This is a rare example of the contrasting effects of three commonly used anti-crime measures: (1) prohibiting persons likely to use firearms irresponsibly, such as felons and juveniles, from acquiring firearms; (2) displaying a “Firearms Prohibited” sign, and (3) carrying a defensive firearm. Its rare that you get an A-B comparison of two measures, let alone an A-B-C comparison like this. So let’s call them Options A, B, and C, and see which (if any) worked to deter violent crime.
On Saturday, 10 January 2016. Two Wealth Redistribution Engineers entered this frequently-robbed liquor store on West 87th Street in the blood-soaked City of Chicago.
Both were prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (c)(1) from possessing firearms (both were juveniles, although at 15 and 17 they were already career criminals). At least one of them, as we will prove shortly, was carrying a firearm. So despite the mighty power of 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (c)(1), which is never enforced against actual armed criminals despite the 10-year Federal Pen penalty, it did not deter our two young thieves. Tentative Conclusion: Option A does not deter gun crime.
Now, look at the image above… what’s that little graphic in the lower right corner of the upper panel of the entry door — right above the horizontal bar? Let’s zoom in for a look:
Why, that’s a NO GUNS graphic. So it seems that these two young violent criminals (even before you learn what they did here, armed robbery is always a violent crime by definition — it is robbery accompanied by a threat to life) were not in the least deterred by the NO GUNS sticker. Tentative Conclusion: Option B does not deter gun crime.
Here’s the story, as reposted in the Chicago crime monitor site, Hey Jackass.
Citing preliminary information, authorities said two people walked into the store, and one of them hopped over the counter.
That person hit the clerk standing behind the counter, while the other remained in front of the counter, authorities said.
Meanwhile, a relative of the store owner heard a commotion upstairs and saw the robbery suspects from a stairwell, authorities said.
At this point, Options A and B having failed, the family member deployed Option C. Option C was effective. A third picture documents how (we warn that it contains an image of dead would-be robbers), and post it, and our analysis, after the jump.
Here’s what Uncle Peaceable Gun Owned did, confronted by two violent, armed youths:
He pulled out a gun and opened fire on the two, killing them, authorities said. At least one of them was armed with a gun.
“They don’t play, and I don’t blame them,” a woman said of the storekeepers. “This (has) happened to them before.”
Here’s our two Wealth Redistribution Engineers, at ambient temperature:
We don’t know the details of caliber and shots fired, although it looks that they may have got an ineffective shot or two of their own off. But we have seen enough to draw a conclusion.
Conclusion: Option C deters the living daylights out of crime.
It is the only one of the three options that is effective.
Of course, the verbal backlash has already started, and all the great potential of these two oxygen thieves is being bewailed by the usual criminal-coddlers in their home city.
Any one of you could write the script: They were aspiring rappers. Just turning their lives around. They were good boys who Dindu Nufffin.
And sure enough, the Reverends are already condemning the store-owning family for “killing two young boys over mere money. They didn’t deserve that.”
Balls to that. They didn’t deserve anything else.
Remember: they came in threatening to kill for that money. Robbery by definition is theft by the use of violence — statutes often refer to “force or fear.” These worthless wastes of skin also violently assaulted the clerk. Having been told all their lives that they’re “entitled” to anything they want, they demanded something they wanted, and didn’t get a chance to tell anyone just how badly they were misled about that.
We’re fresh out of sympathy. A typical robber starts out younger than this and commits a robbery every week or more often until he is captured, and then in 9 times out of 10 resumes a career of armed robbery when he gets out. Putting down these two pathogens has saved literally hundreds of decent people from being robbed in the year ahead. If they were bagged in a timely manner, before they could sire the next generation (probably too late, at 15 and 17), then the number of robberies prevented could be thousands or tens of thousands over the entire next century.
That store owner’s family member did more to deter and fight crime than every prosecutor and judge in all Chicagoland.