FORT WORTH — Lucia Milan was working alone at her family’s store in the Fairmount neighborhood on a Saturday in 2006 when a man came in, counted out 50 pennies for a canned cola and left.
An hour later, the man briefly returned, asking to use a restroom, Milan testified Wednesday. When he returned a third time, he demanded money and then struck her repeatedly with a hammer before she could comply, she said. (emphasis mine)
Let's look at a couple of common misconceptions associated with things in just the first two paragraphs.
First, most violent crime does not involve a firearm. The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that only 9% of all violent crime involves a firearm. Those that wish to make firearms harder for the average citizen to own are trying to return us to a time when might made right. Here is an average female being attacked by the average male.....who has the decided advantage -- even without the hammer?
A firearm possessed by the female store clerk, and the willingness to use it, could have prevented this attack, this vicious attack.
As she tried to shield her face with her hands, Milan said, the man kept hitting her despite her pleas that he stop so she could give him money from the cash register.
"He didn’t give me a chance," she said. "I tried to put up my feet to get him off me, but he just kept on hitting me."
Milan said the blows stopped briefly after she fell to the floor but then resumed with one strike to her temple, which still bears a scar that she showed jurors. She also showed a scar on her left hand that was permanently injured with broken bones and torn tendons, she said.
Next, that attack shows the misconception that thugs only want money. He didn't wait to see if she would give him the money....so much for giving them what they want, eh?
Next, let's look at the misconception that you don't need a firearm around the house or to carry a firearm.
As the man climbed store shelves to disable the security camera, Milan said, she limped across the street to her home, where her younger sister and brother answered her frantic knocks. (emphasis mine again)
She lived across the street from the store. Violent crime occurs most frequently near a person's home. Very few violent crimes occur more than 50 miles from a person's home. So carrying at home or at work makes sense. Especially if you work in a retail business like this unfortunate victim.
In 2005 -
- The location of about a quarter of incidents of violent crime was at or near the victim's home. Among common locales for violent crimes were on streets other than those near the victim's home (19%), at school (12%), or at a commercial establishment (8%).
- For violent crime, about half occurred within a mile from home and 76% within five miles. Only 4% of victims of violent crime reported that the crime took place more than fifty miles from their home.
- Of victims of violent crime, 22% were involved in some form of leisure activity away from home at the time of their victimization, 22% said they were at home, and another 20% mentioned they were at work or traveling to or from work when the crime occurred.
So, tell me again why it makes sense to make it HARDER for the average person to keep and bear arms? Did the lack of a firearm prevent this thug from savagely attacking the store clerk?
Was she better off with or without a firearm? Did just complying with the demands of a violent thug keep her safer?
I realize this is an anecdote, and the plural of anecdote isn't data but in the long run aren't we talking about individual rights?
By the way, here is the current crime map for the area of the attack. Doesn't appear this is an isolated incident. Here is the link to the crime map
By the way, the attack took place in the area where my wife works.
Please join the discussion
4 comments:
OH NO, BOB, you made a mistake! The stats you link are GOVERNMENT stats. Only stats from the Joyce Foundation are trully unbiased!
Yep, shit like this is why I carry a gun. You can make far more money with less trouble begging on a street corner than holding up a store. You can make even more slinging fast-food at the local grease pit.
People who rob stores are not rational, or compassionate people. So expecting mercy from them by complying with their demands is taking cards from a HEAVILY stacked deck.
I'm glad she survived, a blow to the head from a hammer is serious buisness!
From Rusty via Uncle:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/jul/08/police-scene-shooting-east-memphis-office-building/
62 year old man was locking up his Jewlery shop, and is jumped by 4 thugs.
Two of the punks caught lead...no word if they'll live.
Much better story IMHO.
Amazing how that works...average citizen carrying firearm, crime stopped.
Criminal carrying hammer and citizen not armed, citizen hurt and robbed.
I used to go through my small (25kish population) town's police reports every week and plot the events in a Google Map as best I could - I figured it might be useful information while Better Half and I were house-hunting.
It depressed me so bloody much that I finally gave up on it. At least your town takes care of the gruntwork themselves.
As usual, though, the crime reports in your area just go to prove that the man with the tool and the willingness to use it typically wins any given engagement. And, for that reason, as Marko pointed out, a firearm is the very nature of civilization - it equalizes the playing field. A 150-pound woman can adequately defend herself, if she is willing to, from a 300-pound rapist. And that is the way the world should be.
Post a Comment