Gun Control

[JsGameRoom]

Late response...


But...



I have assault rifles...as well as handguns as well as a couple other things that go bang bang.



They aren't going anywhere

[Ivo]

Please take a second to read:

http://www.wcti12.com/Parmalee-Band-Mem ... index.html

(...)

Just wanted to share a story where a gun saved lives. Yes one was taken, but not much of a loss.

Thanks for the input Luke. It is a particularly nice case because Scott survived and the other band members apparently didn't get shot.

But you can also readily imagine different outcomes. I don't mean to offend with the following "cold", game theory type of analysis.

Scott was sure the criminals were going to kill them anyway, and sadly that may very well be the case. It was 2 against 1 (from my understanding) and the criminals had the initiative, it was quite stacked against Scott. His actions only make sense if there was nothing to lose.

I don't know the statistics, but honestly I think that if the criminals do want to kill everyone in a robbery then I don't know why they would do it after demanding the stuff. If I'm going to kill everyone, I think I would just do it INSTEAD of demanding the stuff and save myself the trouble and lower the risk of resistance. But I can't say I'm an expert!

If Scott was right then he did the best he could. Lets assume for a moment that Scott's evaluation was wrong, perhaps because he was in a stressful situation and the criminals just wanted the stuff without killing anyone. I don't know how strong of an assumption that is, but it will certainly be the case in some similar stories.
The article says Scott fired when his brother was at gunpoint (another factor that could lead to an emotional evaluation rather than a rational one). It is very possible that Scott's brother would get shot and killed.
It is clear that the criminals were very willing to shoot after the first shot, fortunately they turned to Scott and Scott nailed them better. But they could have nailed Scott, or his brother, or be prompted to kill everyone because Scott initiated the gunfire.

I'm not criticising his decision and I too think he is an hero. But in some similar situations the right move is not to act, and having that gun with you may facilitate some emotional and incorrect decisions. In others, having that gun with you is the only chance of survival. It is not clear cut at all, but I respect those that want to keep that decision on their shoulders. My opinion is just that they should be required to overcome some reasonable restrictions to prove that they can handle the responsibility.

Ivo.

[Luke]

Ivo,

You make all rational and very clear headed points.

One thing I neglected to mention is that there were women in the bus as well that the would be thugs also claimed. Yes, stray bullets could have ended up killing not only the band, but other innocents.

With all of my friends who have been through something traumatic, I never ask questions. They'll tell me about it when they feel comfortable. I still haven't even asked my best friend how his young wife died suddenly. Seeing your buddy, even months after the shooting still having to change his "Piss Bags", the best thing you can do is just "be there".

That said, Scott opened up a lot. It was seeing the gun pointed at his brother that made him pull out his gun. The trigger so to speak. But he was sure from the start the thugs would murder them, he was scared to do anything until that moment.

The news got most of the story right, but when a situation like this happens you lawyer up and don't say much directly to the news. All Barry said was "I don't know why this had to happen".

I'm not polar on this issue, I see both sides, but when it gets down to brass tacks taking guns away from innocent people doesn't protect innocent people. Yes, this is only one example, but it is also an eye opener. Some people do use correct judgement.

To play Devil's advocate, I've been jumped (unsuccessfully) and have had a gun pulled on me. Had I been carrying, I wouldn't have pulled my sidearm unless absolutely necessary. I do however have a friend or two who have said "I would have shot the guy. A self made white man shooting in self defense of a black drop out. You would have walked away Scott free".

I don't feel that way. The guilt would always linger and I would have taken a life over a game of Quien es mas macho? The world would be a better place without some people, but I'm not the judge and jury. Not saying I won't kick someone's teeth in, but not because they are an idiot. Threaten my life however with clear intent to actually kill me, different story.

Life isn't screenwriting 101. Just because a gun is drawn doesn't mean it will be fired.

[Ivo]

The claiming of the women (as objects) does much to establish the thugs as people that don't value human life as they should. I am pretty confident your friend did the right thing.

Unlike perhaps many on the "gun control" side, I really don't want to take guns away from people. I think it is a question of controlled access, just like driving.

Perhaps this is crass and I don't know that much about american history, but wasn't the "wild west" basically a place and time where gun control was non-existent, many non-criminals having guns... How was that working out in terms of having less crime? It also certainly led to cases of mob justice and other stuff that I fear arises with easier access to guns.

An additional disclaimer I've been forgetting: I was part of an archery club for a while. So I too like to shoot weapons at targets.

[JsGameRoom]

I carry 99.9% of the places I go.

Only places I don't are federal buildings, banks, schools, Airports..

Any random place I go..I carry. I don't care if it's gun free or not. I'd rather be judged by a jury than dead.

[Luke]

Perhaps this is crass and I don't know that much about american history, but wasn't the "wild west" ....

Not crass at all. The "Wild West" is more than likely 90% fiction.

But damn if some gorgeous guns didn't come out from that era.

[Forlorn Drifter]

Perhaps this is crass and I don't know that much about american history, but wasn't the "wild west" ....

Not crass at all. The "Wild West" is more than likely 90% fiction.

But damn if some gorgeous guns didn't come out from that era.

Literally, I think the that some of the most beautiful things made by human hands are weapons.

The American wild west thing is blown pretty far out of proportion. We commonly see in movies where they go fun the duel, waiting for noon. It was recorded happening once, and even then the details are sketchy. Honestly, the era of the American west wasn't all that long, or eventful. I don't get why they make it seem like such a long, eventful period in so much of the media.

[Luke]

The American wild west thing is blown pretty far out of proportion. We commonly see in movies where they go fun the duel, waiting for noon. It was recorded happening once...

I'd word it as the Wild West is romanticized, not far out of proportion. There were plenty of duels, not just one recording, and one included Alexander Hamilton. That's a big fish to fry.

[Ivo]

Guys, give me some merit here. I know it wasn't like the movies. But there are enough historical records that establish that there was a bunch of criminality.

The point is that there was basically no gun control at all, lots of citizens were carrying weapons. Was the outcome of that near entire lack of gun control:
less gun related criminality or more gun related criminality (including homicides)? I would say the historical indication (apart from the fictionalized accounts of it) points towards "more".

Although it is fair to point out there were many more factors involved, correlation does not imply causation and so on, but I think the availability of guns was a big part of the causation and I think that is a pretty reasonable assertion.

If any historians here would like to chime in I would be really interested in that.

[Jmustang1968]

Guys, give me some merit here. I know it wasn't like the movies. But there are enough historical records that establish that there was a bunch of criminality.

The point is that there was basically no gun control at all, lots of citizens were carrying weapons. Was the outcome of that near entire lack of gun control:
less gun related criminality or more gun related criminality (including homicides)? I would say the historical indication (apart from the fictionalized accounts of it) points towards "more".

Although it is fair to point out there were many more factors involved, correlation does not imply causation and so on, but I think the availability of guns was a big part of the causation and I think that is a pretty reasonable assertion.

If any historians here would like to chime in I would be really interested in that.

I think it was a lack of control and order in general in the wild west. Law enforcement was at the local level and often times the law men were thugs themselves. Lots of corruption as well.