WATSONVILLE – A Santa Cruz man was shot in the leg during an attempted robbery outside Markley’s Indoor Range and Gun Shop Sunday afternoon, police said.
My friend E passed this article to me.
I’ve been to Markley’s. Take a look at its location via Google Street View so you can see the lay of the street. Now, I can only go based upon what the article says, so who knows what information is missing or what bias is to be had. But based upon what we have, let’s examine a few things.
The 38-year-old victim was with his father-in-law when the two left the range about 2 p.m., after some recreational shooting, and had secured their firearm as required, Sgt. Brian Ridgway said.
They put the gun in the trunk of their car and were about to get in the car when a man walked up, armed with a handgun and wearing a bandana over his face, and demanded their weapon, Ridgway said.
So they were mugged as they were leaving the range. Why do you think that happened? What do you think that mugger is going to do with the obtained gun? I’m sure it’s not going to a “buyback” program. No… I’m sure the exact intent was to “put another gun ON the street”.
The father-in-law, who is 46, grabbed the suspect’s gun and struggled with him momentarily and the younger man began running south on Vic Rugh Lane, he said.
The suspect broke free and chased him, firing several shots and striking him once in the leg, Ridgway said.
The shooter then jumped in a black or dark green Acura, which was last seen heading toward Freedom Boulevard from Gardener Avenue, police said.
Why the younger man started running is curious to me. Was he leaving his father-in-law to fight alone? Did he perhaps take their gun and try to get it as far away from the mugger as possible? Is there a deeper issue here (e.g. they know each other and this isn’t just a simple mugging)? It’s curious.
Anyways….
Here’s what stood out to me.
We always talk about how crimes don’t happen in certain places, like in police stations or in gun stores or at gun ranges. This situation doesn’t change that assertion. The reason those things don’t happen is because people in those places have ready access to usable firearms — criminals don’t like to get shot either. What happened here was outside a gun range and store, and the victim’s gun was useless because it had to be locked up and disabled due to California law.
These laws were put in place under the onus of safety, to protect the public, to serve the common good. I have to ask, who exactly did the law serve here? Who exactly benefitted from this law? These laws enabled two men to be attacked, one was shot and now had medical bills, time off work, pain, suffering, and who knows what long-term effects it will have — all because they obeyed the law. Once again the criminal — people who, by definition, don’t obey the law — suffers nothing and no loss. Because of the law he realized what a fine target this place and these people would be. And guess what? He already had a gun, which wasn’t properly secured as per California law. Doesn’t look like those laws were doing much to stop the bad guys — only the good guys.
If due to a law bad people benefit and good people suffer, is that really a right and just law? If not, why are we keeping that law?
Yeah yeah… some people will say that this is some exception to the rule, that for the most part the laws work as intended. Funny thing tho… they always justify such laws by saying “if it saves just one life, then it was worth it”. Well, it looks like it almost cost one life… so I guess by that same logic, no it’s not worth it.
Stuff From Hsoi 
Good blog entry, it does sound like an unusual situation. It is a stupid law like you pointed out. You can argue about low probability and exceptions to the rule until it happens to you. I had a different situation that wasn’t gun related but almost killed us and I wouldn’t have dreamed of it happening and it really changes how you look at odds and exceptions to the rule.
I will say with the usual bit about the story well… depending what’s behind that it could change the tilt of things here. But all I can go on is what was reported and how, so it’s all provided within that context.
So that said yes… we have to be mindful of the rule and exceptions. I mean, statistics are of little comfort when you are the anomaly.
The law served the elite who wish to govern, and don’t want us uppity peons being able/inclined to protest their rule. It’s not about safety and it’s not for the children, no matter how often they sing that tune (to a public that more and more wants to hear it). It’s about control, and who has it. Always has been, always will be.
This is why I wish people in this country would stop referring to public servants as “our leaders”. The President, Congressmen, Senators, etc. are NOT our leaders — they are our servants, and they would do well to be reminded of that — and WE would do well to remember than AND remind them AND act like we’re the ones in charge.