If Gabbie Giffords was packing heat...she'd still would have been shot in the head

[titaniumsalute]

I'm tired of the bullshit argument that "If she were packing heat she'd defend herself." I saw that a state legislator showed up with a .38 special this week and she intends on defending herself.

You can only defend yourself if you see a threat in plenty of time to try to do something about it. This whole Rambo mentality is fucking ridiculous. People think that carrying a gun will make a difference. I could walk up to someone who's packing, raise a gun and do the job before they'd even know what hit them. That's what makes people who talk about "carrying" a joke.

An analogy is like trying to be the best driver to avoid an accident. You can do the speed limit, keep your hands at 10 and 2, no texting or cell phone, etc. But that doesn't stop some asshole from running a red light and plowing into you.

[petronius]

1. Unless you're trying to argue that defensive driving is a waste of time,

your analogy doesn't hold water.

In a general sense, you're making the argument that 'if it doesn't work 100% of the time, it's valid 0% of the time' - it's a common line of flawed reasoning, but I notice that people never fall into that trap unless they already have a preconceived opposition to the topic in question...

[gatorboy]

3. Haha! What? You make Defensive Drving School sound like they train you for Spy Hunter scenarios.

[petronius]

6. Perhaps you misunderstood my point?

I'll try again: the OPs argument is akin to saying that, because driving carefully can't avoid all accidents, there's no point in driving carefully at all. I's a flawed argument...

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. I can say this...

In Texas, Defensive Driving is a waste of time. Our local school? Laugh Spot Comedy Club...and Defensive Driving. You can also log in to timed pages and watch t.v., clicking next when the timer is up. No test. Just pay the fee. :)

[petronius]

9. I didn't realize Defensive Driving (with the capitals) was an actual name,

I just meant 'driving carefully' as described by the OP. But I'm not surprised it's less than cost effective; I'd bet that most people who have to get special training to drive carefully probably shouldn't be driving at all... :)

[gatorboy]

13. Wait you didn't know they actually have Defensive Driving classes?

Huh. Well, apologies from me. I couldn't resist the Jack Bauer joke though.

[petronius]

17. I thought it was just a catch-all term for being careful. And I missed a 24 joke

to boot - double-pop-culture fail for me all in one swoop... :(

:)

[ScreamingMeemie]

15. it is...it is...hang on and I'll pull up a picture. One of my daughter's friends

thought it was so hilarious, he took a picture.

[petronius]

18. LOL! Looks like they have their priorities in order, at least...

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

5. Defensive driving does NOT mean slamming your car into another car

before it can be slammed into yours.

Your analogy doesn't hold water.

[gatorboy]

7. He obviously attended the Jack Bauer School for Defensive Driving.

Now I feel shafted!

[petronius]

11. Who said it did?

:shrug:

The OP made an analogy about precautions not being 100% effective - I pointed out that the conclusions drawn from that analogy were flawed...

[pnwmom]

20. You implied that when you made the analogy with defensive driving.

But the analogy fails. You might be able to defend yourself with a gun by shooting first. But you can't defend yourself from a car wreck by hitting it first.

[petronius]

22. Obviously, "defensive driving" means something vastly different to you than

it does to me. My comment referred to the 'driving carefully' analogy put forth by the OP...

[pnwmom]

25. I think it means something similar to both of us --

watching the road carefully, noting odd or threatening behavior by other cars/drivers, swerving when necessary to avoid collisions, etc. It doesn't mean firing your car into another car, no matter how much of a threat the other car appears to be.

[mvccd1000]

28. And you might be able to defend yourelf by...

... simply possessing a firearm.

My dad has a restaurant in a strip mall, and often takes the daily cash receipts to the bank at midnight after he closes. One night he could see someone lingering outside the windows as he was removing the money from the cash register and the safe, and later as he was locking up and heading for the door. Before moving the rest of the way toward the door, he made as if looking for his keys and removed everything from his pockets - including his holstered pistol.* By the time he walked out the door to head for his car, the lurker was no longer in the vicinity.

He didn't have to shoot anyone, he didn't have to get shot, and he didn't lose the day's cash receipts to some criminal. The mere presence of a holstered pistol was enough to avoid a crime.

Why would you wish to take that right away from him?

(*Michigan was a "May-Issue" state at the time, but as a business owner who regularly carried cash, he was presumably more entitled to protect himself than the rest of us mere peons without $$$ that need protecting.)

[titaniumsalute]

12. The point is you can carry a gun (or drive as safe as you want)

but you cannot control many variable that affect your life. In addition, people can try to position themselves for a certain outcome in life but other variables can easily disrupt that outcome.

A congresswomen who says "I'm going to carry my .38 so I can protect myself" isn't able to claim that as true as someone who says "I'm going to drive defensivly so I don't get into an accident."

I live in South Florida. Driving defensively is probably more dangerous than driving aggresively. You do the speedlimit in South Florida you stand a great chance of getting run over (and shot in the meantime.)

[petronius]

16. Certainly. But do you not still try to control the variables you can?

The strawman that's being put forth in these gun arguments (and which underlies your OP) is that because Giffords would have been unable to defend herself no matter what, nobody else ever would either. It just doesn't work.

(And I know what you mean about FL; I learned to drive in CA and it's the same way. My wife drives more cautiously - politely? - and I'm always telling her that everyone here expects you to put the pedal down. If you don't try to jump ahead, or god forbid if you try to do something nice of all things, it totally screws up the pattern...)

[RSillsbee]

35. I was able to protect myself w/ a gun

It worked the time I had to do it.

[Zoeisright]

21. You do realize that a false equivalency is, don't you?

Because that's what your statement is.

[petronius]

50. No it isn't. Did you mean this for the OP? (But even there it's just a

misinterpreted analogy, IMO...)

[kudzu22]

32. If she'd had a bodyguard, it could have gone better

You're right that she would still be shot if she was armed, because the assailant got the drop on her and gave no opportunity. However, if she'd had an armed bodyguard (or even one of those staffers), watching her back, maybe they would have seen the psycho coming across the parking lot and been able to do something about it.

[jeepnstein]

38. Or not.

Reagan got shot while being protected by some of the finest bodyguards who ever existed.

The Pope got shot right under the noses of his protective detail. And those guys are the stuff of legends.

John F. Kennedy got shot while riding in his Presidential limousine with a full protective detail.

Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered while a police officer was holding his arm.

Robert Kennedy got shot in a room full of supporters, even after his brother was murdered.

It happens. Generally it happens because someone with an untreated mental illness decides it's a really good idea to do something like that. Bodyguards can only do so much for you.

[kudzu22]

47. I said it *could* have gone better

Maybe they see him coming, maybe not. Maybe they can stop him after the first couple of shots, maybe not. I'm just saying that having an armed bodyguard increases your odds.

[yellerpup]

2. I know exactly what you are talking about.

A crackhead broke into our apartment and backed my husband into the room with a .357 pressed to his forehead. If I'd had a gun, cocked, loaded and in my hand when I first realized what was happening, I still could have done nothing. We survived, but he left with my wedding ring and a can of mace. If I'd had a gun he would have gotten that, too, and maybe have shot someone with it at the next home he robbed. Welcome to DU. :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. We had some friends who were robbed

Sitting in their living room watching TV. Two guys with guns kicked in their door. Their dog lunged at the guys, and our friend grabbed his gun. Guys pointed their gun at the dog and threatened to shoot him unless he dropped his gun.

Then they tied them up, stole what they wanted and left.

In other words, this guy HAD a gun and was able to grab it. Still didn't help.

[yellerpup]

23. I hear that.

The reason I didn't have a gun on me at the time is because I had been robbed before (in a different state) when a guy came in and tried to shoot me with my own gun. His hand came down on it a split second before mine did and he pulled the trigger with the intention of shooting me in the head. I stored the gun separately from the clip so the gun wasn't loaded, no bullet was chambered, and it didn't fire. The kid was not a seasoned killer and when the gun didn't go off, he had to work himself back up to try to kill me. Just like the old joke, I played along until his shoes were off and his pants down and then I flat outran him. Sorry your friend was traumatized; crime sucks. Having a gun never helped me achieve anything except to help me get into more touble than I would have been in otherwise.

[LAGC]

49. How'd his shoes and pants come off?

Something seems to be missing from your story.

[RSillsbee]

36. He had a gun but not the will to use it

That's the reason it didn't work.

I love my dogs I treat them like family but in the final analysis they're mine detectors. The humans in my family come first

[chibajoe]

39. Sorry to hear that your friends were robbed, but

a gun is not a magic wand that will protect you in all circumstances, and it won't do anything at all unless you are willing to use it. Your friends lacked the will to use their gun, and because of that, they not only were robbed but have put one more gun into the hands of criminals. In retrospect they probably should not have had the gun in the first place. If you have a gun for personal protection, you must be willing to use it, otherwise do the rest of us gun owners a favor and get rid of it before it falls into the hands of some criminal.

[oneshooter]

44. He made a conscious choice, and apparently the dog was worth more than his life.

In the same situation the goblin would have received a 200gr 45cal answer. To me no animal is worth the life and/or injury to my family.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Euromutt]

53. If anything, that particular anecdote illustrates the uselessness of dogs

Indeed, worse than useless, given that your friend allowed the dog to be turned from a weapon into a hostage, and then made the cardinal mistake of giving in to hostage-takers. Not to put too fine a point on it, your friend did exactly everything wrong. Because once you put your one bargaining chip--the gun you have aimed at one of the bad guys--down, you have nothing left.

In spite of what you may see in the movies, actual counter-hostage-taker doctrine is that you don't even lower your weapon, let alone relinquish control of it: if they want you to stop pointing your gun at their vital organs, you demand concessions on their part. Oh, and by the way, it's morally acceptable to lie to hostage-takers; e.g. if you tell them that if they release the hostage, you'll put away your gun, but instead, once the hostage is clear, you shoot them anyway, you're doing society a favor. And the only jury that will convict is one in some godforsaken state like New Jersey where the judge might refuse to instruct the jury that the law doesn't require you to keep your word to persons expressing intent to commit murder.

[rhett o rick]

10. There were people armed there. One admitted he mistook who the bad guy was and might have shoot the

wrong guy. Another didnt get his gun out before people without guns stopped the incident.

The problem is that when armed citizens start shooting, many will mistake who the bad guys are. And when the police arrive they will have citizens shooting and not know who is who.

[titaniumsalute]

14. I was in a situation once

where gunshots were fired in a mostly busy outdoor area. Oddly enough, everyone I was with experienced something different. I actually work in the professional fireworks industry and my first thought was "fireworks!" ooh pretty...where are they?

My girlfriend thought "what an odd sounding backfire from an old car..."

My mother thought it was one ofthose balloon popping games at the fair. (We were in a fair-like area,)

My dad, a Vietnam Vet, knew it was gun shots and was immediately nearly frozen in fear. If each of us were carrying guns our brains would not have interpreted anything differently.

[PavePusher]

24. You have evidence to support that claim? n/t

"many will mistake who the bad guys are"

[rhett o rick]

30. It is useless to try to debate gun people. I guess rationalism is the key to happiness. nm

[PavePusher]

31. So, no facts or evidence. Got it.

"rationalism", indeed. One needs evidence to be rational. You... not so much. Good job with the avoidance, however.

[rhett o rick]

34. I knew it would get to that level. I should have broken off the discussion earlier. nm

[PavePusher]

41. What level? The level of actual facts and data...

and request for such?

This is a bad thing??

[rhett o rick]

43. The "You... not so much. Good job with the avoidance, however." level. nm

[PavePusher]

46. Well, you did avoid facts, or bringing them. And that's a fact. n/t

[rhett o rick]

48. Sorry I stepped in the gun forum. Now I need to take a shower. nm

[PavePusher]

51. And the fall-back to ad hominems. Classic. n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

40. Didn't you just say

there were two armed individuals nearby who did not start blazing away? One who admitted to coming close to firing but didn't because he was not sure who was the "right" guy? Is that not evidence of a certain amount of level-headed thinking and reaction on their part?

"The problem is that when armed citizens start shooting, many will mistake who the bad guys are. And when the police arrive they will have citizens shooting and not know who is who."

I am confused. Did not the armed persons who responded to the gunfire have the presence of mind not to shoot because by the time they got to the scene there was no need to shoot? Is that not the response we would want to have from lawfully armed individuals, be they citizens or police?

Is it somehow an indictment of armed citizens that they were not stationed poised and ready to shoot preemptively when the lunatic came running through the crowd?

I'd say while your speculative scenario is certainly possible, that does not mean it is probable. The evidence in this case does not support it. If you know of an incident where it has, I'd be interested in knowing about it.

[RamboLiberal]

26. He was in a store when the shooting happened

By the time he got around the corner the shooter was being restrained. So he wasn't in the crowd when the shooting started.

[Euromutt]

54. Ah, the College of It Stands To Reason

Never mind that it's never fucking happened; never mind that there have been actual law enforcement personnel (like paulsby) on this forum who have recounted situations in which armed private citizens might have turned the situation from bad to worse but exercised the restraint necessary to not let that happen. No, your conjecture totally trumps the empirical evidence(!)

And in case it wasn't clear, (!) means :sarcasm:

[X_Digger]

19. Assasination? No.. robbery? fairly frequently..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/16/ap/national/main7157952.shtml

As they were trying to tie up the store owner, he took out a handgun from his waistband and fatally shot one of the suspects, Smith said.

http://charlotte.news14.com/content/top_stories/628167/man-at-atm-fires-back-at-would-be-armed-robber

According to police, the man was attempting to use a Cash Points ATM on Eastway Drive at North Tryon Street around 11 p.m. A suspect seemingly saw that as an opportunity and tried to rob the victim at gunpoint.

However, that victim was also armed. He shot the suspect twice in the leg.

http://www.wxix.com/Global/story.asp?S=12299813

CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) - Cincinnati Police are investigating a shooting where it appears a robber left the scene with the victim's cell-phone in his hand, and a slug from the victim's gun in his lower abdomen.

Police say the robber ran into someone with a concealed-carry permit, and at some point the would-be victim was able to get his gun out and shoot the suspect, who took off running from the shooting scene on Rosemont Avenue south of Glenway in West Price Hill.

[RamboLiberal]

27. +1 there are numerous stories posted here where

people with guns successfully defended themselves. Nothing is 100% in life.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. It's YOUR strawman, why complain about it to us?

No pro-gun rights or gun owner ever suggested that having your own weapon is a magic shield. A firearm is a tool, and in some situations, it might be extremely useful.

My understanding is, Giffords was carrying at the time, and no, she didn't see her attacker coming.

If her attacker had instead attacked someone else first, she might have been able to do something about it.

There was another person in the crowd who was armed, but unlike the OTHER giant strawman some people like to use, he didn't fire because he didn't have a clear shot, so he ran up and helped tackle the shooter.

None of this is a valid argument against lawful concealed carry, and no ban on concealed carry would stop this psycho from doing what he did.

[slackmaster]

33. Who said that about Congresswoman Giffords?

I haven't heard anyone other than YOU making such a foolish remark.

[one-eyed fat man]

37. You could stuff a bomb

up your ass and set it off with a cell phone too. Someone tried to assassinate a Saudi prince that way last year, and failed dramtically. As you point out you can only do something if you see it coming soon enough to react.

In this case there was a parking lot full of people that didn't see the shithead coming.

You can argue he was a nutcase and such a loser the Army wouldn't take him in the middle of a war. Why didn't the FBI have agents watching him?

You can argue all his classmates, teachers and all the people coming out of the woodwork clamoring to tell anyone who'll list they knew he was crazy all along. But not crazy enough to actually tell anyone who could do something about it.

You could argue that if the rubber hadn't broken he wouldn't be here.

It is all fruitless speculation.

You can do what you think is prudent to minimize your risks, but nothing, absolutely nothing, is certain, except death. Since we can, at least, agree that while death is inevitable, should not most adults, while they are alive, be allowed to decide what risks or what precautions best suit them?

In 1835, Richard Lawrence, stepped out from hiding behind a column at the US Capitol and aimed a pistol at Andrew Jackson, which misfired. Lawrence then pulled out a second pistol, which also misfired. President Jackson ran the man down and attacked Lawrence with his cane, prompting others present, including Davy Crockett, to restrain him. Afterward, due to curiosity concerning the double misfires, Jackson tested and retested the pistols. Each time they performed perfectly.

Sometimes, an outcome is nothing but luck.

[Shagbark Hickory]

42. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

I tried.

[Pancho Sanza]

45. I had the same problem trying to unrecommend.

Oh, well...shit happens.

[Atypical Liberal]

52. It does happen.

You can only defend yourself if you see a threat in plenty of time to try to do something about it. This whole Rambo mentality is fucking ridiculous. People think that carrying a gun will make a difference. I could walk up to someone who's packing, raise a gun and do the job before they'd even know what hit them. That's what makes people who talk about "carrying" a joke.

First of all, having the means to resist assault does not guarantee success in resisting assault. It just gives you a better chance.

Secondly, many times here examples have been posted where people have successfully resisted, with a firearm, an assailant who got the drop on them with a firearm, even when they had it pointed at them.

You are right, though - as my martial arts instructor told us in college, if someone wants to kill someone, they will probably succeed. All it takes is time, patience, and planning. If someone has plotted to kill you, even being prepared is only of slight help.

The question is, do you want to forgo being prepared and giving up even any chance of resistance?