Why we need less gun control

[Embar Angylwrath]

Darwin Award

We have a winner...!

The following mind-boggling attempt at a crime spree in Washington appeared to be the robber's first (and last), due to his lack of a previous record of violence, and his terminally stupid choices:

1. His target was H&J Leather & Firearms, a gun shop specializing in handguns.

2. The shop was full of customers - firearms customers.

3. To enter the shop, the robber had to step around a marked police car parked at the front door.

4. A uniformed officer was standing at the counter, having coffee before work.

Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a hold-up, and fired a few wild shots from a .22 target pistol. The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire, the police officer with a 9mm Glock 17, the clerk with a .50 Desert Eagle, assisted by several customers who also drew their guns, several of whom also fired.

The robber was pronounced dead at the scene by Paramedics. Crime scene investigators located 47 expended cartridge cases in the shop. The subsequent autopsy revealed 23 gunshot wounds. Ballistics identified rounds from 7 different weapons.

No one else was hurt in the exchange of fire.

If more people used and became more proficient in gun handling, that percentage oh hits to misses would have improved. Since only 23 of the 47 shots hit the guy, that means the accuracy rate was an unacceptable 49%. However, since I like to focus on the positive aspect of incidents such as this, it loooks like most everyone got off at least one round into the guy.

[Trollbait]

Priceless

[Mozmonar]

If more people used and became more proficient in gun handling, that percentage oh hits to misses would have improved. Since only 23 of the 47 shots hit the guy, that means the accuracy rate was an unacceptable 49%. However, since I like to focus on the positive aspect of incidents such as this, it loooks like most everyone got off at least one round into the guy.

That is a not very accurate account of an actual event. It is based in fact but has been exaggerated significantly.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp

[Trollbait]

The snopes account does not make it any less priceless.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Moz...

I lifted the account from Snopes, word for word, without modification.

[Mozmonar]

Moz...

I lifted the account from Snopes, word for word, without modification.

May I suggest you read the Snopes account of where the email differs from reality.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ahh.. correct. My bad.

[Fobbon Lazyfoot]

.50 Desert Eagl

ow

[Narith]

And had gun control been in place (lets say England style) the crook would have entered, with a gun, promptly shot the officer and several others, no one would be able to return fire as all law abiding citizens would not have a gun... oh and this probably would have taken place in a coffee shop...

Just because drugs are illegal doesn't mean I can't get my hands on them, same applies to guns.

[Ddrak]

Because gun crime in England is so much higher than the US? Oh wait...

There's almost no correlation between the availability of guns to the general population and the rate of violent crime. Hypothetical arguments that go "what if..." are just silly on this subject because it's generally a cultural thing - people just don't go out and get a gun when they go loopy in the UK (or Australia, or Japan) in general and people that have an interest in guns are usually considered strange enough to keep an eye on.

In a sense the hypotheticals of "what if there was no one with a gun to stop XXX" and "what if XXX had never been able to get a gun in the first place" tend to balance out and make the whole gun debate a big senseless mess.

Dd

[jookkor]

I bet all misses were from the cop.

[Aabe]

And had gun control been in place (lets say England style) the crook would have entered, with a gun, promptly shot the officer and several others, no one would be able to return fire as all law abiding citizens would not have a gun... oh and this probably would have taken place in a coffee shop...

Just because drugs are illegal doesn't mean I can't get my hands on them, same applies to guns.

Can England cops use tasers?

[Syeni Soulslasher MK6]

This is a poor example for advocating less gun controll.

but it is still funny....

Fuck Gore,

[Aabe]

Because gun crime in England is so much higher than the US? Oh wait...

There's almost no correlation between the availability of guns to the general population and the rate of violent crime. Hypothetical arguments that go "what if..." are just silly on this subject because it's generally a cultural thing - people just don't go out and get a gun when they go loopy in the UK (or Australia, or Japan) in general and people that have an interest in guns are usually considered strange enough to keep an eye on.

In a sense the hypotheticals of "what if there was no one with a gun to stop XXX" and "what if XXX had never been able to get a gun in the first place" tend to balance out and make the whole gun debate a big senseless mess.

Dd

Seems I recall more murders are committed with bare hands, it would be interesting to see a breakdown on what you are calling violent crime, since using a gun against someone that doesnt have a gun is kind of a dicey deal in court.

[Relbeek Einre]

The gun control debate is a big fat red herring.

[Syeni Soulslasher MK6]

This is an area I belive the Dem have failed.

The Brady Bill would have worked if they fucking enforced it, instread chose not to enforce it and claim how it wasn't strict enuff....

Again Fuck Gore

[Mozmonar]

This is an area I belive the Dem have failed.

The Brady Bill would have worked if they fucking enforced it, instread chose not to enforce it and claim how it wasn't strict enuff....

Again Fuck Gore

The Brady Act was doomed from the start to be practically useless. There is no way the Brady Act would have had a dramatic impact on violent crime no matter how strictly enforced.