Naked Man Takes 'Risk', Gets Shot At
By Associated Press
Wed Jun 14, 11:36 PM

ANN ARBOR, Mich. - A marriage-minded man ran naked through his neighborhood, trying to show his hesitant girlfriend that taking risks is important. He got more than he bargained for when he ended up being chased and shot at.

"Just when you thought you had heard everything," Ann Arbor police Detective Sgt. Jim Stephenson told The Ann Arbor News.

The couple were discussing marriage early Wednesday when the woman said she wasn't sure if she was ready, according to Ann Arbor police reports. The man responded that taking risks is an important part of life and, to prove his point, jumped out of a first-floor window and ran naked across the street.

Before he could return, he spotted a couple walking and hid in some bushes to avoid them. A 28-year-old man noticed the bushes rustling and bare feet underneath, then drew a .40-caliber handgun and ordered the naked man out, police said.

The naked suitor ran away, but the armed man gave chase and threatened to shoot, police said. The gunman fired a shot and the naked man fell to the ground, suffering minor injuries.

A resident called police, who arrested the gunman on charges of aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon. He was taken to the Washtenaw County jail but released following further investigation, police Sgt. Patrick Hughes told The Associated Press.

The naked man was not arrested and didn't want to pursue charges, Hughes said.

happy that Canada has avoided the gun culture, it is slowly changing, but I prefer this.

If I was walking late at night with a loved one and some naked freak jumped out, I would probably get very defensive and protective of my loved one.

Fists and knives would tend to be a defensive weapon requiring the stranger to close the distance (I wouldn't go after them, and my arms are only so long). A gun speeds up the judge/jury/executioner process.

I am happy that Canada has avoided the gun culture, it is slowly changing, but I prefer this.

The story in the OP is played out frequently - without the gun. Two (probably) good people's lives cross with one making a bad decision, the other a panicky bad decision, a gun in the mix and a bunch of lives were almost ruined.

Yes, I know. Crimes have been prevented by giving citizens access to guns and the citizen producing them when threatened. I don't live in a gun culture with an arms race between felons and citizens.

If I was walking late at night with a loved one and some naked freak jumped out, I would probably get very defensive and protective of my loved one.

The judge jury executioner statement is around the idea that when you shoot someone, they deserve to die. Because they might. Pulling a gun and not shooting it is a statement that the person in front of you may die.

A handgun gives the victim, family of the victim, potential victim power to inflict a capital punishment from a place of emotion - and possible error. Sometimes it is justified, sometimes not.

Free way shootings (as happen in LA) are potential capital punishment for driving offenses (and possibly killing innocents). That is a combination of available gun (legal or not), an out of control anger, and a feeling of both injustice and being able to get away with it. Extreme case - and reported heavily in the media so it seems more common than it is. In Canada we have attempted freeway knifing, but they don't seem to be as successful.

The Arms race I spoke of was that if guns are everywhere (or perceived to be everywhere) then the citizens arm up. The felons have to arm up too, or risk getting shot. More gun crimes, more armed civilians, more gun crimes (and accidents).

I can't agree with you on this one, do some simple searches and see how many peole died in Aus. Can. Eng. by gun, look at the gun laws of each country, compare those stats with US gun deaths and get back to me. The statistic most certainly do not "bear out".Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network

Additional data can be found in Table A.10 of the World Report on Violence and Health, published by the World Health Organization on 3 October 2002

...or have gun will shoot....
http://www.comcast.net/...ml&cvqh=itn_nakedman

...personally I would have shot the guy. I mean you just can't have people running around neked all the time....next thing you know someone like Rosy O'Donnel will come streaking through your neighborhood while your eating .....these are our gauranteed rights....shooting at neked people is something we need to preserve and protect....


Bang

MaD

I can't agree with you on this one, do some simple searches and see how many peole died in Aus. Can. Eng. by gun, look at the gun laws of each country, compare those stats with US gun deaths and get back to me. The statistic most certainly do not "bear out".Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network

Additional data can be found in Table A.10 of the World Report on Violence and Health, published by the World Health Organization on 3 October 2002

I don't have time to pursue the data and collection method for these statistics right now, although they don't look right. Even assuming those are correct, it does not make a convincing argument against legal gun ownership.

-These statistics consider ONLY gun deaths, it does not say how many are in self defence and how many are criminal.

-They do not consider other forms of violence and crime; guns tend to lower both of these, especially violent crime against females.

-F

JRed -- good data points. I'll conceed that the rates of gun violence drop in most countires where bans are instituted. I should have stated the rate of violent crime rises or isn't impacted significantly. That comment is based on what I've heard and I have no data to back it up, so I'll do some searching when I get a chance and post again later.

Ed

The thing is even in a hypothetical more violent/less gun society there would be fewer deaths. I really do not believe that the USA has a lower violent crime rate compared to say Switzerland, Japan and I know for a fact Canada has a lower violent crime rate, we are working hard to change that though.

Different cultures, dude.

Banning alcohol from the Native American Reservations hasn't resulted in a decreased rate of alcoholism compared to other parts of the US.

Banning drugs didn't result in a reduced rate of drug addicts.

Banning alcohol during prohibition didn't result in fewer alcohol related crimes.

Banning speeding hasn't resulted in a reduced rate of traffic accidents/deaths.

Banning gambling in some areas hasn't reduced the amount of gambling.

Switzerland, Japan, et al have cultures that differ on numerous facets compared to the US. Gun laws are but one of those facets, and to place the blame for statistic differences on just one facet is just a little too convenient for my tastes.

However that does not change the statistics that clearly show a relationship between guns and death. I feel this makes a good argument for gun control in countries without current (major) gun problems, my own country, Canada for an example.

Sure, I see your point, but on the whole, America has a lower rate of accidental strangulation by lederhosen than does, say, Switzerland. Should the Swiss ban lederhosen?

The primary problem I have with the gun control argument you (and others) have put forth is this: The simple act of owning a firearm does not automatically equate to causing the death of another. Did you know that yesterday, several hundred thousand firearm owners didn't shoot anyone? ;)

Like owning a car, it is the improper, uneducated, inexperienced use that creates the problem. There are far more factors involved (how much drug crime does Switzerland have, anyway?) to make such a black-and-white argument of "less control means more deaths."

If it were up to me, I'd make a law about guns that requires much more education and training. LOTS of it. Every year. IMHO, and I think the stats will support this (though, admittedly I haven't checked yet,) this increase of education and training will have a much greater effect more restrictions.

Man, this may sound crazy but I bet more Americans have died by lederhosen strangulation than have Swiss, now if you were talking fondue skewering and cuckoo clock blugeonings........

What you propose is a form of gun control, if mandatory training and education is what you are getting at.

apples and oranges. look at the rate of change of the violent crime numbers around the time that the guns were banned. look also at the same rates in states in the US that passed concealed handgun laws. In Texas, there was a decrease in the rate of increase of violent crime about 6 months after the CHL law was passed. That was about the time that the law was tested in court.