Marine With Concealed Carry Permit Saves Woman From Being Beaten to Death

If only someone had a gun? -From March 2013

General • August 2013 • Views: 1,861

What were the odds this man would be at the right place at the right time with the right tool and skills? Pretty long right? Well not too long to be enough, and a salient point for those who say CCW is a bad idea over the long odds of needing it. Sometimes it’s not all about you and your need. It can be the need of defending an innocent.

A Wisconsin man who saved a woman from being beaten to death Tuesday morning credits his state’s concealed carry law for giving him the ability to act.

Charlie Blackmore Jr., a 32-year-old Marine Corps veteran, was driving home from work at 4:00am Tuesday when he saw a man violently kicking a large object on the ground. He parked his car to see what was going on and upon drawing closer to the scene, Blackmore realized that the “object” was a young woman.

When the man refused to stop beating his visibly injured victim, Blackmore pulled out his Springfield XDM 9mm.

More: Marine With Concealed Carry Permit Saves Woman From Being Beaten to Death

Recent Pages by Rightwingconspirator:
Russia's New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Case Against Right Wing Hacks About That Flood Warning for Los Angeles? Coastal Serenity The Six Fingered Con Man

Jump to bottom

43 comments

theheat Thu, Aug 15, 2013 5:45:51pm

I guess everyone can rest easy now because once every 12 years or whenever something like this happens. It would have been a more satisfying story had the woman being beaten shot the man herself.

Political Atheist Thu, Aug 15, 2013 5:50:11pm

re: #1 theheat

Well look I could link a couple more of people defending themselves from a month or two. The best careful number seems to be about 67,000 times per year. 183 times per day. CCW etc combined. But I find the “defense of another” more compelling to counter the decision one person might make about the long odds of needing the gun who would insist that should be THE factor in the decision for other people.

Tigger2005 Thu, Aug 15, 2013 6:37:11pm

Do you ever think to ask yourself WHY DOES THIS SITUATION EXIST in this country where people supposedly need to defend themselves or others 183 times a day, 67,000 times a year, with guns? Of course not, because you are only looking for reasons to support gun ownership and CCW, not for ways to reduce the insane levels of violence and bloodshed, whether from gang/drug/criminal activity, domestic disputes, road rage, accidents, suicide, and what have you. WHY are we so violent? WHY do we have such a violent culture? Why don’t people in Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan need to defend themselves with guns so frequently, why do they have such low levels of gun violence, even though they watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games? Why don’t you ever ask yourself these questions?

Political Atheist Thu, Aug 15, 2013 6:46:27pm

re: #3 Tigger2005

Easy there. I have and do ask. I am an advocate of research about what makes a person a killer. I just posted a Page about that recently. I have a gun because I need it given an elevated threat for people in my biz.

Why? Maybe we should look at those oh so peaceful cultures you mention. Japan had it’s violent days as did Europe. How peaceful were they within 100, 200 years of their beginnings? We are a young nation, taken by force. We have extreme density and far too many desperately poor. I hate this violence.

Vicious Babushka Thu, Aug 15, 2013 6:47:03pm

THAT WOMAN GOT RAPED BECAUZ SHE DIDN’T HAVE A GUN, SHE MUST BE A SLUT WHO WUZ ASKIN FER IT, ALL GOOD WOMMENS HAS A GUN!!!11!!

Political Atheist Thu, Aug 15, 2013 6:56:09pm

re: #3 Tigger2005

Do you ever think to ask yourself WHY DOES THIS SITUATION EXIST in this country where people supposedly need to defend themselves or others 183 times a day, 67,000 times a year, with guns? Of course not, because you are only looking for reasons to support gun ownership and CCW, not for ways to reduce the insane levels of violence and bloodshed, whether from gang/drug/criminal activity, domestic disputes, road rage, accidents, suicide, and what have you. WHY are we so violent? WHY do we have such a violent culture? Why don’t people in Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan need to defend themselves with guns so frequently, why do they have such low levels of gun violence, even though they watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games? Why don’t you ever ask yourself these questions?

How well do you think you know me?

Dark_Falcon Thu, Aug 15, 2013 7:10:23pm

re: #3 Tigger2005

Downding for trying to change the subject to cultural problems for which RWC is not to blame.

Tigger2005 Thu, Aug 15, 2013 8:45:10pm

Oh, I’ve been downdinged by DF for a completely b.s. reason. I so sad.

It is, of course, completely relevant and is not “changing the subject.” The insistence that we need firearms for self-defense directly contributes to the culture of violence.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 4:11:33am

re: #4 Political Atheist

Easy there. I have and do ask. I am an advocate of research about what makes a person a killer.

That’s not the question.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 6:22:39am

re: #8 Tigger2005

The insistence that we need firearms for self-defense directly contributes to the culture of violence.

Each and every innocent that falls to violence from rape, robbery, gay bashing & the rest does too. Violent attacks are the ocean, CCW & castle laws are the drop of water, if at all.

re: #3 Tigger2005

Do you ever think to ask yourself WHY DOES THIS SITUATION EXIST in this country where people supposedly need to defend themselves or others 183 times a day, 67,000 times a year, with guns? Of course not, because you are only looking for reasons to support gun ownership and CCW, not for ways to reduce the insane levels of violence and bloodshed, whether from gang/drug/criminal activity, domestic disputes, road rage, accidents, suicide, and what have you.

You are just about as wrong as a flat earth adherent. This Page was in direct response to Skip Intros snarky exploit of a sad and unnecessary accident.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 7:08:37am

re: #10 Political Atheist

Each and every innocent that falls to violence from rape, robbery, gay bashing & the rest does too. Violent attacks are the ocean, CCW & castle laws are the drop of water, if at all.

How do they ‘add to the culture of violence’? They are the result of the culture of violence.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 8:12:50am

re: #11 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

How do they ‘add to the culture of violence’? They are the result of the culture of violence.

Fact-Defensive skills or actions exist so the innocent may thrive despite predators.

I mean skills or actions so as to include locks, good doors, police departments and personal action like alarms or weapons.

IMHO It’s not the other way around. It’s the aggressors, the criminals who are to be held responsible not the prospective or actual victims.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 8:16:36am

re: #12 Political Atheist

Fact-Defensive skills or actions exist so the innocent may thrive despite predators.

I cannot understand what the hell you’re talking about.

IMHO It’s not the other way around. It’s the aggressors, the criminals who are to be held responsible not the prospective or actual victims.

Yeah, that was my point. People being killed don’t add to the culture of violence. They’re the result of it.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 8:22:11am

re: #13 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I cannot understand what the hell you’re talking about.

Sorry, I don’t see why not, so not sure how to clarify that for you.

Yeah, that was my point. People being killed don’t add to the culture of violence. They’re the result of it.

Obviously it’s a cycle, that relates to a huge stack of issues.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 8:24:23am

re: #14 Political Atheist

Sorry, I don’t see why not, so not sure how to clarify that for you.

Well, try saying it another way. You said:

Fact-Defensive skills or actions exist so the innocent may thrive despite predators.

Try saying it another way. This can’t be the only way you have of expressing this thought.

Obviously it’s a cycle, that relates to a huge stack of issues.

How is that part of a cycle? Do you mean that those who get shot will then seek revenge?

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 9:45:12am

re: #15 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Well, try saying it another way.

Rephrased-Given the obvious existence and in some places prevalence of violent predators, law abiding people will rightly seek protection.

How is that part of a cycle? Do you mean that those who get shot will then seek revenge?

More like seek to prevent or stop another attack. How they do that is for them to decide, hopefully wisely. Revenge is always a bad idea. Of course in some cases a victim will seek revenge and the awful cycle is on.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 9:53:50am

re: #16 Political Atheist

Rephrased-Given the obvious existence and in some places prevalence of violent predators, law abiding people will rightly seek protection.

Sure. However, people in perfectly safe places where they have an incredibly low chance of ever need it will also seek ‘protection’, even though that protection is more dangerous than the risk they’re securing themselves against. That’s because we’re bad at statistics, but also because of our gun culture.

More like seek to prevent or stop another attack. How they do that is for them to decide, hopefully wisely. Revenge is always a bad idea. Of course in some cases a victim will seek revenge and the awful cycle is on.

Alright, you’ve lost me again.

I understand and accept that if I want to live as a free man in a free world, I am going to be at risk from people abusing that freedom. I do not think that the role of the cops is to arrive as a mugger attacks me and prevent that. Someone may decide, at some point, that he doesn’t like my face and attack me. I may get robbed, I may get raped again. I might also get hit by a car, slip on an icy sidewalk, or fall in the shower.

There is no way that we will ever be perfectly secure or safe. The greatest way to freedom from crime is economic stability.

The culture of violence we have, the gun culture we have, puts is in a weird place compared to other nations. We have hugely more gun crimes, and hugely more homicides. The drug war on its own is a huge part of the reason for this, but it is not deniable that countries with higher rates of gun ownership tend to have higher rates of gun deaths.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 10:17:27am

re: #17 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Right people truly suck at threat assessment. Perhaps most obviously, the guy that speeds to the airport and then has a fear of flying. I don’t see any prospect of changing how the masses threat assess. I think of that as a given. The mentality is not math or statistic driven. It’s more like “Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.” The abundance of caution approach. Of course that needs to include big safety training and practice. That means lots of gun classes. The last thing we want is untrained gun owners.

Maybe it’s not wise to treat gun accidents in these classes as a common outcome. “If only he had a gun” was a very unkind and IMO unwise snark by SkipIntro.

Now what I can not reliably find is how many people buy the gun just for protection and never take it up as any sport. But I’d stipulate for discussion it’s a significant fraction. Those people need to get trained up, practice or become ex gun owners.

Then we have a great big bunch of people that have guns for other reasons, and if intruded upon at home or in defense of a family member grab a gun for defensive use. They have the benefit of repeated safe shooting and handling habits.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 10:56:07am

re: #18 Political Atheist

Right people truly suck at threat assessment. Perhaps most obviously, the guy that speeds to the airport and then has a fear of flying. I don’t see any prospect of changing how the masses threat assess..

I do. One of the main ways to change it is to have gun advocates honestly tell people who are seeking one for self-defense “With where you live, you really don’t need a gun.”

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 11:32:37am

re: #19 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I do. One of the main ways to change it is to have gun advocates honestly tell people who are seeking one for self-defense “With where you live, you really don’t need a gun.”

I totally get that decision for yourself. Taking your view as some kind of best national guideline is where we do part ways. Especially since good safety habits cut the accident rate to a level much lower than those who are negligent. We have in house control of that risk.

There is a little flaw in your logic-By the time they take the class they own the gun. 99% of the time. I’m pissed at myself for not pointing this out long ago. Oh well.

You raise a question-Not meant as snark or sarcasm.
So who chooses exactly what crime level or threat level justifies the gun? And forecasts exactly where these people will travel or live? Go by zipcode and pretend bad guys don’t do harm in nice neighborhoods… much? Encino, no gun, but get one if you live in gangland areas?

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 11:38:23am

re: #19 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I do. One of the main ways to change it is to have gun advocates honestly tell people who are seeking one for self-defense “With where you live, you really don’t need a gun.”

What is your evidence that people are going to change? These habits are deep. And why just guns? Risks about airplanes, cars, pools, guns, boats all are now very poorly assessed by individuals. What is it about a gun that will upend human risk psychology for the better? This after precise numbers that are deeply tested for accuracy and efficacy are set right?

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 11:42:01am

re: #20 Political Atheist

I totally get that decision for yourself. Taking your view as some kind of best national guideline is where we do part ways.

It’s not my view. It’s rational reality. Most people don’t need a gun to protect themselves. Few people live in an area where they likelihood of being attacked is higher than the likelihood of an accident with the gun, the gun being stolen, etc. Those that do live in those areas are still more likely to be attacked by a friend, and often guns never come into play in self-defense in those areas since it starts off as a regular fight.

There is a little flaw in your logic-By the time they take the class they own the gun. 99% of the time. I’m pissed at myself for not pointing this out long ago. Oh well.

Again, no clue what you’re talking about.

So who chooses exactly what crime level or threat level justifies the gun? And forecasts exactly where these people will travel or live? Go by zipcode and pretend bad guys don’t do harm in nice neighborhoods… much? Encino, no gun, but get one if you live in gangland areas?

There’s no exact answer. But most people buying don’t actually know the crime rate in their area at all. They’re not making a rational, informed decision that the gun will help them be safer. And most of the time, people are able to convince themselves they’ll be more diligent about safety than they actually will be.

If you need a metric, then it’d be the rate of violent attack by strangers in your neighborhood, compared to the rate of gun accidents among people who’ve had whatever level of training you’re really willing to do and keep up with.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 11:43:45am

re: #21 Political Atheist

What is your evidence that people are going to change?

Because we are very different from most other first world countries in this regard, and many of our sub-populations are very different, too. Gun-culture isn’t spread evenly throughout US society.

These habits are deep. And why just guns? Risks about airplanes, cars, pools, guns, boats all are now very poorly assessed by individuals.

What do you mean ‘why just guns’? Are you under the impression I don’t want any regulations of cars and pools or something, or considerations of safety? Or that someone buying a car shouldn’t consider that public transport is much safer?

What is it about a gun that will upend human risk psychology for the better? This after precise numbers that are deeply tested for accuracy and efficacy are set right?

You’re losing me again.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 12:19:36pm

re: #22 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

It’s not my view. It’s rational reality.

The stats are reality. How to use them is a matter of opinion and choice.

And absent worthwhile numbers, well not at all useful, sorry. You only have a part of the answer, the stats. Show me your suggested metric for yes, no and maybe the gun makes sense.

You omit that threats and risks move. Bad guys go to good neighborhoods. A neighbor can be an attacker. Rapist. Pedophile with kidnap in mind. Nice guys sometimes transit of have destinations in high crime areas.

Risk vs benefit. A gun owner can keep safety risks low, theft risk low. The bad guy risk is not nearly as controllable as the gun risks. I am not going to assess the risk of an accident in my home by the national average. It’s inaccurate when applied to an individual.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 12:23:49pm

re: #23 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Because we are very different from most other first world countries in this regard, and many of our sub-populations are very different, too. Gun-culture isn’t spread evenly throughout US society.

You’re losing me again.

Human risk psychology is not accurate as per the stats. I see no evidence of that simple unfortunate fact changing. Expecting that deep psychology and lifelong habits just because it’s a gun instead of a car or some dangerous tool does not alter how the masses react to perceived threat

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 12:50:38pm

Just askin’
Is anyone but Obdi interested in all this? Lookin like a fading thread.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 1:03:20pm

re: #24 Political Atheist

And absent worthwhile numbers, well not at all useful, sorry. You only have a part of the answer, the stats. Show me your suggested metric for yes, no and maybe the gun makes sense.

I already did.

You omit that threats and risks move. Bad guys go to good neighborhoods. A neighbor can be an attacker. Rapist. Pedophile with kidnap in mind. Nice guys sometimes transit of have destinations in high crime areas.

All of these are extremely unlikely, and people should evaluate their actual risk against the risk of a gun accident, gun loss, etc.

There is really nothing nutty about that. It is common sense and being responsible.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 1:03:59pm

re: #25 Political Atheist

Human risk psychology is not accurate as per the stats. I see no evidence of that simple unfortunate fact changing. Expecting that deep psychology and lifelong habits just because it’s a gun instead of a car or some dangerous tool does not alter how the masses react to perceived threat

Again: We, in the US, have hugely higher rates of gun death than other countries. We can change. Saying that it’s hopeless to change people is just nihilistic.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 1:23:47pm

re: #27 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I already did.

All of these are extremely unlikely, and people should evaluate their actual risk against the risk of a gun accident, gun loss, etc.

There is really nothing nutty about that. It is common sense and being responsible.

I’m being nihilistc to recognize how people basically do not act on statistical risk but on their feeling and perceptions instead? I have very good company as such. Risk experts recognize this why not you?

You are being very cavalier about other peoples risk of harm from a predatory criminal.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 2:05:23pm

re: #29 Political Atheist

I’m being nihilistc to recognize how people basically do not act on statistical risk but on their feeling and perceptions instead?

Then we need to change those feelings and perceptions— which is what I said.

So gun advocates can tell people “Really, you’re very safe without a gun. Crime is at a very low rate. Isn’t it awesome?”

You are being very cavalier about other peoples risk of harm from a predatory criminal.

I am not being in the least bit cavalier, and it’s these kind of stupid, personal jibes that really fucking irritate me.

You’re not being ‘cavalier’ about the risk of gun accidents. I don’t accuse you of that. So don’t accuse me of it either. Keep it civil.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 2:32:56pm

re: #30 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Sure. Nihilistic, cavalier similar enough to refrain. It’s not a personal jibe, but an assessment of the opinion right?

So gun advocates can tell people “Really, you’re very safe without a gun. Crime is at a very low rate. Isn’t it awesome?”

That is not how I play it. In brief-The stats are all presented fairly. Including the ones you cite. Especially some of them. I do include the 67,000 number and talk them out of Lott. I say many of us including cops never shoot in necessity. I have not. My wife has not. Most of us civilians won’t actually need it. I only know a couple people who have been in shootings gun in hand, despite having hundreds of contacts in the tactical training community. Even the cops call SWAT so the ordinary cops don’t gunfight except in a surprise engagement. Now you look at these numbers and consider your situation. Kids? Any roomies? (Fill in a ton of details)

Then the gun part starts.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 2:42:07pm

re: #30 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

BTW My use of force lessons are extensive enough to really annoy the martial art student. It’s the same as my gun classes. California law is rather unforgiving too.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 2:42:53pm

re: #31 Political Atheist

Sure. Nihilistic, cavalier similar enough to refrain. It’s not a personal jibe, but an assessment of the opinion right?

I didn’t call you nihilistic. I know you don’t think it’s hopeless to change people.

That is not how I play it. In brief-The stats are all presented fairly. Including the ones you cite. Especially some of them.

No idea what you’re talking about. No, the stats aren’t promoted fairly.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 3:25:53pm

re: #33 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

That was a description of how I present this stuff to students of self defense with a gun. I do present the stats fairly, in my class. I kinda wish you could hang in for one but we are distant from one another.

I just don’t think the stats are going to stop people from going with “just in case”. Not even after the stats are well presented. Heh nihilistic or not (kidding there).

Take that guy that speeds in his car to the airport fearlessly, maybe a real jerk of a driver, you know the aggressive kind? Then he gets to the airport and his stomach knots up, he sweats and shakes a bit because he is afraid of flying. Not totally phobic, just tense. Do you really suppose he will be changed all that much by reading how safe air travel his as compared to a safe calm drive?

People figure they can control the gun accident risk with their own behavior. For the diligent, they are correct to think so.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 3:35:27pm

re: #34 Political Atheist

That was a description of how I present this stuff to students. I promote the stats fairly, in my class.

I wasn’t talking about you at any point, but out of curiosity, how often do you tell students that they’re better off not owning a gun?

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 4:00:00pm

Most of my people already owned. On the rare occasion I am approached by a person that is just thinking about a gun, most of them are going dual use, defense and sport. Keep in mind they hear about me through a range or fellow instructor. So it’s rare that I even talk to a defensive use only person. The last two times were jewelers I know from the day gig IIRC.
One of them had been robbed more than once, and went for my class and much more, even put a couple employees through a big set of classes. The other opted out, but remains really concerned about at home. He took major steps with his home to be more secure, no guns.

Did you see what I mean about how people usually misapply risks?

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 4:01:16pm

re: #36 Political Atheist

Most of my people already owned.

Right, but how often do you tell them they’re better off getting rid of it? I mean, if you don’t talk to anyone who’s using it for self-defense, then this is pretty pointless, right, since all I’ve talked about is people who are getting it for self-defense?

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 4:08:13pm

re: #37 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I don’t make that decision for them. I lay it out as described, so they can understand the risks, and obligations. When I friend got very depressed I told him to get rid of his guns. I do not discourage anyone from a sporting use that appear responsible. I encourage the sport.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 4:13:10pm

re: #38 Political Atheist

I don’t make that decision for them. I lay it out as described, so they can understand the risks, and obligations. When I friend got very depressed I told him to get rid of his guns. I do not discourage anyone from a sporting use that appear responsible. I encourage the sport.

I didn’t ask you if you made the decision for them. I asked if you recommended they not keep a gun for safety, if they didn’t really need it. That’s not making a decision, it’s making a recommendation.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 4:38:10pm

re: #39 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I walk them through a process and ask them to decide very carefully. My strongest recommendation is great care on their part as long as they live. But let me try to flesh my position out with a hypothetical.

-A guy who lives in a lightweight gated but not well guarded community. The security is so so. He has a gun, has it stored properly and legally. His practice is occasional, not a sport enthusiast. I am not going to call him up and suggest he get rid of it based on the unlikelihood of needing it. If he asks me if I think he needs it I’d say no. He might disagree based on his perceived risk of a home invasion or some other unexpected circumstance. If he asked me if he had any obligation to get rid of it I’d say no, as long as his circumstances remain legal and proper. If he became a drunk I’d be one of the first to ask him to get the gun out of his home. If he asked how to best be rid of it I would help him sell it through a licensed dealer. If the guy never practices, I’d suggest he start or get rid of it. If he just wants to be a collector I’d suggest rendering the gun inoperable. Plug the chamber.

See I have no problem with simple responsible gun ownership, even if it is just to collect that gun. I don’t see the burden of proof to have one you do. I’m not sorry some Koren merchants had guns when rioters went to burn down the strip mall in the King riots. Did the need them the day before? Nope. Today? No. Next month, nobody really knows.

Geez this feels like we should be on email, it’s just about just you and I.

Political Atheist Fri, Aug 16, 2013 4:44:33pm

Obdicut, glad we had a very civil chat, I hope we both see no insult was intended above. We have really been through this pretty well, it’s Friday night and I’m off to have some fun. SkipIntro and I both got to make our point and so did you. I may or may not be blogging later and by tomorrow I imagine this thread will be dead as can be. You are always welcome in my email inbox.

Have a good weekend dude.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Fri, Aug 16, 2013 5:03:37pm

re: #40 Political Atheist