does this happen to anyone else?

[ctrs]

The recent shooting incident in Cupertino got me thinking: every so often, we see news of really bad criminals being shot dead. My first thought is usually, "Great, more taxpayer dollars saved!" However, it's kind of a downer when it's learned that the shooting is done by police rather than a CCW'er.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to take away from the officer who did society a huge favor, and a criminal being shot dead is, more often than not, a case of "a gun being used to save lives."

However, I couldn't help but to think that it would have been better for "us" if the shooting was done by a regular armed citizen. If crime-stopping actions are performed almost exclusively by police, then the masses would think that "regular citizens don't need guns before the police will protect them."

Does this happen to anyone else here?

 

[Hunterdad]

Thats a pretty bizarre question. I'm not quite sure how to answer. Weird.....

 

[MedWheeler]

I can see where you're coming from, though it never occurred to me to look at it that way. I do enjoy the coverage (when there is some) of lawfully-armed defenders exercising their right to lethal-force defense when necessary, and I do believe that said coverage does enhance our political cause (which is probably why it can be so scarce.)
Working in EMS, and having worked in LE and the fire service, I never wished "bad" on anyone. However, I knew that "bad" was going to someone anyway, and sometimes just wanted it to occur on and in my watch. I don't feel the same about deadly-force defense. I have no desire to be "the one", but I'm certainly willing to step up if it should become necessary, without any tactically-sound alternative, for my protection or for that of any other innocent person.

 

[Just One Shot]

There are thousands of instances where guns are used by private citizens to protect themselves but the lame stream media rarely if ever gives detailed reports on them.

You can find instances listed every month in pro gun mags like NRA's American Rifleman. You can even find reports on line at places like this:

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

Dont expect the left leaning media to ever give fair and balanced coverage since they are against Americans owning guns.

 

[fastbolt]

Without becoming involved in discussing the reasoning for this sort of question, here's some data from the FBI's crime report data that may be of interest to you. This is for 2009, although info for other years is available under Crime in the US at the linked website at the end.

Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Law Enforcement,1 2005–2009 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html

Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen,1 2005–2009 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_15.html


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr

 

[RNB65]

I carry a gun to protect myself and my family. And no one else.

Shooting someone, even if fully justified, is financial suicide. There's going to be a criminal investigation and very possibly a civil action. Even if you win, you'll be paying legal bills for years.

 

[Rail Driver]

In my experience it's not that criminals aren't downed by citizens, just that it's not reported in mainstream media nearly as much, unless there's some way they can "make it interesting".

RNB65: I'm sorry you live in a place that apparently hasn't passed a "castle doctrine" law (at least none that I could find). I am fortunate enough to live in Florida, where if I'm forced into a situation where I have to shoot somebody, I'm protected by law from civil suits (of course assuming the shoot is justified).

 

[Deus Machina]

I carry a gun to protect myself and my family. And no one else.

I see the point in that, but as a good human being, it is a noble, if not at all required, act to protect an obvious victim.

If an innocent person's life is in danger and you are putting yourself at no more risk than if the threat noticed you on their own, IMHO you owe it to society and your conscious to end that threat. For instance, someone that opens fire in a theater--if there are people in danger range and I can reasonably stop that, I could not live with myself if I left them to die so I could run.

Which isn't to say that you should not first make sure you have an exit and the upper hand. I know it's still not necessarily the smart thing. But it's the better thing.

It probably helps that down here in Florida, if it's found justified there's no risk of a civil suit.

 

[Amadeus]

This is not a productive sentiment to be used in support of the second amendment or issues like the use of firearms for self defense.

Your language concerns me. Phrasing like, "Great, more taxpayer dollars saved!", "the officer who did society a huge favor" and "it's kind of a downer..." indicate a flippant disregard for human life.

 

[ZCORR Jay]

There are quite a bit of incidences where CCW holders protected themselves with their firearms however that is typically less news worthy than say a person opening up on a crowd with a scary semi automatic AK.

It would be nice, and helpful to gun owners, if the media showed the times someone was able to protect themselves but it would have to be done in just the right amount of exposure so that we don't look like a bunch of vigilantes.

 

[NOLAEMT]

Anyone who has seen someone shot to death, or just shot for that matter, even if it were necessary to save other lives; would wish anyone to be responsible for that.

It is not what it looks like in the movies, and I guarantee that the shooter, officer or private citizen, will have a significantly lower quality of life as a result. His or her life will be changed, not just in reguard to their financial burden. Taking a life has a profound impact on most people, especially if you are there to see the result of your bullets in person.

 

[ctrs]

Those are interesting data, fastbolt. I've always figured that LE would be involved in more justifiable shootings, for two reasons:

1. The police's job is to enforce the law, thus confront criminals.
2. A private citizen has a duty to retreat unless the "stand your ground" law applies. Police to not have a duty to retreat.

Still, I never knew the figure was "only" about twice as much as private citizens. I guess the gun-fearing media likes to downplay it when citizens defend themselves.

I agree that a self-defensive shooting is almost always a no-win situation. Even if it was justified, you will most likely face a civil suit, and there's always the chance that the family of the "victim" will seek retribution. The police have it better than us for a few reasons:

1. They are trained to prepare for this.
2. If the police do lose a lawsuit, the city usually pays the damages for them. And where does the city's money come from? Us.
3. People are less likely to retaliate against police.

Regarding the "Great, more taxpayer dollars saved!" statement, I would still prefer it if they were caught without incident to answer for their crimes in a court of law. But if they do happen to end up dead, I can't say that I feel too sorry for them. Apologies if I wasn't clear.

 

[CTPhil]

I agree that killing someone is something not to be wished on anyone, and would also rather see the system work as opposed to a dead bad guy.

Having said that, I think I do understand the basic sentiment of the OP, I sometimes do fantasize that one day one of the now all too common random (or otherwise) shooting sprees would end with someone who is legally carrying answering the call and saving the day. A few such well publicized incidents would go a long way for gun rights.

 

[AlexanderA]

The purpose of civilian carry is self-defense, not acting as a vigilante or auxiliary police officer. I would keep a gun holstered unless under direct threat. Just call the police on a cell phone.