Woman Dies Waiting for the Cops

These kinds of deaths are totally unnecessary.

Most of the cops I know are good folks, but they can’t be everywhere all the time. If you think that–when a bad guy shows up–all you have to do is call 911–you are badly mistaken. In such a case, the police will arrive just in time to determine the cause of your death.

Given that she lived in Florida, Rucker–provided her criminal record was clean–could easily have obtained a concealed carry license. She could have gone to any local gun store, and received instruction on how to use and maintain a firearm. Had she taken this route, she would probably be alive today.

Oh, and you can pretty much forget about those “restraining orders”; they are worth the paper they’re written on.

6 thoughts on “Woman Dies Waiting for the Cops

  1. I’m not sure that her carrying a gun would necessarily have prevented this sort of thing – you’d simply switch from a stabbing to a gunfight.

    Comparing to Canada, you guys have about 10x as many homicides by gun – although Switzerland has a lower rate than Canada but a rather high rate of gun ownership (although I think the Switzerland example is largely a result of mandatory military service for men coupled with the government supplying firearms to citizens as I think they technically all remain in the reserves).

  2. @Dave

    A woman has a much better chance of winning a gun fight than she does of winning a knife fight. Physical size, strength and reach matter a lot with knives but much less with guns.

  3. @Craig – the key to me would seem to be who’s get the element of surprise.

    I’m not sure why the demographics of Canada vs. the US are relevant. (Firearm-related deaths are listed per 100,000).

  4. @Dave
    In the world of rock-paper-scissors, taking a knife to a gunfight is a lose-lose all the way around.

    Sure, if a bad guy is REALLY skilled and gets in close enough, he can get the gun away from the victim, but that’s not typically what happens. Usually, when a bad guy SEES his victim pointing a gun at him, he is more likely to to cut tail and run like hell. Especially if he thinks his intended victim is willing to shoot.

    If you have a gun and your assailant is still sufficiently motivated**, you’re still going to be in for a hell of a fight unless you get a first-shot stop/kill (which is rare). A handgun round can bounce right off the assailant’s head whereas in Hollywood it is an instant kill every time.

    Even a heart shot is not foolproof: he could still slash your throat in the 15 or so seconds before he flatlines.

    That said, “what-ifs” aren’t the same as “what usually happens”.

    Fact is, most gunfights end without a shot being fired: the assailant hightails it. Fact is, most of the time, if you shoot an assailant, the fight is over. Fact is, a woman who wields a gun is a lot less likely to lose that fight than she is without the gun.

    **examples: the North Hollywood shootout and the Miami FBI Massacre of 1986. In the latter case, the assailants were extremely motivated: both were Army vets, one of whom was a Ranger school grad–not an unimpressive accomplishment–and the other of whom was Airborne. (While earning one’s jump wings hardly qualifies one as a badass–from what I’ve seen, just about anyone can get through Airborne school with sufficient motivation–it does prove a certain level of motivation that is better than average.)

    Assailants like these are the exception and not the rule, but–yes–they are out there. Still, if you are accosted by these types, having a gun is better than having no gun.

  5. @Dave
    The demographics are relevant, because the appropriate question is not always, “how many gun deaths per capita are there”, but sometimes, “who‘s doing all that shooting?”

    If that is coming from a demographic element that has much higher representation in the USA than it does to the north, then it is worth including in any discussion regarding gun-related crime and the comparison with other countries.

    In Switzerland, gun ownership is higher, and–yes–the militarization of the citizenry has much to do with this. Still, the gun laws are fairly loose over there–even obtaining a machine gun is much easier over there than here in the States–and shooting related sports are very celebrated over there. It would be fair to say that they have a gun culture that rivals ours.

    Ultimately, though, the gun crime stats raise the question of what kind of countries we are dealing with.

    The USA was–for better or worse–founded by religious nuts with guns. (It wasn’t a bunch of dope-smoking, “free love” pacifists on the Mayflower.)

    We gained our independence by fighting a balls-out war with the biggest superpower on earth at the time. We shot our way to victory.

    We gained a large part of our territories by fighting balls-out wars with Mexicans and various Indian tribes. (I am not speaking to the rightness or wrongheadedness of those wars, only that this is how we obtained much of our territories.) We shot our way to victory.

    While much of our gun culture in the USA is about defensive purposes, we do have a long, storied history of being very offensive in our use of said power, and in our celebration of said offensive use.

    Contrast that with Canada: many Canadians can trace their roots back to those among the Colonies who didn’t want to fight the Brits.

    Contrast that with Switzerland: they have historically made it a point to stay out of other people’s wars. Even with their gun culture, it’s about defense and not offense. They don’t have an extensive history of fighting offensively. Even in WWII, they stayed out of the fight.

    And yet, the Swiss were so well-armed–and able to shoot–that Hitler didn’t screw with them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Connect with Facebook

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