Things like this make me ok with guns. I'm glad this Army guy was carrying

Army specialist wounded robber who tried to hold up his family on the interstate:


WALTERBORO — An Army specialist just home from the Middle East shot and critically wounded a robber who tried to hold up his family after they stopped with car trouble late Thursday, authorities said.

Two other robbers returned fire as they pulled their wounded accomplice into a getaway car and sped away from the McCleod Road crime scene, according to Colleton County Sheriff George Malone. None of the victims were wounded, but their cars were struck by bullets, deputies said.

Deputies located the injured suspect a short time later at Colleton Regional Hospital, where he was being treated for several gunshot wounds, deputies said. David Jayquon Jakes, 19, of Smoaks was later transferred to Medical University Hospital in Charleston, where he remains in intensive care, Chief Deputy Ted Stanfield said.

Investigators obtained arrest warrants to charge Jakes with three counts of attempted armed robbery, three counts of assault with intent to kill, possession of a stolen weapon and possession of a weapon during a violent crime, Malone said.

Investigators have no plans to file charges against the serviceman who shot Jakes, as he had a valid concealed weapons permit and acted in self-defense, Malone said.

link

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

I hate to think how this would have turned out had one of the victims not been carrying his own gun.


on edit: fixed link (I think) and removed a reference to Micheal Moore who I thought was anti-gun - my mistake

He's a card carrying member of the NRA. I don't think he's against guns, he's against a lack of reasonable gun CONTROL.

:shrug:

believed it.

What exactly is reasonable gun CONTROL?

Hard for me to believe that Moore is a member of the NRA given his spin on Columbine. Check out Dave Kopel's take on Moore's "documentary":

"Bowling for Columbine revels in the tabloid-style, raw exploitation of emotion — in promotion of unjustified fear, in falsehoods and quarter-truths, in oversimplification of the problems of race, and in mean-spirited pandering to the audience's bigotry about people of different social backgrounds.

In this way, Bowling subverts its own audience. To participate in Bowling's emotional journey is to surrender to the very same mendacious hate- and fear-mongering that the movie purports to criticize. Liking Bowling for Columbine is no different from liking the sleaziest "news" show on television, except that the audience for the latter doesn't claim to be more aesthetically — or morally — sophisticated than the mainstream American public.

Bowling also subverts elite Hollywood opinion. Imagine if the Academy gave the award for "Best Music — Original Song" to a film that used an unoriginal song, such as "Jingle Bells." Such an award would show that the Oscars are based on Hollywood politics rather than on artistic merit. The presentation of Best Documentary to Michael Moore for a film based on so much untruth has proved the same thing.

Some readers may doubt that Moore intentionally created an entire film whose subtext so thoroughly contradicts its literal text and that so effectively mocks its audience and its creator. My response is that we are long past the era of being chained to an artist's precise intentions. Georgia O'Keefe is said to have denied that her flower drawings were evocative of female genitalia. Does that mean we should pretend that O'Keefe paintings are not overflowing with female genitalia?

The fact is that a mockumentary larded with untruths and brazen self-contradiction is gobbling up documentary prizes: a special award at the Cannes Film Festival, the National Board of Review's "Best Documentary," the International Documentary Association's choice for best documentary ever, and the Academy Award for Best Documentary.

Countless actors and producers may have railed at the Academy for poor taste, but no artist has ever demonstrated the film elite's hyper-partisan preference for political correctness over truth as thoroughly and well as has Michael Moore."

http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2003/Bowling-Truths.htm

Too many people are not good shots.

We need more practice shooting, controlling the guns.

I guess you're A-OK with that too, because it's a lot more common.

That is, the claim that "it's a lot more common" for legal gun owners to use firearms to (attempt) to kill members of their households than it is for them to use firearms to protect members of their households.

I'll wait.

"I'll wait."

I hope you brought a book fully loaded Kindle.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=314775

Australian cops upgun: "(Victoria) Police set sights on faster reloading guns"


Strange that the government in a place that our correspondent repeatedly claims has 'solved' the gun crime problem feels the need to buy 11,000 new large-caliber, high-capacity semiautomatic American handguns for their cops....

Exactly what do you mean by "these people", and what are you trying to imply?

But no surprise, given the source.

He's a card carrying member of the NRA and he owns them. (This state is a hunter's paradise)

It was the prevalence of gun VIOLENCE in America which was the subject of BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE.

I'm sure that if we didn't have our high rate of gun violence, despite our high ownership rate AND those gun massacres never happened, Moore would have made a movie about something else.

He's pretty critical of the widespread ownership of handguns and nonhunting long guns, which is the majority of U.S. gun ownership. It wasn't that overt in BFC, but he's made his position pretty clear in interviews.

...for your statement that the majority of gun ownership is handguns and nonhunting long guns?

Thanks, Scuba

Take me--I own two long guns, but I don't hunt. I use them for home protection and (when I can, which is not at all lately) target shooting.

...I also own a few firearms. Some I hunt with, some for target shooting, some for defense.

Fish and Wildlife says that there were 12.5 million hunters in the US in 2006:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-22-Hunter_N.htm

There's estimated to be between 73 and 100 million gun owners in the US. Taking the lower figure, that's less than one in five.

Like I said, I don't hunt. My father, who also owns a gun, doesn't hunt. I know at least two other people (both Dems) who own guns but don't hunt. I also know a few people who probably do.

We have hard data on the number of Americans who hunt, which is tracked annually, and the Census Bureau releases a report on hunting and fishing every 5 years.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf

They show 12.5 million licensed hunters over the age of 16 as having hunted in 2006 (link, p. 4). If you add in the estimated 1.6 million hunters under 16, you get ~14.1 million active hunters in 2006 (p. 4). For the 5-year period between 2001 and 2006, they found that 18.6 million people hunted at least once during that time.

The consensus around the 'net is that the number of gun owning adults in the United States is about 80 million. So you're looking at a little under 1 in 5 gun owners being an active hunter, and little under 1 in 4 having hunted at any time in a 5-year period.

Over half of those own handguns (I have the cite floating around here somewhere, but don't have it at the moment, sorry), although many and perhaps most handgun owners also own long guns. Somewhere around 16 to 20 million of us own "assault weapons" as defined by H.R.1022 et seq, if you look at the ownership totals of all the guns so defined, but since the definition of "assault weapon" is arbitrary, that number can range anywhere from 4 to 40 million depending on whose definition you use.

About 34.4 million people went target shooting in 2009, about 8.9 million of whom were using AR-15 type rifles and other modern-looking carbines, which dominate both competitive and recreational target shooting in the USA.

http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/releases/2010/041910.cfm

As far as gun sales go, in a typical year, 5 to 9 million gun sales are approved by the NICS Federal background check system (which includes new and used guns sold by dealers, but not private sales between individuals in states that don't require those to go through NICS). This is about evenly split between handguns (mostly semiautomatics) and long guns (also mostly semiautomatics). About 8 or 9 billion (yes, with a "b") rounds of ammunition are sold each year as well, the overwhelming majority of which is expended by recreational target shooters, as hunters would generally fire only a few hundred rounds a year. There was a surge in 2008-2009 due to fears about new proposals for an "assault weapon" ban, leading to 12 million NICS approvals in 2008 and about 14 million in 2009, with 14.033 billion rounds of ammunition sold in 2009 as well.

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/

I don't have citations for this handy, but a single model of rifle, the AR-15 platform, accounts for about 1 in 4 centerfire rifles sold annually. AR-15's are manufactured by approximately 30 companies and are currently the top selling centerfire rifle in the United States.

The top selling ammunition caliber in the USA is .22LR, due to its low cost. I don't have sources handy for this either, but the top selling centerfire rifle calibers are AFAIK .223 Remington (AR-15, mini-14), 7.62x39mm (AK, SKS), and .308 Winchester (M1A, FAL, many target and hunting rifles), in that order. I believe the top selling centerfire handgun caliber is consistently 9mm, though I can't find any sources at the moment.

In most polls as to the reason for owning a firearm, the reasons are consistently (1) defensive purposes, (2) target shooting, (3) hunting, and (4) collecting, in that order. For example:

http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/releases/2010/033110.cfm
http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/NSSFHarris-data-participation.pdf (raw data for above)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx (absolute numbers for all categories are higher than actual participation, but relative order is the same)

And the ramifications of the above with regard to the party position on guns (DU thread from 2004, but I think it's apropos):

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

So you know where I'm coming from, I'm a gun owner and nonhunter who shoots recreationally, competitively when I can (USPSA pistol and carbine), and holds a CHL. I'm not opposed to hunting and am interested in going someday, I just don't really have the opportunity to do so.

OP link didn't work for me:
EDIT post and courier doesn't seem to like direct links:

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/

I'm glad it worked out without the victims getting harmed but seems kind of dumb to me. He could have just let them have the car/trailer and only used his weapon had they attempted to harm his wife or mother-in-law.

Crooks learn to establish control and MAINTAIN control as part of the crime. The longer you wait to resist, the greater the crook's control will be, and the more difficult it will be to do anything later.

he had the choice of letting them take the crap and hoping that would be the end of it or acting and taking his chances. Had he waited they could have easily killed them, assaulted his wife etc and he'd be at a disadvantage because I don't think they'd take from them and not dominate-put them all on the floor, hand's above their heads etc.

He lucked out the other gunmen didn't kill him, his wife and mother-in-law, he's lucky he spooked/shocked them when they probably weren't looking for a shootout.

he had the choice of letting them take the crap and hoping that would be the end of it or acting and taking his chances.

I'm not willing to trust the good intentions of some one who is willing to use a gun to rob me.

Should he have "let" them rape his wife/MIL to avoid a confrontation? Should he have "let" them beat his kids?

There is no guarantee, once you "give" something away, or "let" them have it, they won't shoot and kill the victims, or physically do harm in some way. This guy acted correctly.

I carry strictly for self-defense. As this article proves, you NEVER know when the threat will come.

words mean and how when you put them together they form thoughts won't agree but you broke my code.

He should have just let them have his property? Like this guy did, I suppose:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x320484

(For those who don't want to follow the link, he gave up his watch, bracelet, cell phone, and just-cashed paycheck, and was received a couple of bullets for his cooperation.)

Criminals do NOT have your best intentions at heart.

physical/sexual assault is going to end up with you being killed. How many people are wounded killed resisting for 'stuff', was it worth it?

I don't have time to look up the citation now, but I've posted it before. I'll look it up later if you request it.

If one knew for sure that giving up your car, trailer or a box of tissues would satisfy a thug, then yes, let 'em have that stuff, and take your losses. But if some leering blow-hole refers to a family member as "pretty lady," there may have been something else on the agenda.

Some of these crimes involving robberies, break-ins, home invasions, jackings, etc., are about "juice," not stuff. That is, the thug can go home to his den/nest and spread the word he "capped some bitch," or let his load out in her. This seems to be the stuff of street cred.

I for one don't wish to be the object of someone's street cred.

This is a guns-as-solution-to-guns story.

Zero points awarded.

Explain how they did that.

The guns take over the minds of their vics man. It's, like, rad dude.

I can't prove it, man. Our technology is, like, too crude. But like, the aliens, they showed me the rays when I was on the ship. They had this screen and you could, like see them. They shimmered. It was cool, but creepy too. You know what I mean, man?

Really dude, like, I swear. Everyone laughs at me, but the aliens are real dude. They, like changed my life man. Now I'm enlight... enlightened man. I'm transcendental and crap. I totally, like totally get gun control.

We have to, like stop the supply, man... make them scarce. That's what ET said.

Like wow man , like , you guys sure get all like, philosophical and shit .

...maybe we can't lose!

I'll bet it's got something to do with quantum physics vibrating the silicate sheaths in our synapses or something. And since I'm a Sagittarius and an INTP it's easier for me to be sensitive to the karma emitted by collective consciousness of all those guns. If you truly believe you can just say no to somebody kicking the shit out of you.

:rofl:

Your gun demanded better............

Temperatures in the safe?

A more comfortable surface to lay on?

Bartok piped in?

Better companionship?

:shrug:

Luckily, for the victims, they were able to fend of these savages because at least one of them was armed as well. Had the gangsta-wannabes been the only ones with guns, this story would have ended quite differently.

We're missing some points in the other category, snap to it.

"guns as a solution to guns," as if it's a bad idea. In fact, unless you believe (which you're free to, of course) that one should never resist violence or criminal activity that threatens one, a gun IS, in fact, the best solution. It allows you to keep your distance from said threat and evens the odds between younger/stronger/faster/drugged up criminals and...well, everyone else.

As has been said before; unless you have a magical solution that will remove every gun everywhere AT THE SAME TIME, all your wish would accomplish is to make victims less able to resist and even more at the mercy of criminals.

For my money, that's just not worth it.

That being said I completely respect your right not to own a gun and not to resist; and I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in a situation where the question even comes up.

put on your cape and wave your wand vigorously.

If you succeed you will eliminate all firearms everywhere.

Of course, after that you will have to invent another spell to make it impossible to make more firearms. That spell may be far more difficult than the first.



Good luck, Merlin.

will get their guns anywhere they can. Even from cops.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=cops+gun+stolen&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2

who gave it it's authority and power all the time, so it's a mystery to me how those who would ban arms for self defense support their position.

Incidents like the OP are proof that law abiding citizens who wish to defend themselves have a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as PA said in 1776 and VT in 1777.

Those three adjectives "natural", "inherent", and "inalienable/unalienable" had unambiguous meaning to the founders of this nation.

"Natural" clearly meant then and now, a right that did not depend upon a few words printed on paper or read from a teleprompter or proclamation made by some divinely anointed ruler.

"Inherent" clearly meant then and now, a right that it was part of being a human.

"Inalienable/unalienable" meant then and now, a right that could never be given away, e.g. no person could agree to become a slave.

With a simple history like that I don't understand how the anti-RKBA contingent reach their misguided conclusion that in essence makes them pro-criminal and anti-victim.