House of Eratosthenes

A suspected robber in Jackson, Mississippi, had to be hospitalized after his would-be victim called his bluff in a big way.

The suspect first approached the man at a Motel 6 and asked for cigarettes, according to the Jackson Police Department. When the man, a hotel guest, said he didn’t have any cigarettes, he figured that was the end of the interaction.

Instead, the suspected robber turned around and pulled out a gun.

“I bet you don’t have one of these,” he reportedly said.

After hearing the man’s “bet,” the would-be victim then “pulled out his weapon and began firing shots,” officer Colendula Green told WLBT.

The suspect, who has not been identified, was hospitalized and may face robbery-related charges. His condition was unknown on Friday. The man who shot him is not being charged by police.

The story isn’t written the way I would have preferred; not written for the benefit of someone considering personal defense equipment and supplies, to carry concealed through questionable areas. It mentions that “Right now the man who shot him…is not being charged. He was protected under Mississippi’s castle law.” How strong is the ground upon which this guy is standing, in Mississippi? How strong would it be elsewhere?

What kind of gun was he carrying? A revolver or an automatic? Did he have a round chambered already? And how many did he discharge? The story uses plural in describing the reports, “pulled out his weapon and began firing shots,” but singular in describing the injury: “A man with a gunshot wound was reported…”

In my opinion, it was written for ninnies. Gun grabbing ninnies. I’ve picked up that the “news” in the story, from the perspective of the people editing it and from the perspective of the news consumers toward which it is directed, is that violence resulted from, as Michael Moore so eloquently put it so many times, “all these guns lying around.” In my world, the story is that a robbery was prevented — except, as is so often the case, we don’t have enough information to determine that. The story could be that one chucklehead was carrying a gun who should not have been carrying one, using it in a manner for which guns should not be used. The story could be that two such chuckleheads were doing exactly that. Because there’s so little useful information in the story, from the perspective of those of us who look at guns in an intelligent and proper way, we are left wondering which one is the case.

I’m in favor of gun control for dumbasses, by the way — I don’t think chuckleheads and dumbasses should carry, I don’t think they should even be in the same breathing space as a gun. Who could possibly disagree with that? They are devices capable of causing serious, life-changing injury, up to and including death. But, the possibility exists that in this situation, the defensive sidearm was used knowledgeably and for its intended purpose, and prevented something bad from happening. I just wish more reporters looked at the gun control issue in a proper and correct way, because then, maybe we’d know.

“I’m in favor of gun control for dumbasses, by the way — I don’t think chuckleheads and dumbasses should carry, I don’t think they should even be in the same breathing space as a gun. Who could possibly disagree with that? ”

I am opposed to allowing the government to decide who’s a chucklehead or a dumbass. Before long, surprise, we’re all chuckleheads and dumbasses, in the government’s opinion.
- cloudbuster | 06/25/2014 @ 12:39
I have to agree with cloudbuster on this one.
- P_Ang | 06/25/2014 @ 14:58
Isn’t that false-dilemma though? Letting people own and use guns who don’t appreciate the gravity of handling a machine that can cause permanent injury or death, versus, the government deciding everyone is a chucklehead or a dumbass, capriciously, like Barack Obama deciding on a new implementation date or condition for Obamacare. The whole concept of “due process” has to do with finding a true compromise between those extremes.

“Gun rights” means lots of things, but it doesn’t restoring 2nd-amendment rights to convicted felons.
- mkfreeberg | 06/25/2014 @ 17:36
There’s a big difference between “chucklehead or dumbass” and “convicted felons.”

I think convicted felon is a fairly bright line for restricting gun rights. To get convicted of a felony you have either pleaded guilty or had due process and been judged by a jury of your peers beyond a reasonable doubt (to be sure there’s a huge problem with our plea bargaining system, but that’s another topic).

What I more had in mind is the push to restrict gun rights for more and more people based on mental health reasons. I have had a pretty close encounter with the involuntary incarceration system for mental health with a family member and did a lot of studying at the time. The criteria can be insanely subjective and it’s handled through the civil system with less due process than a criminal case and no jury — and that’s for involuntary commitment. It’s a terrifying and Kafkaesque system to get caught up in. Angry that you’re being confined? You have anger issues. Depressed that you are confined? Clinical depression. Refuse to take the mind-altering drugs they’re pushing on you? Resistant to treatment. Deny that you have a mental health problem? You have poor self-awareness. Every single response other than gleeful participation in self-incrimination to the outrageous situation of being imprisoned against your will while you wait to have your entire future judged by a magistrate is regarded as further evidence of your supposed mental illness. Psychiatry is far too subjective and fallible system to use as a basis for robbing me of my Constitutional rights.

And the legal profession sees nothing wrong with it. The lawyer representing my family member was confused that I even thought the outcome was a civil rights issue. It boggled my mind.

Many are wanting the standard for restricting gun rights to be even lower than that required for involuntary commitment — in the law passed in New York after Sandy Hook mental health and medical workers are required to inform on patients for very subjective mentions of even thoughts of illegal gun use.

You have to watch your government very, very closely — that’s why we have juries, so that an important aspect of our justice system is administered by ordinary citizens, not professional lawyers, judges and bureaucrats. Give them subjective standards and they’ll interpret it however those in power feel like at the time.
- cloudbuster | 06/25/2014 @ 20:28
I’m opposed to the criteria being “insanely subjective.”

That would not apply here, though, in at least 50% of the case. There are many improper uses of guns, and saying “I bet you don’t have one of these” to a complete stranger, in the context described, would be one of them. I also don’t want people squeezing off rounds when they’re not completely sure of what’s behind the target.
- mkfreeberg | 06/25/2014 @ 20:50

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“I Bet You Don’t Have One of These”Saturday, June 21st, 2014

“I Bet You Don’t Have One of These”
Saturday, June 21st, 2014