Another Example of Why Running from Robbers is a Bad Idea: Texas Man Shot in Back by Armed Robber

Published by the Author on August 14, 2018 at 8:12 am > Pro Gun Rights Articles > Another Example of Why Running from Robbers is a Bad Idea: Texas Man Shot in Back by Armed Robber

A Texas man is in critical condition after being shot in the back while attempting to flee from armed robbers.

Police say that several people where attending a cookout at a house when two armed robbers approached and demanded their valuables.  One of the cookout attendees reportedly attempted to run from the robbers, at which point one of the robbers shot him in the back and then fled.  The injured man was said to be in critical condition at a local hospital, with a gunshot wound to his neck.

I’ve seen some anti gun rights people suggest that instead of being armed for self defense, a citizen can just run from a criminal.  As this shooting shows, running is not necessarily a good choice.  Simply put, humans just don’t have the speed to outrun an armed criminal who is intent upon shooting them.  Even the fastest human sprinters, under ideal conditions, can only manage to run at about 29 MPH for a very short period time, while bullets are (obviously) much faster.  It takes just an instant for a criminal to aim and fire their gun, while a human trying to run away must first overcome inertia and then avoid obstacles, all while trying to avoid being shot.  Given the fact that robberies often happen in enclosed spaces with limited escape routes, a criminal will have a good idea of the victim’s potential escape route, making it easier to shoot the fleeing victim.  Or as the NFL’s Brandon Jacobs explained, while defending Plaxico Burress‘ decision to carry a gun, no one is fast enough to outrun a bullet.

ALSO READ:  Yet Another Benefit of Armed Self Defense: Keeping Innocent People Out of Prison

Nor will complying with a criminal’s demands necessarily prevent the criminal from harming the citizen.  Despite fully cooperating with the robbers’ demands, this deli owner was shot 3 times in the chest for not having enough money in his cash register.  Similarly, this home invasion victimwas shot for not having belongings that were valuable enough to be worth stealing.  This familysuffered robbery and rape after offering no resistance to a home invader.

Relying upon the police for protection is also a choice that I find to be unwise.  The police owe a citizen no duty of protection and are not liable, even when they fail to arrive for 14 hours after being called multiple times.  Even if the 911 operator doesn’t fall asleep and dispatches police in less than 48 minutes, a criminal can complete their attack in seconds, while the police will take minutes to get there.

On the other hand, armed citizens are in the best possible position to defend themselves and their loved ones.  This armed barber shot an armed criminal who threatened his young child.  This armed pet shop clerk shot an armed robber who threatened a fellow employee’s life.  This armed pizza delivery man defended himself against a trio of robbers.  This armed citizen stopped a bank robber, while this armed Israeli stopped a terrorist.  This armed woman shot a rapist, while this armed woman shot a stalker that broke into her home.  Even citizens who are illegallycarrying guns have stopped bat-wielding racists and armed robbers.  While it is true that not every crime could be prevented by an armed citizen, a great many crimes could be – and that is why I support the right of citizens to be armed for self defense purposes.

Unarmed Self Defense and Disaster Preparedness e-books:

Tags for this article: , , , , ,