« British police blog | Main | Canadian handgun ban proposed »
Illustration of responsibility of firearm owners
A while back, I mention Clayton Cramer's discussion of how gun owners were likely to be too responsible rather than too triggerhappy (in the context of a CCW permit holder who had a shot at the Tacoma Mall shooter but was reluctant to take it).
This morning's Arizona Daily Star has a local story along the same lines, showing what must approach superhuman restraint.
A fellow stole a shotgun from Frontier Guns, ran out with it and dove into his car. The store owner pursued, pistol in hand. The thief drove the car into him and the owner wound up on the hood, holding the gun pointing at him thru the windshield as the car pulled into traffic. Eventually he got dumped into the street, and police tracked down the thief.
"The armed owner of the gun shop chased after him, but Lange tried to run down the store owner with his car, he said. The store owner got on the hood, holding on with one hand and pointing a gun through the windshield with the other, witnesses told police.
Lange swerved onto East Grant Road, dropping the owner into the street and pulling out in front of traffic, witnesses told police. The owner, face bloodied, walked back to his shop as Lange sped off.
Police said one of the witnesses followed Lange.
Officers caught up with Lange at his home a few blocks away ...."
I dunno if the shop owner was loathe to fire because he didn't want to kill a guy over a matter of property theft, or because the store is on a heavily-travelled street where misses and ricochets would be especially dangerous. Whatever it was, holding fire while the guy tries to run you over and then exits with you on the hood does seem like truly exceptional restraint. Note also that a witness -- probably a gun store customer -- reacted, not with a Rambo routine, but by following the guy's car until he stopped, and then bringing in the police.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Heads up:
"Federal Air Marshal Shoots Passenger on Miami Jetway"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113398401661316463.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us
Google news points to CNN as well:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/airplane.gunshot/
Ever read "On Killing"? The store owner had the normal human reaction. Only more training could have helped him make a better decision, which in this case looks like he should have just gotten the license number.
This is another case that illustrates your point, but it also illustrates another, more troubling point.
If someone has tried to run you over with a car, and then is trying to dislodge you from the hood of that car while driving at high speed, they are in fact threatening your life. Why aren't you shooting at them?
All of this begs the question: if you don't feel sufficiently threatened either by a person who's trying to run you over, or later when that person tries to fling you off a vehicle at high speed, to use a gun to protect your life, when will you feel sufficiently threatened? Not wanting to harm another is laudable, but at the repeated risk of one's life? I won't even go into the lunacy of jumping on to the hood of a car and hanging on, except to possibly excuse it if it happened in the heat of avoiding being run over by that car.
I have an article on how lack of the proper mindset can get you killed, and I think it's equally applicable in this situation.
Legally-armed citizens need to realize that sometimes it is appropriate, even optimal, to shoot a bad guy. Having multiple incidents of legally armed citizens failing, or even refusing, to shoot bad guys only to see bad guys hurting and/or killing good guys subsequently is grist for the anti-gun crowd.