"Good guy" with gun shoots car jacking victim, then flees.

[MikeK]

If someone is that paranoid maybe it's best they don't own, let alone carry a firearm. The victim had already been carjacked and the suspects were driving away when the shots were fired. I don't think self defense of himself or the victim could be applied here. He clearly realized his actions weren't lawful. This turd makes the rest of us (gun owners) look bad. Exercising your right "to keep and bear arms" also comes with great responsibilities.

I believe what happens to some who simply obtain a handgun, strap it on and go out in public is their thoughts are filled with fanciful notions about their armed status and its responsibilities. So when something stressful takes place they have no substantive reference to manage their response and they do the wrong thing, which probably accounts for this fellow's precipitous action. I'm sure if he had been properly instructed he would have been more restrained.

 

[MikeK]

Becoming involved in a situation which might result in the use of a gun calls for sitting at home minding your own business when some crack head starts kicking in your door.

You don't need training to know that the crack head with a knife kicking in your door is a bad guy and needs to be "deterred".

There is quite a difference between sitting at home with a 12 gauge shotgun in your closet and walking or driving around in public with a handgun in a waistband or shoulder holster. But hopefully one knows how to use that shotgun and is well enough informed to wait until the door-kicker is inside before shooting him.

Requiring such training will mean that some of the little old ladies that are sitting at home when this occurs will not have a gun they might otherwise have had.

Where little old ladies are concerned it might be better for them to have a .410 shotgun in the closet rather than a 12 ga. Smaller, lighter, less recoil, but still very lethal at close range.

 

[idb]

How could he not be liable for prosecution?
He's responsible for his actions.
There can be no other conclusion.

 

[2aguy]

Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away

At least he didn't kill him.

Shooter needs to go to jail. Good example of concealed carry creating crime.

Concealed carry does not create crime...as the fact that 12.8 million people now carry guns for self defense and the gun murder rate for 2014 is down...again.....and the gun suicide rate is down, as is the gun accident rate.....

Concealed carry actually deters crime....Minnesota just passed the 5% level of concealed carry and the violence rate is down in Minnesota....while D.C. fights concealed carry and their gun murder rate is going strong...and Baltimore...dittos, and Chicago...dittos......

 

[2aguy]

Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away

At least he didn't kill him.

Shooter needs to go to jail. Good example of concealed carry creating crime.

How did the concealed carry by passer cause the carjackers to commit their crime?

The carjackers caused the carry guy to committ a crime. You can't just shoot people.

He didn't just shoot someone, they were violently attacking another person and he tried to stop them....moron.

 

[2aguy]

"Just shoot people" is very misleading here.
The shooter was aiming to stop a crime. THat is hardly "just shooting people".

Presumably.
He may also have been trying to kill the driver.
Either way, it is impossible to soundly or honestly argue that concealed carry created any of the crimes involved here.
Now watch as Brain continues to lie to you.

It would be a pretty rough night for that guy if he got car jacked at the same time as someone was coming to kill him.
But, yes, it is a possibility.

Indeed. But, if that was the case, there is a significant probability that the weapon was carried illegally, negating any honest argument regarding LEGAL concealed carry because a cause of anything.
Now watch as Bran continues to lie to you.

I love how you are too scared to debate me.

it isn't a debate when you lie...

 

[2aguy]

NOpe. I was obviously making a reference to intent.

You just lied again, by pretending to not understand me.

Do you doubt he was aiming at the criminals?

Doesn't matter he was negligent in shooting innocent person. Also left the crime.

Big difference from if he targeted an innocent man, or accidentally shot an innocent.

It "matters" from a legal and moral and ethical perspective.

What world are you from?

Leaving the crime scene certainly sounds bad. There could be charges there.

Interestingly enough in that case, the thing that probably caused him to commit that crime is fear of anti-gun people like you (no offense).

Ironic, isn't it?

And he clearly should be prosecuted.

Ironic is the idea guns make us safer and the only person shot was the innocent victim of a car jacking. How was he made safer?

Not really. YOu have millions of crimes and millions of defensive uses of guns in such crimes, you will have some that don't have happy endings.

THis guy? Was likely NOT made safer as he was accidentally shot.

Well we know who gets shot and killed by guns, and by far it is the owner of the gun(accidently and intentionally). That hardly makes it a safety device.

Studies show many defenses are not lawful btw.

Liar....

 

[2aguy]

Big difference from if he targeted an innocent man, or accidentally shot an innocent.

It "matters" from a legal and moral and ethical perspective.

What world are you from?

Leaving the crime scene certainly sounds bad. There could be charges there.

Interestingly enough in that case, the thing that probably caused him to commit that crime is fear of anti-gun people like you (no offense).

Ironic, isn't it?

And he clearly should be prosecuted.

Ironic is the idea guns make us safer and the only person shot was the innocent victim of a car jacking. How was he made safer?

Not really. YOu have millions of crimes and millions of defensive uses of guns in such crimes, you will have some that don't have happy endings.

THis guy? Was likely NOT made safer as he was accidentally shot.

Well we know who gets shot and killed by guns, and by far it is the owner of the gun(accidently and intentionally). That hardly makes it a safety device.

Studies show many defenses are not lawful btw.

It is pretty obvious that to be able to HONESTLY state that guns are not "a safety device" you would have to consider all the defensive gun uses, that do not result in anyone getting shot.

Why do you hold a position that you know you can't HONESTLY defend?

Well most defensive gun uses are a myth. We do however know who gets shot and killed, by far the owner.

Defensive gun use....the truth...

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[2aguy]

Nope. Some of my friends are in higher crime areas.

You ever ASK them if they have ever used their guns in self defense?

Yes.

Well, statistics work like that. I might know two, you might not know any, someone else might know 6.

There isn't a statistic. Most of them are a myth. They aren't supported by any real statistic.

Then how do you know they are a myth if, as you claim, there are not any hard numbers on them?

He is lying...there is an extensive body of studies in the use of guns for self defense....they completely go against the anti gun argument so brain simply dimisses the 40 years of research, by criminologists and economists on the subject by both government and private researchers......I posted a link to the studies.....

Even bill clinton...when he was pushing gun control, hired 2 rabidly anti gun researchers through his Department of Justice...they created a study to disprove Dr. Gary Kleck's work...they created the study....their methods...

And they found that guns are used 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives.....and then spent their entire study trashing their own research....typical anti gun extremists......

I listed that study with the rest.....

 

[2aguy]

You ever ASK them if they have ever used their guns in self defense?

Yes.

Well, statistics work like that. I might know two, you might not know any, someone else might know 6.

There isn't a statistic. Most of them are a myth. They aren't supported by any real statistic.

Then how do you know they are a myth if, as you claim, there are not any hard numbers on them?

I did not say all are a myth. Well we know there are about 230 criminals shot and killed in defense each year. Then there are 50 or so stories that make the news each year. They happen, but not in any significant numbers.

You are a moron.....most self defense with a gun never requires shooting anyone, the criminal runs away or is captured, or shot and captured without a death.....

This is why you are a liar...you know this, and yet you lie.....

 

[2aguy]

Since when you or I are not responsible for the consequences of our accidents?

Mmmm, well, for one, since some one else might be responsible.

If you slip and fall on an icy sidewalk, are you to be held "responsible"? Or the person responsible for clearing the sidewalk of ice?

This is more a person gets pushed and falls. Yes the pusher is responsible.

Who created the dangerous situation of a "icy sidewalk/violent crime" in the two situations?

The pusher and the shooter.

Shooter didn't create the crime. The carjackers did that.

Why do you want to give them a pass for the results of the crime they committed?

You as generous with slumlords who don't clean their sidewalks?

The anti gun extremists don't care about criminal use of guns....they only care if normal law abiding people own guns...why....because they know criminals ignore every single law they pass, so the can't control them. However, normal people, with mortgages, families and real lives.....they will be destroyed by a felony conviction for using a gun improperly and will knuckle under any gun law the extremists pass....

 

[2aguy]

The 2.5 million crimes prevented figure by fire arms include the police.

And no....2 million if you just use the studies that do not include police or military shootings......I pointed that out in my list....

 

[2aguy]

Then how do you know they are a myth if, as you claim, there are not any hard numbers on them?

I did not say all are a myth. Well we know there are about 230 criminals shot and killed in defense each year. Then there are 50 or so stories that make the news each year. They happen, but not in any significant numbers.

You stated that "most of them are a myth".

How do you know that if there are no "real statistics"?

The number of criminals shot and killed obviously leaves out the number of criminals shot and wounded, and the number of times that criminals were deterred with just the presence of a gun.


When you said that "none" of your carry friends have defended themselves, were you only counting the ones that shot and killed criminals in self defense, or all of those that used a gun, in any fashion to defend themselves from a crime?

Well some people claim millions each year. those numbers aren't even mathematically possible based on current crime rates and ownership rates. So if somebody thinks there are millions, than most of those are a myth.

When you said that "none" of your carry friends have defended themselves, were you only counting the ones that shot and killed criminals in self defense, or all of those that used a gun, in any fashion to defend themselves from a crime?

Here is a study of actual confirmed defenses:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters (With Data Tables)

34% ended with death of criminal.

You really are a moron....you know that that is taken from "The Armed Citizen," the NRA site that collects self defense stories...it analyzes the stories they collected you twit.....it isn't actual scientific research.......

Overview
For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected. There were 482 incidents available for inclusion in the analysis. All involved the use of firearms by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. No law enforcement related incidents were included. The database is self-selecting in that no non-positive outcomes were reported in the column.

You are an idiot......the reason those collected stories ended in death...is because the death made it news worthy which put it in the local and national papers you twit. These are only stories that were interesting enough to recieve a mention in local papers or news sources and interesting enough to be picked up by national services...moron.

Again...you know this...and you push it as truth....again, you are a liar....

 

[2aguy]

When you said that "none" of your carry friends have defended themselves, were you only counting the ones that shot and killed criminals in self defense, or all of those that used a gun, in any fashion to defend themselves from a crime?

Any fashion obviously.

"Obviously"? It is the exact opposite of obvious.

YOu have set the standard for everyone else to only count, as defensive uses, those that shoot and kill the criminal(s) in question.

Indeed, it is odd that you would use a different standard for what you count as defensive uses with your friends than you use for the issue at large.

Where did I say that? Have you lost your mind?

Your words.

"Well we know there are about 230 criminals shot and killed in defense each year. Then there are 50 or so stories that make the news each year. They happen, but not in any significant numbers."

Yes I was stating what we know. I didn't state those are the only ones.

You implied it asshole.......

 

[2aguy]

Stop your lying.

YOu used that number to base your conclusion "They happen, but not in any significant numbers".

Yes not in significant numbers, I didn't put a number on it. You are dense.

NO, you're lying.

You made your claim and you are playing games instead of supporting it.

You are the one lying and making things up. Where did I put a number on it?

You have been linked to DOZENS of studies and research that prove that the number is between 750,000 a year to several million. You are just to STUPID to read them.

Well most of those are very old and put in todays numbers would be 30% less. The largest study by the ncvs says 108k.

Brain is lying again....The NCVS, the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a defensive gun use survey....they don't even use the word "gun" in the whole study.....it is a general crime survey done by a government agent wearing a badge in a personal interview format.....

Brain uses the NCVS because, since it isn't a gun use survey, it gets the lowest gun use statistics...and so it is the only study that allows them to lie with statistics.....it would be like doing a survey on going to professional sporting events, and asking if the respondent what they did their ....and if they said they ate and drank... and said an orange drink, using that to say that all of America prefers to orange drinks......

Here is how the Daily Kos, a left wing anti gun site describes the NCVS...

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

 

[2aguy]

Sure it is. It's a general number, and you used it to base your conclusion.

Stop using semantics to lie.

Why do you hold a position that you have to purposefully lie about in order to defend it?

You are the one lying and making things up.

So what is your number?

I already told you. A lot more than you think.

I see so you want to lie and avoid answering questions. Let me know when you grow up.

Hey, I haven't seen you post credible numbers on how many defensive gun uses there are a year.

The largest study was done by the NCVS and arrived at about 108k per year.

It isn't a gun study dipshit......it doesn't even use the word "gun" in it.......

 

[2aguy]

Link and explain why you think that is the best study.

INJURYPREV : Injury Prevention

It is a survey of 90k households. Other surveys are far too small to be accurate.

Really? Plenty of the other surveys I have heard about have sounded large enough to be considered.

ANd 108k a year is hardly " but not in any significant numbers"."

108k is >13x the number of gun-related murders.

Yeah, I was wondering why he kept pretending is was an insignificant number.

108k is also about 1/3 the number of all gun-related crimes.

And you know it is brains bullshit number...the NCVS is not a gun study...doesn't even use the word "gun" in the whole survey...the NCVS can't even accurately get numbers on any of the other crimes it is supposed to study, let alone defensive gun uses which it doesn't study.....

 

[2aguy]

And you just put a large hurdle between the American people and their Right to Self Defense.

A hurdle, yes. But not all that large. I've taken such a training course but in spite of that and my pristine background the State of New Jersey still will not issue a carry permit. That is what is standing between me and my right to bear arms. The training was a minor inconvenience -- but very worthwhile. I learned a great deal from it.

Few of us are so fortunate as to live in the wide open spaces. Most parts of this Nation have become extremely crowded and living in these densely packed places has, because of the rules of Law which attend them, become rather complicated. Becoming involved in a situation which might result in the use of a gun calls for some extremely important conditioned reflexes, which is what a well-structured training course will initiate.

Using a gun often occurs during a situation in which there isn't time to adequately think things over. If one doesn't have a pre-conscious reference for the proper action the chance of making a mistake is greatly enhanced.

Before you may legally drive (own) a car you must be trained not only in how to properly use it but in the rules of the road. Requiring some essential training does not prevent one from driving (owning) a car -- or carrying a gun. It just makes our crowded world safer.

Training requirements are one way the Europeans keep normal people from owning guns.....you have to pass tests and belong to gun clubs over there to even own a hunting shotgun...so no...no mandatory training....

And what if you are poor....or work a lot.......training is not free and it costs time as well....and the anti gun extremists will use any mandatory training requirement to deny the Right...they will slowly build up that requirement that only the rich and powerful will be able to get around it...

 

[2aguy]

What do cars have to do with guns?

Cars and the requirements for legally driving them are analogous to guns and legally carrying them. Both are very dangerous mechanisms which require extensive knowledge to safely, and lawfully, make use of them.

Nope, not even close. Owning a gun is a Right...and any fee or education requirement that makes it impossible to exercise the Right is un constitutional...just like when the democrats created poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from exercising their Right to vote...see...we have already seen how Rights are infringed...we know how it works...

 

[2aguy]

AND anti-guns nuts will take any "reasonable" training requirements and pump it up every chance they get until they put guns out of the reach of all except the rich and powerful, or the criminal class.

Exactly how will these "anti-gun nuts" pump up a simple training requirement to put guns out of the reach of ordinary citizens? How?

If your concern is being able to afford attending a training course, if such courses were widely required they could be made available for a relatively small fee, or they could be federally subsidized. In any case, if one can afford the price of a handgun the price of a required training course would not add substantially to it.

I paid for my course, $44.50, (even though it didn't help me obtain a CCW in New Jersey) and I am by no means wealthy. The fee for the four hour course was $40, plus $4.50 for fifty .38 wad-cutter cartridges.

This is how.....this is how they do it in Europe....

Getting a gun legally in Europe may be hard, but terrorists have little trouble

In contrast with the free-firing United States, Europe is generally seen as a haven from serious gun violence. Here in Denmark, handguns and semiautomatic rifles are all but banned. Hunting rifles are legally available only to those with squeaky-clean backgrounds who have passed a rigorous exam covering everything from gun safety to the mating habits of Denmark’s wildlife.

“There’s a book about 1,000 pages thick,” said Tonni Rigby, one of only two licensed firearms dealers in Copenhagen. “You have to know all of it.”


But if you want an illicit assault rifle, such as the one used by a 22-year-old to rake a Copenhagen cafe with 28 bullets on Saturday, all it takes are a few connections and some cash.

That is how the extremists will exploit any training requirement.....