And out of curiosity and in all seriousness, are you suggesting that real time surveillance of everything and everyone could be the solution to crime? Because yes, it could very well be.

The idea presents, shall we say, some interesting logistical challenges…

“Police state” – yes, in a lot of ways. You know, it used to be that the gun nuts argued they needed their guns to protect them from the government.* Now it seems like at least some of them agree with the government (must be sexually assaulted at airports to protect us from tur’rists); and yet, their fears of Obama Comin’ and Takin’ Mah Gunz all seem to have come to nought.

With most sentient beings, awareness and learning are covalent. This suggests something about the sentience of gun nuts.

I don’t think we need firearms to keep the government from getting out of hand, though if we ever end up in a full-on shameless oligarchy,** well…

==

* What was that about “well-regulated”, again?

** More than we currently have, I mean.

In the town I grew up in, there was a rising number of liquor store robberies. So, the police put one cop in each store, usually in the back. In the area I lived in Minneapolis before moving to where I am now, the main liquor store usually has two cops. That’s were I invented one of my favorite street-theatre jokes:

Liquor store clerk: “Would you like that (a six pack and a bottle of wine, for ecample) in a bag, sir?”

Me: “No thanks. I’m going to drink it in the parking lot.”

Wink at cop watching on and head out to the parking lot.

I stopped using that joke after 911, when we sprouted this police state we seem to be living in.

In order to actually thwart an armed robbery, you’d probably have to get the drop on the robber. This would mean that the typical store clerk would be SOL, but a customer might be able to do something, provided the robber is distracted.

And we know how wise it is to begin discharging firearms near working gas pumps…

Of course, this doesn’t keep a lot of gun owners from fantasizing. There always seems to be someone out there saying, “If I’d been there, you can bet I’d’ve stopped it”, while stroking his piece in a not at all masturbatory fashion.

There’s a certain separation from reality here, and I wonder if it isn’t partly due to gun ownership itself – or, more accurately, the way some people see their guns. Firearms allow killing to be abstracted, at least in theory. You don’t need to lay a hand on the other person. No strangling, no suffocating, no drowning, no beating, no stabbing. No direct contact at all.

To my mind, this can make firearm killings seem remote, almost like a scene in a movie or a video game sequence. The other person is not really real. When I hear gun owners start the fantasy speeches, it always makes me uneasy. A fantasy-prone individual who’s able to abstract himself from the act of killing another human being is not a good person to be in the room with, I think.

In any case, no, having a gun is not necessarily the best way to thwart an armed robbery, but sadly, there are some times and places where one is one’s own first responder.

Also, the case of the 28-yo burglar is not one of armed robbery; it’s simply burglary. I think I understand your point, but in that second case, firearms were not involved at all.

==

* I’m thinking of the gawky teenager at the convenience store with the absolutely massive .44 mag. He didn’t actually do anything useful with it, but it was funny as hell.

One would hope. This is not Enlgand, after all.

I don’t get what these examples have to to with the broader concept of gun ownership itself as expressed by the line “More posts on Gun Ownership here.”

It’s part of a larger conversation in which it is often argued that the default best way for a person, small business, etc. to defend themselves is to be packing.

A gun is a dangerous object and I know there should be much more stringent testing and requirements for possession of fire arms and much more severe punishment for the negligence use and storage of these devices.

We are in total agreement then!

We are not all nuts.

Depends. Did you spring for the $4,600 Orvis shotgun or the perfectly serviceable Remington?

Sorry if I responded a bit harshly, but I come to the table with those preconceptions of what everyone else is thinking too. (And, of course, on both ‘sides’, those preconceptions are often right.)

I’m not the gun lobby. You have everyday people reading your blog as well. People who share some of your interests. I also do not advocated that everyone has the right to buy guns and beer at the corner store in exchange for a twenty. I mostly disagree with the way guns are sold in the US. A gun is a dangerous object and I know there should be much more stringent testing and requirements for possession of fire arms and much more severe punishment for the negligence use and storage of these devices. And by testing I mean every couple of years the owner needs to undergo competency testing/reviews. We are not all nuts. But thanks for that.

But… and this is my point, robberies and crimes have also been thwarted by way of flat tires, dogs, running out of petrol, auto locking security doors, bad luck or sheer incompetence on the part of the robber, and well, yes, also by guns. I don’t get what these examples have to to with the broader concept of gun ownership itself as expressed by the line “More posts on Gun Ownership here.”

I do have sympathy for people who live in the middle of nowhere, or in places with lackadaisical police protection. But we see such folks insisting un unfettered access to all guns by everyone because of their particular problem. I’m not very sympathetic to thoughtless self pity as a basis for political, social, or health related decisions.

Obviously this post is not restricted to home gun ownership, but rather, addresses the broader question of guns used in defense of robbery, including in retail outlets. That’s why .. well, it’s why I picked a retail outlet scenario. That should be fairly obvious. Perhaps this is a case, Maria, where you came to the table with highly canalized expectations and when you didn’t see exactly what you expected and then became confused.

And out of curiosity and in all seriousness, are you suggesting that real time surveillance of everything and everyone could be the solution to crime? Because yes, it could very well be.

I promise you that if I were suggesting real time surveillance of everything and everyone that I would likely have mentioned something about that in the post. I may be subtle sometimes, I may ask my readers to dig a little for meaning sometimes, but there is no way that your straw man is a hidden message in this post.

Let me make the point clear to you: The gas station robbery could have been thwarted, and a chain of local robberies stopped, if the store clerk pulled out a 12-gauge and blew the robber’s head off. Or, if that was attempted, the robber could have shot first and blew the store clerk’s head off. Then, perhaps, a hostage situation, a standoff, a cop gets wounded, a customer is killed, and the asshole shoots himself in the head anyway. What happened instead is what you see in the video: The store clerk was not armed, but a security system, diligence on the part of police and others, and good training put to good effect worked to thwart the robbery (for sure) and stop a crime spree (probably).

And yes, in the second case, the robber was also apprehended.

Am I being told by you, Maria, that noting anecdotal cases where the good guys got the bad guys without resorting to THIS kind of gun nut insanity is not OK? Maybe that’s true, and maybe I’ll stop noting successful cases of civilized people doing civilized things the civilized way when the gun lobby stops underling the rare and highly unusual cases where someone like you successfully defends herself using a firearm where the threat was real, rather than just hurting yourself or an innocent bystander (or, more likely, nothing ever happening at all other than testosterone being a little excited by the feel of the cold hard steel in your purse, as it were).