Armed Aggression Disguised as DGU

[mikeb302000]

Last week over at The Truth About Guns, Robert asked the following question.

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/08/robert-farago/question-of-the-day-have-you-ever-felt-you-needed-a-gun-and-didnt-have-one/">Have You Ever Felt You Needed A Gun and Didn’t Have One?

Commenter Josh offered this.

Within 5 minutes of getting off the bus at the station, a drunk and presumably cracked out homeless man came running at me swinging a 2×4. I was sick, tired, and in a place i’d never been. Adrenaline started pumping, and I started thinking about how I was gonna avoid getting hit in the head with this 2×4.

When the guy got about 3ft from me, he just stopped dead in his tracks, laughed, burped, and walked off the otherway.

After reading a dozen similar stories, I responded.

Doesn’t the fact that you lived to talk about it indicate that in fact you didn’t need a gun? Doesn’t the fact that you and Robert and others are looking back on situations you all survived and admit that you wish you’d been armed, say something about your fear and paranoia and insecurity?

I think it does.

These are the worst kind of examples. These should be posted on my site as proof that you are paranoid. The ones you need here are the guys who were shot or killed when they were not carrying. Those would make your point for you. But what you’ve got here is quite the opposite.

In reflecting back on this exchange, I've taken it one step further. We all agreed that the ones who truly did have a need for a gun are dead and can't tell their tale. I guess that was some kind of reluctant acquiescence on their part although not one of the commenters or moderators said I was right or that I had a point.

The next logical question is,

What would have happened if you'd been armed?

Since we now know that every one of the past scary situations described was one in which no gun was needed for survival, we can conclude that ANY use of the gun would have been unnecessary and therefore criminal. That would be from simple brandishing to killing someone.

One more logical step: EVERY one of those cases in which the gun came out unnecessarily, would have been called a legitimate Defensive Gun Use. What else is a gun owner to do? It's not his fault when someone gets too close to him or scares him in some way. In describing it to the police afterwards, naturally he'd feel justified since he'd felt his life was in jeapardy.

Robert Farago calls his readers and commenters "The Armed Intelligentsia." I feel there's good reason for that. As a group they are intelligent and knowledgeable, they continually reinforce the importance of training and gun safety. I've described them as "fanatical," which, I don't know if they realized it, was a compliment.

If among such superior examples of gun ownership, and I mean that sincerely, we have such a bleak picture of the uselessness of carrying a gun, imagine how much worse it is among the general gun-owning public.

Guns are bad news and concealed carry makes it worse.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[pennylane100]

1. I do not own a gun but I think it is OK to own one if a person needs to feel safe.

I totally disagree with your statement (at least I think it was your statement, I am a little tired and this will be my last post) "Doesn't the fact that you lived to talk about it indicate that you didn't need a gun" There could have been many reasons that the person lived to talk about, that is not the point. If you are in a situation where you feel that your safety and the safety of your family is at stake, you certainly have the right to take measures to protect yourself. If some cases, that means being armed.

People that live in high crime neighborhoods should not have to dread walking home at night and if a gun makes them feel safer, even if they never have to use it, they are certainly entitled to carry one. If some crack addict is breaking into your house in the middle of the night and you think that he will kill you before the police arrive, a gun would certainly come in handy.

I do not have a problem banning assault weapons and strict licensing laws and whatever gun laws that are needed to make us safer but before you start asking ordinary law abiding citizens to put put away their guns, you need come up with a much better way of ensuring their safety. There are hundreds of thousands of gang members in this country and most of them are heavily armed. Deal with that problem first. Take the addicts of the streets by giving them access to legal drugs so they do not need to kill for their next fix.

Deal with the reasons why ordinary people feel the need to arm themselves before lecturing them about why they should not own guns.

[LAGC]

2. Very well said.

Seems some people think that if we could just magically snap our fingers and get rid of all guns, crime would no longer be a problem.

If these gun control activists were really concerned about crime, they'd target the true causes of crime (poverty, the misguided "war on drugs", etc.), not the symptoms (gun violence).

[mikeb302000]

3. thanks for the thoughtful comment, pennylane.

I don't know if you got my point, though. I'm not contesting that people would feel safer with a gun in certain situations, or that it COULD come in handy. I'm saying that in the examples I referenced, no gun was necessary to result in survival. Had guns been available in each of those situations, I believe there would have been unnecessary violence.

Furthermore, the idea that life-saving moments using a gun are less common that often claimed, you've got to conclude that guns do more harm than good.

That's my idea.

[Glassunion]

12. But those examples hardly encompass the whole. They are just that... Two examples.

You are also making the assumption that had guns been available in those 2 small examples that there WOULD have been unnecessary violence. Take the instance of the dude with the 2x4. Are you saying that for a fact that the individual, had he had a gun would have killed the homeless man? You cannot say that. I could say that had he had a gun, he would have simply drawn the weapon and ordered the homeless man to stop without firing a shot and ending without any violence. But my comment, like yours is not true. Neither of us have a crystal ball.

"Furthermore, the idea that life-saving moments using a gun are less common that often claimed," I'm sure you can point to a source that backs up your claim.

"you've got to conclude that guns do more harm than good." without citing a source from your prior comment, your conclusion is baseless.

I see where you are coming from. However, the flaw in your logic is that you are not taking into account those who did indeed survive, however are no less assaulted.

The upstanding citizen who did this, was only after her $18. This woman will have lasting injuries for the rest of her life.


No one knows why this happened. Nothing was take,no words were exchanged. She was drug from her home and beaten in her front yard. This woman will have lasting injuries for the rest of her life.


This was a robbery. He did not fight back. His odds were 8 to 1. He will also have lasting injuries.


This was also a robbery. Looks pretty good for a having reconstructive surgery on his face. He has permanent hearing damage. One eye socket, and his sinus cavity had to be replaced with prosthesis. Notice the breathing tube under his shirt. He will have lasting injuries.


This young man was beaten, tortured, urinated on and whipped with his own belt. For 4 hours. They took his coat, MP3 Player and cash only after he passed out. He will have lasting injuries.


From one who has been in a similar situation, I fear that you are not seeing it in a real sense. I still carry my injuries to this day and I will for the rest of my life. If not for luck however, I would be dead. Of that fact I have no doubt.

But, my question for you. My odds in my attack were 3 to 1. I did fight back, however was not strong enough and it eventually led to me being forced to lay on the ground while getting kicked and punched in the face and body, unable to fight back. Would I have been right to defend myself against permanent injuries with lethal force before it got to that point?

[spin]

18. A picture is worth a thousand words ...

You posted five and in my opinion they are far more effective than 5000 words.

Thanks.

[rrneck]

38. I am comstantly amazed

at the patience exhibited by the "knuckle dragging gunnies" in responding to such blatent self promotional flamebait not worthy of more than a two word dismissal.

[ileus]

4. I cleaned my Compact 45 last night....I love that gun.

[Atypical Liberal]

5. So unless you actually DIE, your fears are completely unfounded?

After reading a dozen similar stories, I responded.

Doesn’t the fact that you lived to talk about it indicate that in fact you didn’t need a gun? Doesn’t the fact that you and Robert and others are looking back on situations you all survived and admit that you wish you’d been armed, say something about your fear and paranoia and insecurity?

I think it does.

I think that's a load of shit.

What is the thesis here? That unless you actually die from a violent encounter your fears of assault are completely unfounded? That unless you actually die from an assault you shouldn't be carrying a firearm?

In reflecting back on this exchange, I've taken it one step further. We all agreed that the ones who truly did have a need for a gun are dead and can't tell their tale. I guess that was some kind of reluctant acquiescence on their part although not one of the commenters or moderators said I was right or that I had a point.

The next logical question is,

What would have happened if you'd been armed?

Since we now know that every one of the past scary situations described was one in which no gun was needed for survival, we can conclude that ANY use of the gun would have been unnecessary and therefore criminal. That would be from simple brandishing to killing someone.

The simple truth of the matter is, no one has to wait until they are actually being assaulted to defend themselves with deadly force. They certainly don't have to wait until they are dead before defending themselves.

In the example you cited, "a drunk and presumably cracked out homeless man came running at me swinging a 2×4", the victim has every reason to believe his life is in imminent danger and take appropriate action. He doesn't have to wait until the first blow lands. He doesn't have to wait until he even gets so much as a splinter from the 2x4. He simply has to believe that he is about to be pummeled.

The fact of the matter is, the victim got lucky. For whatever reason, his attacker changed his mind. If he hadn't, the victim would have had three choices: Run if he was faster than the guy with the 2x4, submit if he could survive the beating, or engage in a physical contest of strength with the guy with the club if he was strong enough to overpower him.

One more logical step: EVERY one of those cases in which the gun came out unnecessarily, would have been called a legitimate Defensive Gun Use. What else is a gun owner to do? It's not his fault when someone gets too close to him or scares him in some way. In describing it to the police afterwards, naturally he'd feel justified since he'd felt his life was in jeapardy.

The fallacy here is that anyone can shoot anyone and simply claim that they felt their life was in jeopardy and then go merrily on their way. This is completely not the case. If you shoot someone, you are almost certainly going to be arrested for questioning. There are going to be forensic examinations to see if the shooter's story matches the physical evidence. If there are witnesses, they are going to be interviewed to see if the shooter's story is consistent. And you are going to be spending several or even tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees.

Anyone who has gone to the trouble to carry a firearm is probably very much aware of all of this. Using a firearm in self-defense is going to be a last-resort proposition for the vast majority of CCW permit holders. And the conviction data about CCW permit holders bears this out. Not only are they hardly ever involved in firearm crime, but they are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime. This is suggestive of highly responsible civil behavior.

If among such superior examples of gun ownership, and I mean that sincerely, we have such a bleak picture of the uselessness of carrying a gun, imagine how much worse it is among the general gun-owning public.

The entire thesis, that because people survived violent encounters without a gun means that carrying a gun is useless, is absurd.

Guns are bad news and concealed carry makes it worse.

Without guns, every single victim of violent crime is left with only three choices: Flee if they are fast enough, submit if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attackers if they are strong enough. Without guns, the weak are at the mercy of the strong.

In the case of the man wielding the 2x4, mercy won out. Not everyone is willing to count on the mercy of an assailant.

[mikeb302000]

6. well, that's the thing, AL

the whole post is Monday Morning Quarterbacking. We're already in fantasy land because in the heat of a moment you cannot see the future and truly tell if what you're looking at is lethal threat or not.

But I object to guys like you who talk about the letter of the law, that you would be justified if you killed the assailant. In the cases I referenced, that would be murder and you'd get away with it, no doubt. Now that would be something to be proud of, wouldn't it?

[Atypical Liberal]

7. Absolutely incorrect.

But I object to guys like you who talk about the letter of the law, that you would be justified if you killed the assailant. In the cases I referenced, that would be murder and you'd get away with it, no doubt. Now that would be something to be proud of, wouldn't it?

In my state, if someone came at me waving a 2x4, such that I could be reasonably expected to fear for my safety, I would be justified in using deadly force to stop him.

That is completely justified, and is not murder. It is self-defense.

[MicaelS]

10. It's not murder, it's justifiable homicide,

And there's a big difference under the law.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Not having a crystal ball, no it would not be murder.

Unless the victim fired AFTER the aggressor 'laughed and stopped to turn and walk away' or somesuch (like the 2x4 example).

You have every moral right to defend yourself when someone has initiated hostilities against you. Period.
The safety and well being of the aggressor is not of concern to the victim. The Victim has every opportunity not to enter into harm, by simply not aggressing against anyone.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. In the cases you referenced, the only "armed aggression" was with a 2x4

And if Commenter Josh had shot and killed 2x4 Dude before he stopped and turned away, it would have been justifiable
homicide, not murder.

So not only is your original title a fraud, your knowledge of the law is as well...

[GreenStormCloud]

44. I would love to play poker against you.

Nothing in life is certain, all of life is probabilities. We make hundreds of decisions daily based on our estimate of the probabilities and of the risk/reward ratio of our actions. When we get in a car and drive we assume a certain risk in return for an expected reward. For the most part we balance those fairly well.

In your 2x4 scenario you are desiring the victim to risk his life that the attacker will stop at the last second. That is like drawing two cards to an inside straight flush, and going all-in on the bet. If you don't understand the poker term have a friend explain it to you.

In the real world the 2x4 guy has given me adequate reason to calculate that the probabilities are that he means me serious bodily harm or death. I will not be my life that he is bluffing. I will raise his bet by a few .38 bullets.

[krispos42]

8. The fact that you survived the encounter doesn't mean a gun was unneeded

It means a coroner was unneeded. And that's all it means.

"survive" does not mean "untouched", "unscathed", "uninjured", or "unharmed". It also doesn't mean "uncrippled", or "unbraindamaged", either.

[ileus]

9. Safety first...I never roam alone.

[Remmah2]

11. As my dad use to say.

SSDD

[Angus86]

13. So self defense is unnecessary if you live?

I strongly disagree with that assertion. So strongly in fact that I upgraded from "lurker" status to "registered forum member" to state my rebuttal.

In the early 1970s my great-great-aunt was living alone in a rural town in Louisiana when she was raped in her own home by a man in a mask. She survived, but not without emotional scars that would remain with her for the rest of her 92 years on this earth. Before the attack, my gg-aunt did not own a gun, even though there was no police department for the town of less than 200 in which she lived. However, after the attack she drove to a gun-shop in Shreveport and bought a .22 revolver, since she was a frail woman and likely couldn't handle the recoil of a larger caliber.

Less than three weeks after the first attack, she was awoken by the same attacker forcing his way into the house through the living room window. She sat in bed trembling while the man made his way through the house back to her bedroom. When she finally saw his silhouette in the doorway she fired all six shots from her revolver, one of which struck her attacker in the heart, killing him. Her neighbors were the real first responders, since it took the county police over an hour to arrive. The rapist turned out to be a frequent customer at the grocery store where my gg-aunt worked as a cashier.

However, according to the OP, my gg-aunt didn't need a gun to defend herself during the first attack, since she lived through the encounter. Also, do you really claim that my gg-aunt is guilty of murder for defending herself with a gun when her rapist came back a second time? There is no way in heck that my gg-aunt (who weighed no more than 120lbs her entire life) could have defended herself without the gun she had bought for that specific purpose.

[Glassunion]

14. Welcome aboard...

[ileus]

15. Welcome to the posting side of DU.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Welcome and thanks for sharing. N/T

[spin]

19. Welcome to DU. Great first post. (n/t)

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. That was a powerful post. Welcome to the membership n/t

[SteveM]

25. Back... back... And it's... OUTTA here! Welcome, Angus86.

[Hoyt]

29. I really don't think that is what the OP said. Now if your aunt had walked down the street and shot

someone who merely looked like the rapist who was also walking -- then we'd be close to what the OP posted.

We have a lot of gunners here who apparently can detect a "mugger" at great distance, even though the "suspect" isn't holding a weapon or anything. We've even had gunners post about how they'd shoot an unarmed teenager in the back after an unoccupied car is broken into.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. He claimed somone running at you swinging a 2x4 wasn't a threat.

We also have some non-gunners here who claim to be knowledgeable about firearms and self-defense, but really aren't...

[Angus86]

34. Really? Let's take a look at what the OP said...

"Doesn’t the fact that you lived to talk about it indicate that in fact you didn’t need a gun? Doesn’t the fact that you and Robert and others are looking back on situations you all survived and admit that you wish you’d been armed, say something about your fear and paranoia and insecurity?"

This is exactly what I was referring to.

According to the OP, my gg-aunt had no need to defend herself, since she survived. Also, her "paranoia and insecurity" in arming herself resulted in that poor rapist being unnecessarily killed.

[rl6214]

41. Not even close, you really are clueless

"Now if your aunt had walked down the street and shot
Posted by Hoyt

someone who merely looked like the rapist who was also walking -- then we'd be close to what the OP posted."

[Glassunion]

17. Another flaw in your logic.

Since we now know that every one of the past scary situations described was one in which no gun was needed for survival, we can conclude that ANY use of the gun would have been unnecessary and therefore criminal. That would be from simple brandishing to killing someone.

Since we know that both of the cupcakes described had vanilla frosting, we can conclude that ANY cupcake will have vanilla frosting.
Since we know that both of the newspapers described there was a story about kangaroos, we can conclude that ANY newspaper with have stories about kangaroos.
Since we know that both of the men described had on hats, we can conclude that ANY man will have on hats.

[ileus]

21. Why he bothers posting anything beyond, all guns are sick is beyond me.

[SteveM]

26. And my guns certainly are not sick. They are well-cared for, thankyou. nt

[Hoyt]

28. Fondling and caressing guns seems popular.

[SteveM]

32. That's what she said! nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. Sounds like the "assailants" were just playing games/jokes on people.

Well, as the saying goes:
Play stupid games... win stupid prizes.

Let's posit your scenario this way...

Say you decide to run at cop while menacingly brandishing a baseball bat just for fun. You don't actually plan on beating him to death, you're just looking for some laughs/entertainment. If he decides to blast your chest wide open when your 10ft away before you decide to reveal the punchline of your "joke"... are the cop's actions murder? How should the cop properly respond?

[Hoyt]

27. I suspect most gunners merely look at the scenario as an opportunity to shoot some poor person.

Too many gunners here talk about shooting people at long range -- apparently they have some detection system to identify a mugger at a distance. They would have dropped the homeless man at 50 feet and congratulated themselves for all the practicing they've done to reach that level of "proficiency."

I bet there are lots of cases of so-called DGU that weren't necessary.

Then, we have the gunners who've been up for several days preparing in case they get a chance to shoot those fleeing a hurricane.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. Are you saying that it's impossible to discern someone's intention from a distance?

Please, do tell us all about it...

[Hoyt]

35. Yep, muggers don't normally telegraph their intentions. Now, some gunners think they know the

characteristics, but I suspect they are often wrong. Unless a person is coming at you with a gun from 50 - 100 feet, how do you recognize a target vs. an innocent person coming toward you? Would love to hear how you determine when it's time to shoot an apparently unarmed man -- especially after a hurricane or other disaster.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. And you claim to know the intentions of "gunners" that you do not know, have never met, and...

...most likely will never even see.

So why are *you* any better at reading people at a distance? At least the "gunners" can actually see the people they are assessing...

[Hoyt]

39. Met enough. OK, you might not be like them, but plenty of other folks toting are.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Actually, they often do telegraph their intentions.

Everything depends upon context. If you are approached in daylight at a crowded public event, you are very unlikely to be in danger. On the other hand if you have left a store at night and are walking to your car in a dark parking lot you may be a target. The following assumes a context that would support an attack.

Generally, they will try to isolate you. They don't want to attack you with others around as that increases their risk.

You then attempt to avoid them. If they change direction to continue to come to you then you are being pursued.

You next step is to loudly tell them to stay away. Usually they will attempt to engage you in conversation. Police call that "the interview". The mugger is trying to get a better read on what kind of victim you will likely be and also trying to get you to lower your guard.

Refuse to talk to him. Continue to tell him stay away. At this point you still can't shoot but you can get ready. Put your hand under your clothing and on your gun. DO NOT TELL THE OTHER GUY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. TO DO SO IS ILLEGAL AS YOU WOULD BE THREATENING HIM. But you can legally put your hand on you gun as long as it stays concealed. (That is why I carry mine in my pocket.)

Muggers are usually street-wise and will know exactly what you have just prepared to do and will abort the attack.

If he continues to approach, depending upon the state laws, you can now draw the gun, as you (depending upon context) are in reasonable fear of your life. If the idiot continues to approach against a drawn gun - shoot.

Again, I emphasize that the totality of the situation must support you belief that you were in danger. A few sentences are not enough to describe such a totality of circumstances. I can recommend some good books or web sites on the topic.

[rl6214]

42. Another clueless response

"I suspect most gunners merely look at the scenario as an opportunity to shoot some poor person."

What you "suspect" and what is actually true are two totally different things. You make these things up in your mind and try to pass them off as reality.

Have you figured out what a red-dot scope is yet?

[SteveM]

30. "The screenwriting 'character' vs 'story' dichotemy is false; characterization is limited...'

[DanTex]

36. Interesting glimpse into the world of gun zealots.

Whether these people are actually the "Armed Intelligentsia", or just a regular bunch of zealots, there are a lot of interesting comments there.

Now, obviously, there's a difference between your typical ordinary gun owner and hardcore gun militants like these. On the other hand, we can't ignore the fact that there is a non-negligible (and outspoken) portion of the gun culture where CCW goes well beyond self-defense and becomes a way of life, a sort of religion. For instance:

Right now I have a loaded Bersa Thunder 380 in my right pocket. In front of me at my desk is a Bersa Thunder 9 MM 17+1 and a spare mag. Back in the bedroom on my nightstand there are two Model 1911s, cocked and locked with five spare mags. In the closet is a shotgun, two Browning rifles and a loaded M1 Garand. The magazines loaded in the handguns alternate hollow point-ball for the first six rounds. All spare hand gun magazines are loaded with ball ammo. I shoot in pairs. After three bursts, people get behind something.

For such people, the pinnacle accomplishment is a DGU, which validates the entire belief system, so it's no surprise that they have a tendency to seek out violent conflict rather than opting for non-confrontational actions and avoiding trouble. It reminds me of some of the discussions here about the London riots. While my first inclination when I see violence like that is to stay away, the author of this article instead discussed "fantasizing about being up in a tower and shooting the very first person that tries to loot".

Another thing you find is disrespect for the law. For example, the first three replies (as of right now) all explicitly point out that they will not obey gun laws they disagree with.

(1) I wish I didn’t have to pick and choose which laws to obey, but so long as the inmates run the asylum I’m afraid I’ll have to.

(2) If I need to defend myself, I will use deadly force if necessary regardless of the local statutes.

(3) I carried concealed, illegally, for several years whenever I thought it was a good idea.

And then there's the right-wing politics:

As I live in an unoccupied (by Liberals) part of America I carry when and wherever possible.
Sometimes I have to visit nearby occupied territories.

I'll say it again, not all gun owners are like these people -- this is definitely the extremist minority. But anyone who's been around guns or the gun culture for any amount of time knows people like this.

[rl6214]

40. It's not up to you do decide whether someone needs a gun if they feel they do

You don't like the laws, get them changed. Oh wait, you can't, you live in italy.