Absolutes
Toledo Blade unsigned editorial:
Although we’re glad the robberies were thwarted and thankful no innocents were injured, we’re not sure that store owners and employees defending themselves with deadly force is an absolute good.
27 Responses to “Absolutes”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 19th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
I guess they would have been happier if the clerks had been the ones killed. Holding a gun on someone with a possibility that you might shoot is a capital offense in my book.
March 19th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Bilge!
Bilge and nonsense!
Both of these perps were armed. Both had lengthy criminal records including violent offenses. One of the perps pointed his gun at the head of the store clerk.
If these idiots think the right thing to do is to curl up in a fetal position and whine, that’s their choice.
But aren’t they the least bit ashamed to admit it? To put it in writing? In a newspaper editorial?
March 19th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
It’s always a tradeoff. If you do nothing you risk the clerks and anyone else injured or killed by robbers who just don’t give a hoot. And if they resist, you still have the same danger.
BUT, at least the clerks and bystanders have a choice if they can defend themselves. To take that way just makes them defenseless hostages whos lives are at the mercy of the criminals.
March 19th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
What a bunch of whiny sniveling – Mr. “unsigned” just doesn’t seem to realize that the more robberies are “unopposed”, the more of them will occur -and that CLEARLY endangers far more people than might be at risk from opposing these deadly-force encounters of the criminal sort.
These jerks seem to think that armed robbery is an unusual aberration, and that the police will catch the perps directly – one look at the stats should kill that thought, but they just aren’t interested in reality, I guess.
March 19th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
If the owner does not defend himself, then the lives of everyone in the store rests on the criminal’s mercy
If the owner fights back, the owner is taking possession of the responsibility for his actions and the lives of the people around him.
Who should we trust more with our lives? A person that has broken the social contract or the one that is fighting back with a clear consciounce?
March 19th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
There is a body of thought that says killing for any reason is wrong. That to defend yourself with deadly force “makes you no better than the criominals”. I’ve known people whoi think like this, and there’s no convincing them. They are on a high horse, they’re better then you, and that’s all there is to it. That their way of thinking, if applied generally, would lead to mass destruction and the enslavement of society by the most aggressive, never enters their minds. They are right and that’s all there is to it.
I believe it is a self protection mechanism, in that it protects them from responsibility. It is childish in that sense, but it is none the less dangerous for being simplistic and childish.
March 19th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Those fuckers would rather live on their knees than die on their feet.
March 19th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Turk Turon Says:
March 19th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
But aren’t they the least bit ashamed to admit it? To put it in writing? In a newspaper editorial?
Turk, what’s there to be ashamed of? An unsigned editorial that doesn’t have a comments page for readers to reply. It’s the height of PSH bravery! 🙂
March 19th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
The Blade editor, John Block, has been a long time gun control activist. The Blade’s anti-gun advocacy started in 1968 with support for John Glenn’s “Citizens for a Sane Firearms Policy,” one of the many groups that were folded into Pete Shields Handgun Control, Inc. And whatever Soros and his current figurehead calls it, Handgun Control, Inc., is still on the stationary.
So the editorial is not a surprise. The surprise is the relatively moderate tone. Block probably thinks a raving anti-gun and therefore pro-crime editorial like those of years past would lose readers. He might be right.
Stranger
March 19th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
“Instead, it seems to us that when deadly force is used as a first response rather than a last resort, civil society suffers.”
The robber’s gun was pointed at the clerk’s head and the editor thinks the clerk was using his last resort when he opened fire on the robber?!?!
March 19th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Ooops:
“Instead, it seems to us that when deadly force is used as a first response rather than a last resort, civil society suffers.”
The robber’s gun was pointed at the clerk’s head and the editor thinks the clerk WASN’T using his last resort when he opened fire on the robber?!?!
March 19th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
“The robber’s gun was pointed at the clerk’s head and the editor thinks the clerk WASN’T using his last resort when he opened fire on the robber?!?!”
Typical straw-man argument. They can’t admit that armed response can be a good thing, so they have to twist the scenario into something bad– a wild, coyboy comando, eager-for-blood, Rambo style first response. They can’t help themselves. That’s been the standard narrative for decades, and once they abandon it they have nothing left.
March 19th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Who calls a society “civil” when armed robbery is accepted, but sel defense isn’t?
March 19th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I just don’t understand the thinking behind the idea that I should trust my life to the honesty and mercy of someone who is already using violence against me for their own personal gain or amusement. It would seem to me that situation itself is ample proof that the person in question has a severe deficiency in both of those attributes.
Also, remember Rule 6: “If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.” – The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates (Schlock Mercenary)
March 19th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
If that guy is what civilized is then barbarism is the way to go.
March 19th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
One of the guys had four armed robbery offenses, how did he end up in the street in the first place? Now that would have been a good editorial.
March 19th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
John Smith, no that guy is not what civilized is. He is what gelded is.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
I was under the impression they are one and the same.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Mark@Sea Says:
March 19th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Who calls a society “civil” when armed robbery is accepted, but sel defense isn’t?
Our friends across the pond.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Would they have the same attitude if the bad guys pointed their guns at cops and got dead? After all, if armed robbery where the gun is pointed at people is not a capital crime, then cops should not kill people who point guns at them, I mean, until the first shot is fired, pointing a gun at someone is just assault/battery/brandishing/menacing (something like that).
The hypocrisy is astounding.
March 20th, 2010 at 12:23 am
Even if they’re disparaging it, at least the media now acknowledges that defensive gun uses happen. It used to be that they would stubbornly claim that guns were just tools of evil used by deranged school shooters and drunken Bambi-slayers.
March 20th, 2010 at 9:18 am
The editorial writer is assuming good intentions on the part of the criminal who was threatening deadly force against innocent persons.
But it must be remembered that robbery is not a capital crime, and it’s only by chance that no one other than the would-be robbers was injured.
Robbery was not the action by the criminal to which the store owners responded. Threats of deadly violence are what the store owners responded to, with defensive violence of their own.
The editorial writer cannot tell, or just will not tell, the difference between an assault and defense against assault.
March 20th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
There are some people who believe there is a social contract to be had with the society of thieves and murderers.
March 20th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
It may not be an “absolute good”……but it’s pretty close.
March 20th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
JR Block’s office is just down the street from both courthouses. The grand juries can look at his office window as they decline to indict. So you can’t say he isn’t having an effect.
March 21st, 2010 at 5:34 pm
“….we’re not sure that store owners and employees defending themselves with deadly force is an absolute good.”
Then don’t defend yourself. It’s your choice, I’ll make mine.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:19 am
When a gun is pointed at your head, the response you choose would be well advised to have the highest possible rate of success you can engineer.
Leaving that chance in the hands of the perp pointing the gun at you doesn’t seem to be a very successful scheme.
Taking control of the situation with a weapon of your own and relying on your own perception, training, and skill sure looks to me to be a better solution.
I’ll make it deadly simply; the armed aggressor should have as little control over the situation as possible, and if you can make that happen, even were it to be permanent, you’ve made a positive change.
And that’s change *I* can believe in.