11/10/2011: Two teens shot to death during home robbery because guns don’t actually help

http://www.adn.com/2011/11/10/2163898/police-say-two-dead-in-apparent.html

Here’s the kind of story gun owners love to point to as a valid excuse for owning a gun.  The problem with their position is that it doesn’t help their position.  We still have a crime, we still have people being shot, and the only way people end up shot is when a gun is used.  I’ve never heard of someone being shot when there isn’t a gun used.  Plus, the robbers chose to carry a gun to make their crime easier.  The best outcome in this situation would have been for nobody to have been shot.  That didn’t happen, and it didn’t happen because so many people are totally blind when it comes to understanding the consequences of our gun culture.  Thanks, NRA!  Thanks, gun owners!  You are awesome <end sarcasm>.

12 Responses

  1. According to the news article, two of the robbers were killed, and the homeowner survived. I fail to see the problem here.

    • So you don’t see anything wrong with people getting shot (and captured) when there could have been nobody shot (but still captured). Neat!

      • When someone breaks into a house and threatens violence against the homeowner, no, I see nothing wrong with the homeowner shooting the thug. Given the circumstances described in the article, had the homeowner been unarmed, he may have been the person to get killed that day. Why do you favor the thug over the innocent person?

  2. So in your world, we’d remove all firearms from the defender’s side of the equation. It was already illegal for them to buy guns (they were under age 21 and both had long records for domestic violence, assaults, and substance abuse) — but somehow they had them, and other weapons as well. Our current gun control was ineffective at disarming the attackers, and even much stricter gun control regimes elsewhere in the world have been equally ineffective at disarming criminals.

    However, let’s postulate for the sake of argument that your theoretical gun-free utopia existed, and all firearms were removed from the situation on both sides. Out of legitimate curiosity, what is the logical outcome in your gun-free utopia when four young men armed with weapons other than firearms kick in an older man’s door after midnight?

  3. Addition as I was unclear — the defender had no disabling record… He has a few traffic offenses and one two decade old misdemeanor arrest for assault.

    The attackers were the ones with records that would likely make them prohibited persons under current law… I was reference them in the second sentence, first paragraph.

  4. Hrmm…
    In what way is self defense a crime?

    “I’ve never heard of someone being shot when there isn’t a gun used.”

    I’m sure the Souix, the French knighthood and Juan Carlos Muñoz would inform you to the contrary.

    Your belief that the absence of firearms would eliminate all violence is, I’m sure, comforting to the Carthaginians. And the Gauls. And the Celts. And everyone living between the Sea of Japan and the Danube under the Mongols.

    • I’ve never argued that no guns = no violence. I argue in favor of making violence more difficult to carry out by getting rid of guns. But then again, those who support gun ownership have never shown much use for reading comprehension.

      • Reading comprehension? The point that Rauthbjorn was making is that the strong have an advantage over the weak. What a firearm does is allow a physically weaker person or group to resist a violent attack. Now, perhaps you support making good citizens go one against four, as in the news article, but I can’t see how that makes sense.

      • So, do you believe that four young men armed with weapons other than manufactured firearms (clubs, crossbows, improvised homemade “zip guns,” knives, etc) would be less likely to commit a home invasion if they lacked a pistol, even if they knew that the lone defender inside was definitely unarmed and more physically frail?

      • Absolutely. Can’t even believe you’re asking that, Chris. As things are made more difficult for the attacker, the less likely they are to become a successful attacker.

  5. Yea! Let’s take away all guns from the general public! Then and only then will we be safe! Look at my home country of Mexico! Guns are completley illegal and and everything is greeeaaaat! Just Grrreeeaaat! I could walk down the street and not worry about getting shot at. Yep, only in Mexico, no worries about anything. Oh wait :/

    I’ll stick to my Rem 870 and show the thug he’s messing with the wrong house. Like I did last night.

    • I think you’re missing my point. It’s impossible to shoot someone without a gun being present. You can’t do it.

      And no you didn’t, but it’s funny that you have to lie to try and make a point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: