Hey, there! Log in / Register
Would a gun have saved that lady in South Boston?
By adamg on Fri, 10/14/2005 - 12:55pm
Bruce blames Tom Menino for the death of Jean Lampron, because Menino supports limits on gun ownership and Bruce somehow knows that Lampron would been packing if not for Menino.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Would She Have Had A Gun?
Probably not. But I think Bruce's point probably has to do more with the fact that she could have had a gun, and that a criminal might be deterred by the risk of being shot.
If you are thinking about robbing someone, even someone who appears harmless, you may think twice if there's a possibility she may have a weapon (or any other means to adequately defend herself).
Eliminating the chance that someone can defend him or herself only serves to make criminals more self-assured and bold.
Has that theory worked in Texas?
Apparently not.
Man, Oh Straw Man!
Adamg-
I presume with your link to Texas' crime statistics, you want me (and the rest of your readers) to think something along these lines:
"Well, since guns are more readily available in Texas and the crime rate has gone up, then guns must be causing crime!"
Sorry, but an elementary statistics class would show you that's a fallacy. For example, I could just as easily say "since guns are more readily available in Texas and the population has gone up, then guns must be causing births!" It's nonsense.
Additionally, if you browsed some of the other states on the website you linked to above, you might have seen the following:
1. Massachusetts
2. New Hampshire
Notice that the crime trends between those two states per 100,000 people is fairly similar. NH has lower crime overall, but the two states trend similarly. Using your (flawed) logic above, those trends could mean that "Since weapons permits are more readily available in New Hampshire and they have comparable trends in crime, it's obvious that the weapons have nothing to do with the statistics."
But I'm not making that argument because it's a flawed one.
If you want to talk about factors that contribute to crime, I'm happy to do that. Don't insult your fellow readers and myself by having the presumption that you can defend a position with nothing more than a rhetorical question and a straw man argument.
I look forward to hearing a better, more formalized argument based upon fact rather than presumption.
Fair enough
Yeah, it was a rhetorical cheap shot. However: The original argument is something along the lines of "If the perp knew the old lady walking alone in an alley *might* have a gun, he'd be less likely to jump her and cause her to have a fatal heart attack, and since Tom Menino opposes more widespread gun ownership, therefore he is to blame for emboldening punks and so responsible for the poor woman's death."
Please show me the proof to back up this sort of argument.
There Is No Proof
because we're getting pretty far into the hypothetical realm.
To assert that the woman would have fared better if she had a gun (or stun gun, or pepper spray, or whatever) is most likely false. She probably still would have had the heart attack and eventually died. Your heart doesn't care what you hold in your hand- you're still going to have a heart attack if you're excited.
In fact, I don't like the idea of being painted into the same corner as Bruce. I think his argument was as much of a straw man argument as was your original assertion. To say that Tom Menino is directly at fault makes too many assumptions for my taste, and I'm unwilling to defend it. What I was trying to do was be a bit more moderate - less extreme in today's hyperpolarized America. The goal was to take the edge off Bruce's statement and replace it with something a bit less caustic.
What I do believe is that, in the most general sense, when all else is equal, a society where non-criminals can obtain weapons will discourage the criminal element from personally attacking the citizenry.
Let's cut to the chase: what this really boils down to is the 2nd Amendment. Right now, it's still on the books. If some Massachusetts residents have that much of a problem with it, maybe they should try to get it repealed. But until that happens, we all have to deal with the Constitution as written, like it or not.
That theory has worked in Texas
I've lived in AZ, TX, SC, FL, WA, and CA. And believe me, you'll think twice about comitting a violent act against someone in AZ or WA. The violent crime rate is not higher there than it is in MA. However, you can be reasonably sure a that a buuegy weak liberal in MA is not packing (in short you can smack them), but you would not try that in AZ or you'll quite possibly be shot. Mass liberals and their foolish gun laws are just the tip of the iceberg. Follow a MA liberal around sometime and you will get to see all the way to the bottom of the well of human stupidity.
Dude
Go back to Texas. They'll appreciate your shit a lot more there.
So, what happens when
So, what happens when criminals steal guns from law-abiding gun owners? Or if there's a situation in which both the criminal and the potential victim have guns? I would think that, in most cases, the criminal would have more experience with a gun. What happens if a witness happens to have a gun, tries to shoot at the criminal, and ends up shooting the victim or a bystander instead?
what if what if
Bottom line: If attacked, I'd rather have a gun than not have a gun. Having better skills than a criminal is easy, just take a few gun classes (something a responsible gun owner should do anyway).
Isn't it important to
Isn't it important to consider the whatifs? Situations don't always unfold in predictable ways. And you can "just take a few gun classes," but what about, like, 64-year-old ladies?
the whatifs
"Isn't it important to consider the whatifs? Situations don't always unfold in predictable ways."
That's right, and that's why you may want to have a gun. I don't mean that it a flippant way.
" And you can "just take a few gun classes," but what about, like, 64-year-old ladies?"
Your point is not without merit, which is why it is better to have a polite society, so to speak, that isn't built on widespread gunownership. We are, however, far from being such a society and that's why I think I should have the right to purchase, keep and bear arms. Actually, I think I should have that right even if we were such a polite society.
It is far more likely that a
It is far more likely that a citizen would have far more experience with shooting a gun then a criminal. Criminals typically don't practice shooting (only pointing). Citizens who carry guns typically go threw formal training and frequently practice firing the gun, as apposed to looking at it and freighting liberals with it.
This is silly. I'm in favor
This is silly. I'm in favor of keeping and bearing, but there's no reason to distort basic crime stats facts.
Ultimately, it's not about gun laws as much as it is about demographics. MA and NH (particularly) have favorable demos, and thus lower crime rates than a state like Texas.
Actually...
If she had a gun in the home, the chances would be much higher that the gun would be used to unintentionally kill someone in the residence with permission -- most likely a child -- rather than that it would be used to defend the residence.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
hardly
There were 78 unintentional firearm fatalities among children 14 and under in 2000 (including fatalities outside of homes), among some 40 million gunowning households.
I think the argument your thinking of is this:
" A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. "
I think you can spot the flaws.
More stats please?
How many total people were killed by firearms in the United States in (any year of your choice within the last 10 years)?
Out of these, how many of these shootings were ruled justified homicide (or likely would have been, if they didn't go to court for whatever reason)?
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
I have a better idea: If you
I have a better idea: If you want that stat, you find it. Just keep this in mind when you feverishly go looking for it: A displayed gun can ward off an attack without being fired. As can a gun that fires rounds not aimed at the perp. And those are just two of the flaws in the argument I mentioned.
I'm so tired of blaming the Gov't for EVERYTHING
Is it Menino's fault my new shoes gave me a blister? If the streets were carpeted, I could wear slippers and not shoes that pinch.
Damn you Menino!!!
Damn that waiting period!
Damn that waiting period! Maybe Jean Lampron had actually purchased a gun, but was waiting for her background check to be completed when this unfortunate event occurred.
re:damn that waiting period
but she didn't so get that thought out of you head
Damn that waiting period
Really? When did they start a waiting period in Massachusetts? The Commonwealth is exempt from the so-called "Brady Law," for instance.
Sarcasm
Sarcasm obviously doesn't travel well over the net. ;-) I wasn't serious. It's just that these anti-gun-control folks will find any way to blame pro-gun control folks on crimes and I was kind of making fun of that.
Well, you know...
It would have been Harvey Leonard's fault if she'd died shovelling snow.
===========================
From the brains behind http://www.bigdumptruck.com
Guns Suck
Guns are bad no matter what happens. The obviously best way to prevent crime is better police and education. If anybody thinks guns are good, then move to new hampshire.
Ignorance
Guns are bad no matter what happens. The obviously best way to prevent crime is better police and education. If anybody thinks guns are good, then move to new hampshire.
Apparently you've never lived in or been in a bad neighborhood. You've never seen a carjacking or mugging. You've never been in a store when it was being robbed. Before you make such comment from the comfort of your parents basement, consider the fact that there are law abiding Americans who live in worse conditions than you. Where violent crime is a fact of life. People like you who never have and never will serve their country should move to Canada.
Assumptions
You're making a LOT of assumptions about someone who's given very little personal background. I personally grew up in a neighborhood where friends were shot, I spent an evening in a lockdown at my high school following a shooting on campus, and was witness to quite a lot of community violence. And I'm completely against guns. It's really not that uncommon for people to be against guns because we HAVE seen how they ruin lives.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Correction
"It's really not that uncommon for people to be against guns because we HAVE seen how they ruin lives."
Actually, eeka, what you have seen is how CRIMINALS can ruin lives using guns, despite the pages and pages of firearms laws written to supposedly prevent them from doing so.
You have every right to be anti-gun, and I will defend your right to feel that way. I just choose to be anti-criminal, instead.
Swimming pools have claimed considerably more innocent lives than legally owned firearms have. Are you against swimming pools as well, knowing the damage they ahve done to our communities.
A gun is a tool - nothing more. It is only as safe or as dangerous as the person controlling it. Does it bother you that the state has no restrictions in place to prevent convicted felons from buying chain saws at Home Depot? I'd rather see a million law-abiding gun owners carrying concealed weapons in public than one crackhead with a 14" Husqvarna.
I've heard this before
I love the comparison between swimming pools and guns. Just for the record, I believe pools do not exist solely to expel a projectile a a speed sufficient to wound or kill someone or something. A gun's sole purpose? To kill.
===========================
From the brains behind http://www.bigdumptruck.com
What does that tell you...
...when a tool, designed specifically for the taking of lives, is involved in fewer "accidental" deaths than an innocent recreational device, such as a swimming pool?
Cars weren't designed to kill people either, yet in the hands of reckless individuals - with no respect for the law, their misuse contributes to thousands of deaths a year.
Passing onerous gun control laws that disarm the law-abiding citizenry makes about as much sense as taking cars away from sober people to curb drunk driving fatalities. The criminals are UNAFFECTED by such laws.
I'll spare you all the cut-and-paste job
Intersting (and wide-ranging) commments. My responses posted this morning here.
-Bruce
It probably would have
It probably would have helped her get arrested, but at least she'd be alive. With all the liberal policies in this state, the victims wind up being wrong most of the time(in the liberal mind). Had she shot and killed the scumbag, there would have been a line of liberals telling us how he ws "at-risk" "just turning his life around" "couldn't find a detox" "the federal and state government didn't do their part for him", and she would probably do time in Framingham.
guns still suck
that was the correct assumption of me. I'm 14 years old, and have lived my whole life in wellesley and brookline. Very safe places. I once expirienced a store being robbed, but thats the worst. I'm well aware of violent crime and such, so i think its ok i hate guns.
Also, why would i want to serve this country? I'd rather be in Boston, than dying in Iraq.
Give yourself another 20 years, you'll see the light.
I'm well aware of violent crime and such, so i think its ok i hate guns.
If a gang member shoots some kids in a drive-by shooting, does that make you hate cars?
Guns are inanimate objects with no will of their own. By declaring your hatred for guns in response to violent crime, you are transferring the blame for said crime from the criminal, where it belongs, to the piece of metal and plastic in his hand.
If you get rid of the guns, the criminals will still be among us, preying on their victims with machetes, knives, bats, etc.
Rendering the innocent victims defenseless (aka: the Massachusetts Solution) certainly doesn't help the situation any. And the police will NOT always arrive in time to save you from becoming a victim.
Now, if I were to awaken to the sounds of someone trying to kick in my front door in the middle of the night, you can bet your ass the first thing I'd do would be to have my wife call 911. But that would be immediately followed by getting my wife and kids into a safe room and covering their position with my .45 trained on the front steps.
You're free to be afraid of, and hate, my gun all you want. And I sincerely hope the methfiend breaking my door down shares that fear with you. Personally, I'll be thanking God I'm armed and willing to do whatever is necessary to defend my wife and children.
Like I said, give yourself time. You'll come around.
Sound Reasoning
Once you get past the hyperbole and statistic slinging this remains.
Put your self in the place of the criminal in question.
You are going to mug and rob someone.
If you have your choice of targets who do you pick?
Male or female? Likely choice female.
Old/ infirmed/ crippled/ out of shape or prime of life fighting trim? Likely choice Old/ infirmed/ crippled/ out of shape.
Someone your know is armed and trained how to use deadly force or someone unarmed and defenseless? Likely choice unarmed and defenseless.
This is the thought process that goes through criminals minds. They are predators. Predators look for weakness and avoid strength. This is their best chance or being sucessful and avoiding injury.
This is why you hear about defenseless old ladies being preyed upon.
Allowing a citizen a last resort means of defending his or her life, preventing rape, etc. really should not be controversial.
i never said criminals were good
OK, maybe i'm a little young to be tellin you what to do about guns and yes maybe i havn't encountered a lot of crime and I see what your talkin about the car, but i never said criminals are OK. Guns are major resource for criminals and a lower percantage of people use it for good. Cars are used a higher percantage of the time by non criminals. So even though the car helps equal during the crime, they are worse because of the people who use it most often.
Guns kill easier than bats or such, and if you take guns away from both, then both don't die, but yet the criminal ends up in prison, and the victim is still alive.
If you alow all to have dangerous weapons, then you get Iraq, where both the guilty and inocent die at a high rate which is worse than both dying at a lesser rate.
If people were taught more to use guns in defense, this would help, but its hard to get everyone to follow that and if it doesn't work, we get an increase in crime.
This is the major flaw in
This is the major flaw in the gun control argument. That by creating laws, the criminals will obey these laws and crime will be reduced
Criminals are criminals because they do not obey the laws, making more law will not make them law abiding.
Gun laws only hurt those that obey them
The more laws the more the balance shifts in the criminals favor
soon only the criminal will have guns
Are you all crazy?
Those who even think that guns are a deterent of violent crime rather than one of the main causes of it are just plain ignorant, or just republican (which is twice as bad). Those of you who think that she should have a gun as protection surely must also believe then if every one had guns then we would all cancel each other out and no one would dare attack one another? Madness! What then happens when someone accidently bumps into a twitchy sort and they "bust a cap in his ass"? This is one loopy country!!
Actually What's Crazy Is..
The idea that it is better that only criminals have access to firearms.
Please review my previous post "Sound Reasoning" let me know if you disagree. A criminal predator wants safe easy targets, you would guarantee exactly that.
Your world would assure that an old lady who appears otherwise defenseless is in fact just that.
Clearly firearms have a legitimate role as defensive weapons, the bodyguards of the mayor/ senators/ governor/ president/ captains of industry/ other assorted rich and powerful persons all have them. Why then should an elderly person without the financial wherewithal to hire paid bodyguards be denied the ability to carry a firearm to defend them?
Criminals commit crimes. This obvious fact needs stating because the liberal "logic" seems to be "if firearms are illegal no one will have access to them". Surely laws regarding prohibition, the recreational drugs, heck even copyright protection, show that outlawing the possession of alcohol, drugs, pirated CD's, guns, does not stop a criminal who is intent on breaking the law anyway.
Look, the bottom line is this, if law abiding defenseless persons that have no other recourse, ie: they cannot move to a better neighborhood, cannot hire bodyguards, cannot stay locked up in their homes, cannot become martial arts experts, et al, those people, should and do have every right (and the responsibility) to carry a firearm and have the use of deadly force in defense of their life. You have every right to choose not to do so.
Loopy for sure
You don't even realize that your the reason...
Where's the argument?
Correction: Those who think guns are a deterrent of violent crime are those who have taken the time to become educated about the issue, regardless of their past associations, affiliations or prejudices. As to your second point, it is unnecessary to generalize from one armed robbery to every other situation. Just to wish EVERY victim of a violent crime had the tools to halt that crime is enough. The world would certainly be a better place if all violent crime could be stopped, and trained and judicious use of a firearm is frequently a good way to do just that.
Self-defense is not crazy.
"Those who think guns are a deterrent of violent crime" are not crazy but rather those who have taken the time to become educated about the issue, regardless of their past associations, affiliations or prejudices. Many liberal analysts are surprised by what they find, once they do their homework. As to your second point, it is fallacy to generalize from one armed robbery to every other dangerous situation. Just to wish EVERY victim of a violent crime had the tools to halt that crime is enough. The world would certainly be a better place if all perpetrators of violent crime could be de-animated prior to the conclusion of the crime. Plus, it is harder to appeal a death sentence while it is being immediately carried out by the victim during commission of a violent crime.
So, why didn't she have one?
Y'all are blaming gun control for her not having a gun. Can anyone actually point to a reason that she had been prevented from purchasing a gun? Did she have a violent felony record or some other reason that prevented her from legally purchasing a gun? Or did she just not have a gun because she didn't want one?
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Y'all are blaming gun
Y'all are blaming gun control for her not having a gun.
Honestly, how many times must this be explained to you?
Ugh, blogs eh? I like
Ugh, blogs eh? I like old-skewl forums better...
Wish more folks would at the very least take a NRA safety class. I think everybody involved in gun control discussions should handle and fire a handgun correctly.
-B