On the show Law and Order SVU, how different would the outcomes be if the victims were armed with a legal concealed carry weapon?

I do not think they reflect the real world very much. The other day I was reading in the WSJ, or NY Times of some supposedly groundbreaking legislation Obama signed to bring a boatload of money to test the 1,000s. of rape kits collected but never processed. In the article one woman said she had to wait 9 ½ years before her rape kit got tested. Apparently there is not a crack team of investigators making sue all trace evidence and DNA go unturned. I wonder how many other women were raped because of government feet dragging? If the attacker never had the cops even whiff at him, he might have been embolden and done it again, and maybe again, and maybe again; only if he slipped up and jumped the bones of a minor do I think the authorities would have got things moving at warp speed. I believe if the intended victim had produced a weapon, knife, gun, and waylaid the attacker if any charges were thought to go her way would be who she was, or who her attacker was; if she was socially below the attacker, some type of charge for her, if the attacker was socially below her, she walks.

We all love to play arm chair refery,or lawyer ,but until we ourselves are put into that situation we never really know what we would do.
I would like to think if attacked I would fight to the death,but have never been in that situation I guess I will never know.

I just watched another one during dinner. This time the victims were gay men. They (guys, of course) put a hood on them as they walked on the street and pushed them into a van. Even with a hood on I’d be emptying the magazine in all directions.

I limit myself to one per day. “All things in moderation.”

Maybe a little off topic but I saw an interview with a real life detective and her advice for a female if she was ever in the situation of a male holding a gun and trying to get her in the car was to run. She said it would be better if she was killed than to get in the car and the male take her and do horrible things to her and then kill her.

@chyna if it is a simple robbery then cooperate with them give em what they want especially if they have weapons on you,but if they want to remove YOU from the area, then fight,because they are trying to find a more private secluded spot and YOU don’t want to go there.

@SQUEEKY2 If it is a “simple robbery”, the instructions I’ve read is to toss the handbag aside and take off in the opposite direction.

I heard give them the handbag, don’t look at them because you don’t want them to flip out that you’re going to identify them, and like @SQUEEKY2 said don’t ever let them take you to “Location #2” because that’s when it’s all over.

When the guy throws her down, or pushes her in the back of the car with locked doors she pulls a gun from her bra holster and shoots him. Case closed.
I meditated on that and thought it would end the situation, and maybe stop other incidences because other attackers would have to think three times or more if the woman they want to drag into the bushes, alley, or force their way into her car would pull a pistol from her bra, from under her skirt, or her purse and pop a cap in them. However, that would be acquiescing to the fact that a woman armed is in better position than an unarmed woman, and some will never capitulate to that, they believe guns, even in the hands of licensed private citizen is bad. Being that, unless her attacker was the worst kind of scumbag, they would go after her on some weapon charge just on GP.

“if the victim was armed and trained”

I think the important part of that Q is the second stipulation, namely TRAINED.

Too many times I hear gun advocates talking about how different various situations (like theater or school shootings) may have turned out if there had only been one person who was armed with a gun.

But they place zero emphasis upon the training that should accompany gun ownership.

That does a tremendous disservice to the average person’s understanding of the tremendous responsibility that comes along with gun ownership.

How many times do we constantly hear news reports of a child severely injured or killed because the owner of the weapon failed to properly secure that weapon? That should be repeatedly drilled into the head of every person who buys a gun. But it isn’t and millions of kids pay the price for it.

If the NRA ever wants to score some credibility with me they need to be emphasizing proper training AS MUCH AS gun ownership. Yes, they do sometimes mention training but they need to EMPHASIZE it. Seriously.

So, my answer to your Q would be that a woman merely owning a gun might not be any better off unless she has also put in the training to know how and when to use that gun.

I have taken training courses and there is normally as much taught about when to refrain from using a weapon, how to prevent the attacker from using it on you, and preventing damage to bystanders as there is about using it. And the importance of HOW to properly secure a weapon at home is always taught.

I get so sick and tired of hearing people talk about how they can’t stand the thought of any delay when they really need their gun.

They are totally unaware that there are numerous types of gun lock boxes which require but a push of 3–4 buttons to open. Or they don’t care. That should be speedy enough for anybody and could save a child“s life.

The ignorance and lack of training found in many zealous gun owners is appalling.

I’m glad you chose to mention trained along with gun possession. I wish more gun enthusiasts would do the same. There might be many more kids alive today.

@Buttonstc well according to Canadian law you should see how I have to secure my guns, shit it would take me at least 10 minutes to get them out and the trigger locks off them before I could even think about loading them.

@Buttonstc How many times do we constantly hear news reports of a child severely injured or killed because the owner of the weapon failed to properly secure that weapon?
It is a whole different situation when a woman is being forced into a car, back alley or a van, there are no children to accidently shot themselves.

So, my answer to your Q would be that a woman merely owning a gun might not be any better off unless she has also put in the training to know how and when to use that gun.
I beg to differ, I think if she pulled the heater and started firing in the direction of the attacker his reaction will be the same as if the fool started popping caps out front of Dairy Queen, floats will fly, sundaes will be left on the table as people scatter like rabbits, no one will be thinking “wonder if he is trained to use that pistol or not?”, even if she was not a crack shot, the attacker won’t know it. More than likely there are not going to be any innocent bystanders because they would be potential witnesses, so the attacker will not have anyone else he/she knows of in the vicinity as they can be witnesses and get cell phone video or something.

@SQUEEKY2 [..shit it would take me at least 10 minutes to get them out and the trigger locks off them before I could even think about loading them.
Well, look at it this way; you will have neatly put away weapons when the authorities show up after you are shot dead in a home invasion robbery, your weapon of defense was rendered useless, but you were law abiding unto death. ~~~

@LuckyGuy Can I have a turret mounted 50 ?

@Adirondackwannabe For duck hunting?

Sure, a gun in the bra sounds like a good idea. Assuming, that is, that the attacker allows the woman time to reach into their shirt (degree of difficulty would depend on the type of shirt worn), fish around for the gun, pull the gun out, cock it and aim it at the attacker. We all like to think that having a gun instantly makes a person able to protect themselves and others, but in truth for most people possessing a gun just increases your chances of getting hurt.

Again I don’t know how statistically relevant that show is. But so far, when the women see it coming they try to klip klop klip klop away in high heels. It doesn’t work.

I was actually trying to find some numbers and learned something interesting. 4 times as many kids are accidentally killed and 3 times as many are injured in swimming pools than by firearms. It a huge difference. I was surprised.

@LuckyGuy

You just mentioned my other pet peeve; people who don’t fence and lock their swimming pools.

Every time a child drowns because of this there is this huge outpouring of sympathy (rather than legal consequences) and what is completely overlooked is that this was entirely preventable.

My sister had a swimming pool in back of her house for years and no one ever died either her own kids or neighbors) because, when not in use, the gate was secured with a combination padlock which cost all of $5. That’s literally all it took. Well, that plus never allowing kids in the pool without an adult to supervise. Not even for five minutes to answer the doorbell or phone. It doesn’t take that long for a kid to die.

Sometimes kids get into things which can’t always be anticipated. But a swimming pool is a death trap for kids who can’t swim and their death is ENTIRELY preventable.

@Hypo

1.) if she has had no training at all there’s just as great a possibility of the attacker taking the gun away from her. Merely having a gun is not a guarantee. It doesn’t take that much time or money to be properly trained.

2.) Not every woman who gets attacked is single. If she has children at home, that gun could just as easily kill a child if it isn’t secured properly.

@SQUEEKY2

I’m not familiar with Canadian law. I do know that there are some excellent lockboxes on the market (one even has indentations for the combination numbers in the shape of a hand. All one needs to do is push your particular combo in a matter of seconds)

Does Canadian law require keeping the ammo separate EVEN IF the gun is in a secure lockbox ? Or is it just that they require the purchase of a trigger lock accompanying each gun purchase?

I agree with you that trigger locks are usually quite cumbersome. But there are much better alternatives. Does the govt. mandate trigger locks specifically? I would imagine that as long as it’s in a secure lockbox, that requiring trigger locks as well would be kind of ridiculous.

They do on the handguns,but not the long guns,as long as both are in their locked gun cabnits.

Given that the majority of attacks on women are carried out by men they know, it’s unlikely they’ll have a concealed weapon in their hand when the event occurs. In addition, I don’t think it would be an easy thing to shoot anyone, let alone someone you are close to.

Furthermore, while I agree with @Buttonstc that training in the effective use of a firearm would be essential, it’s not going to help if someone grabs a woman from behind or during a surprise attack while she’s in her office at night or at home unless she keeps a gun on her person at all times. Having a gun on you at all times seems impractical and unsafe to me. And frankly, I don’t want to live anywhere where that might be required for my survival!

In Queensland this week, we’ve had a number of violent attacks on women. One woman was run off the road by her ex-partner, who then jumped into her crashed car and smashed her head in. I doubt she could have pulled a gun on him. A second woman was in a Macdonalds when her ex-partner walked in, shot her in the head and then shot himself. Again, I’m pretty sure she wasn’t expecting that to happen and so wouldn’t have had a gun to hand.

Other than that, I’d much rather men just learned not to attack women rather than women having to carry guns to protect themselves.

I always had a theory for what if someone came into my home and looked like he was going to come toward me. I’d pick up something heavy (anything from a vase to a chair – yes, I’m strong) and throw it through the window. This would be in conjunction with yelling and screaming. Hopefully the yelling and screaming combined with the breaking glass would alert the neighbors to call the cops. Also, hopefully it would scare him enough thinking help is on the way, and he’d run out, not run in.

@LuckyGuy If a vic (on L & O: SVU or some similar program) ever did subdue the perp with a well placed round, the episode would get even more complex. There would be more than enough new questions to be answered to easily flesh out the rest of the episode (not to mention the mountain of paperwork.)

Still, a bra holster?? Does it actually exist?

@sahID Yes that is a real thing. one of the more famous brands is called Flashbang.

On the show last night the victim (a woman) was chased down and pushed into the back of a stolen taxi cab with locking doors. People saw her pounding (ineffectively) on the windows.

I think I should start watching something else. I’m just not enjoying this show like I did Breaking Bad.
.

^You will be happy to know Scandal starts 9/24.

@LuckyGuy

Well for one thing, Breaking Bad wasn’t trite, formulaic shite like Law and Order (or any of 5,000 spin-offs) is.

@chyna I can’t watch TV live any more. For me, the commercials detract too much from the story. I guess I am not old enough.
I watch TV via NetFlix and my Roku..

@Darth_Algar Breaking Bad was the best! It made me think. So far nothing has come close. But I will keep searching.
Bryan Cranston was incredible. After BB I watched the series Malcolm in the Middle, which also starred BC, and noticed many plot similarities and tie-ins.
They prepared an alternate ending to BB on youtube. Very well done.

I still haven’t forgiven Walt for – SPOILER ALERT (see below for spolier) -

*killing Mike Ehrmantraut

@Earthbound_Misfit “Having a gun on you at all times seems impractical and unsafe to me. And frankly, I don’t want to live anywhere where that might be required for my survival!”

This, a thousand times this.

If these are my choices – being constantly armed or assuming that physical assault is inevitable – I’m going to choose to live somewhere else, period. There is simply no reason for this, although many Americans appear to think these are the only two options. I have never lived anywhere that made me fear for my safety the way people seem to do in the US. Why do you submit to it?

@Darth_Algar Yes. That was hard to take. Disappointing.
@dappled_leaves @Earthbound_Misfit I guess not everyone has the luxury of moving to a nice safe neighborhood. In a city neighborhood 99% of the families can be wonderful but it only takes one crack head and his buddies to terrorize and prey upon the honest people. I feel sorry for the honest ones. I would not do well under those circumstances. I’d have more cameras running than at a NASA launch.

Just for the record according to FBI figures the crime rate here is one of the lowest and occasionally THE lowest in the US. It is wonderful. Do you know where my house key is hidden? I don’t either.

@LuckyGuy So, really, you think it makes sense to always be armed for the sake of a single crackhead among “99% good families”? That doesn’t make any sense to me at all. If the neighbourhood is a safe one, you would carry at all times?

@LuckyGuy, I stand by my argument that most attacks on women are carried out by people they know so being armed wouldn’t protect women. And as you say, 99% of people in a neighbourhood are decent human beings, so being armed constantly shouldn’t be required. If we want women and children to be safe, we need to change attitudes, and specifically male attitudes, towards women and children. Not give our women guns.

Before anyone jumps on me, I don’t think ALL men have a bad attitude towards women, but I do think all men need to proactively try to change the view of the minority that they own their women and children and that verbally, physically or sexually abusing women is somehow acceptable.

@dappled_leaves Heck no. People aren’t walking around here armed. Well… except for in the woods when the coyote packs were being a little aggressive during the winter. Yikes!
I was mostly talking about that show SVU. Watch one episode . The guy did it. The woman was the victim, and she saw it coming but was defenseless about half the time.

I might, or might not, be armed when I need to go into the city. That is how concealed carry works. No one knows for sure.

I’ve had my house broken into. And I’ve lived in a fairly rough city, even had a shooting across the street from me. I’ve still never felt so fearful that I’ve felt the need to stay armed.

@LuckyGuy Sure, but as you pointed out somewhere earlier, if there’s no crime, there’s no show. So obviously, there will be a victim in every episode. It’s nothing like real life.

And yeah, concealed carry creeps me right the hell out. I live in a big city, and I don’t want you anywhere near me with a gun on your person. As far as I’m concerned, you are the threat.

I wouldn’t have a bit of a problem with a level headed person like @LuckyGuy right next to me with a concealed gun because I know that it would never come out of its holster unless there were a damn good reason.

It’s the whack jobs like Jared Laughtner who should never have been in possession of a gun, that I don’t want within ten miles of me.

The gun is not the problem. It’s the person pulling the trigger (and why) that’s the problem.

If I’m sitting next to a sane rational person who has been well trained in self defense and doesn’t have an irrational temper, why would it bother me if that person were carrying a gun or not.

It’s the person who is the problem, not an inanimate object.

Fantastic answer Buttonstc people are the problem not the gun, I agree 10000percent.

@Buttonstc Then I guess American individuals must be substantially more violent in character than those from any other nation on earth. Seriously, when is your country going to figure out this simple equation?

@dappled_leaves

I understand your point about the too easy availability of guns, especially to unstable individuals.

I also realize that people in other countries with far stricter gun laws and less prevalence of firearms think that we are all nuts over here.

But the practical reality is that, given our history, the US will never have the type of laws as Great Britain, Japan and many other nations in the world. It just won’t happen.

Many people thought that Sandy Hook would be the tipping point to usher in greater gun regulation. But apparently not.

There is a strong lobby of people who are appalled by the gun violence and easy access to guns. But they are opposed by a much stronger lobby led by the NRA.

I’m not a big enthusiast of the NRA because I think they take it to ridiculous extremes. I mean, who really NEEDS (not wants) to own an assault rifle or machine gun. It’s ridiculous.

But striking a sensible balance is difficult. It shouldn’t be but it is.

But, let’s face it, an unstable person with a gun can wreak untold havoc and end innocent lives but they can be found anywhere, not just the US.

I forget whether it was Norway or Sweden where there was a mentally unstable guy who also gunned down a significant number of schoolchildren.

I certainly don’t have all the answers. But common sense let’s me know that @LuckyGuy represents a clear majority of sensible, well trained gun owners who pose no more danger to me than anybody else.

And for that matter, a violent person or one who has little control over his temper can kill me just as easily with a baseball bat, a knife, or just his fists. That is evident by all the cases of domestic violence that make the news. The vast majority of those are not gun owners. But they do quite enough damage without one.

So, does our country have a higher percentage of violent people than other countries.? I honestly don’t know, statistically speaking. That’s not a copout. I honestly don’t know.

I do know that people have that impression because the relatively small number of unstable people who do use guns to wipe people out, do effect such large number totals that it obliterates the greater majority of responsible sensible gun owners.

But i’m willing to bet that the per capita stats on domestic violence (without guns involved) are pretty similar from one country to another. Thats just my hunch. I could be wrong but common sense tells me, probably not.

@Buttonstc

However, you never know who is sane and rational and who shouldn’t have a gun until they’re opening fire on school children, losing their shit over the guy sitting behind him talking during the movie, or blindly firing down a dark hallway without knowing who he’s firing at. Everyone’s a “responsible” gun owner until they ain’t.

Everyone? Really?

Even someone whom a psychiatrist described as “depressed and obsessed with killing for more than a decade”.

That was James Holmes who narrowly escaped being placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold because she was afraid it “might inflame him”.

That’s a responsible gun owner in your opinion?

And there are similar observations about Jared Laughtner, (who shot Gabby Gifford and those gathered to hear her speech.) numerous people were aware that he was unstable.

The same for Adam Lanza (who never should have had access to his mother’s gun collection.) if I had a kid like that, you’d better believe I’d give up my gun collection promptly.

And the warning signs were all over the place for the Virginia Tech shooter and others too numerous to list.

I don’t remember the name offhand, but I’ll find it because I wrote about it previously after seeing a 60 Mins. report on a State Senator who tried in vain to get his troubled son admitted on an emergency basis once he realized that he was off his meds. No dice.

He was fortunate to escape with his life after his son attacked him with a knife and subsequently killed himself with a gun which the Father thought he had secured.

Our current Mental Health system is beyond inadequate. We could do quite a bit to avert tragedy by doing some serious meaningful reform.

The majority of these highly publicized mass shootings have not been done by perfectly rational people who one bright sunny day just “snapped” out of a clear blue sky.

These were deeply unstable individuals. They were not your average responsible gun owner (who clearly are the majority of gun owners who never make the headlines).

These people should have received mental health care (even if mandated) and should have never been allowed near a gun.

Not everyone is a responsible gun owner until they aren’t. Some are clearly out of touch with reality or so full of rage that they frighten numerous people with whom they come in contact.

Granted, we can’t 100% prevent every single unstable person from getting a gun (nothing is 100% where human behavior is concerned).

But, for crying out loud, we aren’t even trying in commonsense ways. This is ridiculous.

You know as well as I that this country will never abolish guns the way other more restrictive nations have done. But there need to be some common sense restrictions on access by people who are clearly demonstrably “off their rocker” (to borrow a colloquial phrase) and have been for years.

In spite of the NRA there have to be some safeguards put in place.

As I said, I don’t have all the answers but there are some common sense places to start that most people could agree upon. But even that gets ignored.

It’s not just some weird coincidence that the majority of mass shootings have been done by very very unstable people. That just stretches credibility to the breaking point.

Most of us know a dangerpus nutbar when we get to know them. They tend to stick out. Instead of just ignoring them something needs to be done, beginning with reforming our badly broken mental health system.

Virginia State Senator Creigh Deeds is the man to whom I referred.

You can’t find a better illustration of the inadequacies in our current system than what happened to him.

He was trying his best to do everything he possibly could as a responsible parent once he realized the son was off his meds. But the system totally failed him and his son.

When you read what happened to him (or watch the 60 Mins. piece on CBS website) you’ll realize what I’m referring to. This kid could have easily wound up doing far more damage to others aside from his Father and himself.

I so strongly disagree with the first sentence of your post.

There are numerous times when we do know long before someone opens fire on a bunch of innocents who is sane and rational and who is not.

Not every single person.
But with A LOT OF them it’s as plain as the nose on one’s face. Yes, many times you can certainly tell. All it takes is an ounce of common sense (which we, collectively speaking, have somehow been reluctant to heed.) something needs to change. Badly.

If anyone was interested in a different “cultural” experience, they should visit a NY gun show. Sounds ridiculous but stick with me for a minute.
First, you have to pay to get in so you don’t get many casual browsers.
Second, there is a heavy police presence both marked and undercover.
Third, everyone is photographed by the security camera systems as you walk in and roam the aisles.
Fourth, all weapons must be declared and are disabled with zip-ties by security.

In general, the people that go there are legal carry permit holders (~1% of the population) and if they are carrying something, it is registered and legal and it must be listed on the permit. No felon, or person on a watch list would be foolish enough to attend. And certainly nobody would bring in an illegal gun because they would be caught in seconds.

Now look away from the tables and observe the crowd and see how they behave. The people attending are so polite and orderly. They are dentists, lawyers, engineers, wives, husbands, Nobody is pushing or shoving or causing any problems. No pick pockets, or thieves. There are old vets and disabled young ones. There are Civil War reenactors looking for old hardware they can demonstrate at the next event. There’s a WWII history buff looking for a part for a gun that belonged to his grandfather.

It is so interesting to people watch. Even though the aisles get crowded the people you meet are way more polite and accommodating than those you see walking on the street. in a crowded city. If a person rolls up in wheel-chair the crowds part as if Moses raised his arm – nothing is mentioned. They just do it. “Can you see OK? Do you want help with that?” Try that on the subway! A woman would have to be giving birth before someone would give up their regular seat.

The people walking around with permits passed background checks that included things like: (I am pulling these off the printed document)
Not a convicted felon, no drug offenses, no delinquent violations, never been committed to mental health facility, no habitual alcohol or unlawful drug usage including marijuana, or a stimulant, depressant or narcotic drug. no dishonorable discharge from armed forces, not convicted of any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. (That would include domestic violence, sex offenses, etc.) The background check also includes interviews with any of your neighbors, coworkers, and family, where they are asked how you behave, handle disappointment, anger, gambling, and any other concerns. It is not easy. I wish all states were similarly restrictive.

Hey! I just realized something. The requirements for being a NY State CCW Permit holder are very similar to those that make a good life partner! Go back and read them again. See? Maybe Match dot com should include that as a question. People can lie on their profiles but a clean background check from the FBI and State is pretty darn difficult to falsify. I wonder if there is a study that correlates permit holders income levels and marriage duration. That would make an interesting thesis.

This discussion derailed the original thread but that is ok. If anyone cares I have reached my SVU limit. It’s unpredictability is too predictable. The guy did it.

Did you really take the time to thoughtfully consider what I posted, or did you just jump at your first knee-jerk reaction?

@Darth_Algar Of course I did. Did you read mine? Aren’t those characteristic desirable in a potential life partner? Of all the nut job shootings we hear about were any of them legal Permitted holders? What percentage? I’m betting it is incredibly small. I’d like to see real numbers on that.

@LuckyGuy

My post was actually directed at @Buttonstc. I thought I had put his name into my post. Guess not.

How different would the outcomes be if the victims were armed with a legal concealed carry weapon? Highly unlikely different. It doesn’t take much for a perpetrator to overcome the resistance of a victim, especially if it is a male attacking a female or child. It is often planned in advance, whether plotted out long-term or less.

When the guy throws her down, or pushes her in the back of the car with locked doors she pulls a gun from her bra holster and shoots him. Case closed. The case isn’t closed. The true victim now becomes the plaintiff vs. the defendant. The lawyer has to prove the guilt of the person shot.

Every case seems to take 400 officers canvassing a neighborhood, laboratory personnel running scads of DNA tests, and their crack team flying to “Montana” because some relative knows a cousin who is left-handed, owns a credit card and was a sex offender 15 years ago. I’ve watched some of the series. This seems like an exaggeration. I have yet to see an episode where there were that many people involved, unless it was one where volunteers helped with searching an area. Watch or read some true crime series and you will find that it does take a fair amount of people doing the research. It can also take years before solving a case.

What does that investigation cost? Who funds that budget? Every investigation costs a different amount. The funding comes from state taxes. There may be private funding through donations. If not resolved quickly, it may become a cold case.

Are these statistics close to the realistic? How much does a real investigation cost? Do potential victims ever fight back? Which statistics? Yours? Probably not, especially if they are based on a fictional television show that takes place in NYC. The show is about an elite team that focuses on solving “special” crimes, particularly those of a sexual nature. It covers a large variety of cases vs. those that are most common, such as child molestation, statutory rape, and spousal abuse. Many of these cases never come to light in the law of justice. The stats stem from anonymous surveys.