habitual status of a small sub pop makes that system unworkable. Either the sub pop doesn't get enough prison time to reduce crime OR you need to keep all the "minor criminals" locked up way more than is necessary in order to keep the sub pop adequately incarcerated.



Imagine this is a graph of criminality vs population (it isn't but it is a good illustration of distributions).

x axis = amount of crime causes (left being most and right being 0)
y axis = number of citizens

Our laws are structured around the red line = "normal distribution" most of violent crime is causes by average criminals. There are few offenses committed by ultra violent criminals (do to their small numbers) and a few super law abiding with most of the population falling between those two extremes.

The reality is our crime problem is more reflected by the green line. The majority of the crime is skewed towards a small "fringe" sub population.

So should we cut down on crime by other means:
* neighborhood watches
* improved police force
* better rehabilitation
* better EARLY mental health (my wife works w/ teenage offenders)
* better access to prosperity & education
* decriminalize soft drugs to remove a large profit motive for gangs.

All of that would help lower crime however even if we reduced violent crime by say 75% (I think you would agree that is a major accomplishment) it is unlikely the DISTRIBUTION would change.

So in the new lower crime US ~2% of the population would still cause 50% of the crime. Crime could be further reduced by not "getting tough of crime" which is like using a shotgun to take out an ant but rather focusing on that 2%.

Someone who is anti-social, adult, been incarcerated multiple times and has commited hundreds of violent offenses is a danger to society and unlikely to ever be rehabilitated. anti-social is characterized by a lack of connection or empathy. They are brutal because they simply don't care and that is incredibly dangerous to society.

[billh58]

54. Thanks for

the clarification.

[Euromutt]

29. A laudable goal, but in the interim...

Sure, I'd like to see more efforts toward prevention of crime, and rehabilitation of offenders, rather than keeping them in a vicious circle of incarceration followed by an absence of opportunities to become productive members of society upon release, causing them to return to crime because there's nothing else, followed by re-incarceration, and so on and so forth.

But while we're working on that, I'm not prepared to unilaterally disarm myself and depend on the criminals' better nature.

[billh58]

31. And I totally

agree with you. Although I no longer own a gun, nor have any need to, I support your rights under the 2nd Amendment, and would never expect anyone to unilaterally give them up.

More than anything, I question the celebration of having to put down any living creature, because it has become a threat to us. I don't question the need, nor the method, but only the virtual dancing around the body as if it were some sort of civilized achievement to be proud of.

[Statistical]

49. It is more a celeberation that a victim lives then the bad guy dies.

You see the same reaction when the victim shoots and the criminal runs away, when the victim shoots and the criminal gets caught, and when the victim shoots and the criminal is wounded as you do when the victim shoots and the criminal dies.

It is an unsuccessful violent crime. The legal consequences for crime are relatively low. Sure if caught, and then arrested, and then convicted the criminal may get 5 years however evidence (the disparity between crime victimization survey) and convictions indicates the probability of conviction is very low for most crimes.

So if a criminal has a 5% chance of getting convicted and gets 5 years but it is reduced to 3 for over crowding and is paroled at 2 then the actual cost of an armed robbery per offense is more like 24 months * 0.05 = 36 days.

That is the legal "cost" to a criminal per armed robbery. 36 days on average. An armeed self defense response increases that cost for the criminal. It greatly increases the likelihood they will be caught (hospitals report gunshot wounds).

[PavePusher]

48. Well, I know that the solution...

is not to capitulate to the criminal, thus empowering his/her life choice. One portion of the solution is to give the criminal a reason to re-evaluate their path by making their chosen profession as difficult and dangerous to themselves as is legally possible. I do not owe a criminal any favors while they are commiting a crime against me or anyone else.

[yodoobo]

40. I'm happy it turned out well and the good guy won

If neither had a gun it would have been even better.

[slackmaster]

46. It is unknown and unknowable what would have happened if neither had a gun

The assailant might have used an edged weapon or blunt instrument. Or maybe he would have never become a criminal and would have run for President in 2024. We just don't know.

[Statistical]

50. Good thing nobody has ever been injured or killed from "non guns".

Firearm is an equalizer that is all.

Without a firearm criminals will still attack with other weapons and most (nor all but most) victims will be at a disadvantage. Even among those who would arm themselves defensively, practice, and maintain athletic ability would be at a disadvantage against multiple criminals.

Firearms even the outcome. Can criminals cause violence with firearms? Yup they can and do and that is a problem.

However they still cause violence, injury, and death without them. However victims would be even more at a disadvantage if they are smaller, lighter, weaker, older than the criminal (who statistically tend to be male, and young).

[JonQ]

53. I'd say the ideal situation

is armed good guys, disarmed bad guys.

One fewer thug, one innocent person not murdered (or harmed severely).