But remember…..the conservative answer to problems like crime is to simply make it easier for random citizens to pack heat and dole out vigilante justice!

Houston police said around 11:15 p.m. Saturday, two men attacked another man who was parked in the Valero parking lot near Jensen Drive and Caplin Street.

When the assailants attempted to take his truck, a witness parked at the gas pump started shooting at the men, according to authorities.

Police said he accidentally shot the victim in the head.

I don’t know about you all, but I feel safer with all those highly trained and capable gun-toting vigilantes wandering our streets.

 

10 Responses to Gun wielding “good guy” shoots carjacking victim in the head

  1. Denis Navratil says:

    Zach, you recently chided me for using generalizations and stereotypes, claiming their use is lazy and dishonest. Then on another thread you quote Gandhi stereotyping and generalizing about Christians not being like Christ and here you generalize and stereotype conservatives claiming they want to administer vigilante justice. I will let you decide whether you are being lazy and dishonest as I don’t want to make any generalizations about people who make generalizations.

    Per the subject, you are using an anecdote, a tragedy, to implicitly argue that concealed carry results in more gun related injuries and deaths. Of course you offer no statistics or facts to bolster your case. I believe the question of whether concealed carry results in more crime or gun violence is an empirical one insofar as there are nearly fifty states that didn’t allow concealed carry that now do. My guess is that there is a reason you prefer to rely on anecdotes instead of data.

    • John Casper says:

      Denis, you wrote, “Zach, you recently chided me for using generalizations and stereotypes, claiming their use is lazy and dishonest.”

      Wrong. It was your use of them that was lazy and dishonest.

      You wrote, “Then on another thread…”

      1. What other thread?

      Post a link to it.

      You wrote, “you quote Gandhi stereotyping and generalizing about Christians.”

      2. Do you want to be treated like Gandhi?

      2.1 If so, what have you done to earn that?

      You wrote, “…not being like Christ and here you generalize and stereotype conservatives claiming they want to administer vigilante justice.”

      3. Where’s the generalization or stereotype?

      This is a specific incident.

      4. If this is legal, isn’t it possible for anyone to lure a creditor (or whomever they want to kill) into walking past their vehicle?

      4.1 Can they kill them and claim they were trying to steal their vehicle?

      4.2 Or they can hire someone else to do it?

      You wrote, “I will let you decide…”

      5. Promise?

      5.1 Does that mean you’ll never play the “victim card” again?

      You wrote, “whether you are being lazy and dishonest…”

      You, who doesn’t know how to link, is accusing a guy who has a lot of IT/networking knowledge, that’s what keeps this place running, of being “lazy and dishonest.”

      6. Have you no shame?

      You wrote, “as I don’t want to make any generalizations about people who make generalizations.”

      7. Promise?

      You wrote, “Per the subject, you are using an anecdote, a tragedy, to implicitly argue that concealed carry results in more gun related injuries and deaths.”

      8. Where?

      Quote where Zach wrote what you claimed he wrote. If you can’t, apologize for intentionally distorting his meaning.

      You wrote, “Of course you offer no statistics or facts to bolster your case.”

      Now you’re accusing him of a failure to “bolster” a case that he never tried to make. He didn’t “bolster” the case you invented.

      You wrote, “I believe the question of whether concealed carry results in more crime or gun violence is an empirical one insofar as there are nearly fifty states that didn’t allow concealed carry that now do.”

      If it’s “empirical,” then link data to whatever your point is.

      You wrote, “My guess is that there is a reason you prefer to rely on anecdotes instead of data.”

      “I prefer to rely on anecdotes instead of data.”

      Denis, ftfu.

  2. Denis Navratil says:

    John, perhaps we should explore the meaning of the word “implicit.” It means implied. As such, I can’t show you his implicit argument. Rather, you either see it or perhaps you are oblivious. So Zach’s implicit argument, if I understand him correctly, is that he is not a fan of concealed carry. The only reason to oppose concealed carry that makes sense to me is that it would make society less safe or more prone to gun related injuries or deaths. It is possible that I misread his implicit argument. Perhaps he was merely alerting BB readers to an unfortunate death, with no political motive whatsoever. But that is for Zach to determine, not you. I have not intended in any way to distort the meaning of Zach’s post. If I have misinterpreted his intended meaning, I do hope he will clarify it for me. But if he does indeed think that concealed carry results in more gun violence, then the reams of actual data on the subject ought to be more convincing than a mere anecdote.

  3. John Casper says:

    9. At the same time that you oppose government restricting the right to keep and bear arms, why don’t you “clarify” how you support government forcing birth?

    10. Since you ignore all my questions, why should anyone respond to yours?

  4. Waukesha Blue says:

    All for nothing gentlemen. Turns out (possibly) the “victim” wasn’t shot in the head but received his injuries in the assault/jacking.

  5. Denis Navratil says:

    Careful WB, there are consequences in progressive circles for those presenting information that counters the preferred narrative.

  6. John Casper says:

    Denis, you wrote, “Having read both of your links, it suggests that concealed carry is kind of a wash and that methodological tweaks can alter the results.”

    Where?

    Neither suggests what you claim.

    From page 6 of Wiegman’s, “Impact of Concealed Carry Weapon Laws on Crime Rates,” here is his conclusion, “there is no significant change on crime rates when concealed carry weapon laws are passed.”

    Per the summary of Stanford Law professor, John Donhahue’s, research, nq’s second link,

    “The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates” of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder, Donohue said in an interview with the Stanford Report. The evidence suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with an 8 percent increase in the incidence of aggravated assault, according to Donohue. He says this number is likely a floor, and that some statistical methods show an increase of 33 percent in aggravated assaults involving a firearm after the passage of right-to-carry laws.”

    Please apologize to Zach for your gratuitous and completely false insult.

  7. Denis Navratil says:

    John, let me help you.

    “However, the authors (Wiegman) note that the results for rape and assault should be interpreted with caution because the reporting of those crimes changed drastically during the years the study data was collected.” Apples, oranges.

    And your quote, ““there is no significant change on crime rates when concealed carry weapon laws are passed.”” is the very definition of a wash. Ie, no significant change. Thank you for bolstering my argument.

    And finally, I think you missed this caveat: “Donohue notes that “different statistical models can yield different estimated effects, and our ability to ascertain the best model is imperfect.” Teasing out cause from effect in social science research is often a fraught proposition.” Ie, Tweaking can get you the results you want.

    I wish I could help you with reading comprehension John. On the plus side, your protectiveness towards Zach is touching. But he is a big boy now and can take care of himself. On the other hand, he did admit to having a head cold. You might better express your tender feelings towards Zach with a hot bowl of soup and some Kleenex.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.