Known gun advocate John Lott said a robbery victim has himself to blame for his injuries because he exhibited “passive behavior” by running away from his attacker.
Lott's assessment of the incident falls into the category of victim-blaming, something conservative Americans and gun activists tend to do all too often.
Christopher Sanna was reportedly robbed while walking to his car after a St. Louis Cardinals game on Friday.
After doing everything the robbers asked, he and his girlfriend attempted to run away but Sanna was shot in the back and is likely paralyzed as a result.
Lott posted a link to the news report from St. Louis Post-Dispatch along with an excerpt from the story on his blog and Twitter, but he titled it with his own headline that reads,
“Passive behavior probably leaves robbery victim paralyzed.”
Passive behavior probably leaves robbery victim paralyzed http://t.co/qHEUp901FG— John R Lott Jr. (@JohnRLottJr) September 28, 2015
In addition to being offensive and insensitive, Lott’s headline implies that if Sanna had a weapon or handgun of his own in that moment, he most likely would not have been shot.
However, according to a recent study published in The Journal of Preventive Medicine, 4.1 percent of crime victims were injured after brandishing a firearm compared to 2.4 percent who ran away or hid.
Based on the aforementioned study (and common sense) Lott’s logic is totally skewed. You actually have a higher chance of survival by not engaging in violent behaviors and that would especially be the case if you’re outnumbered.
I think history involving war and gang related killings also tell us that fighting violence with more violence is not the way to save lives.
Forget your idiotic logic Lott, we’ll gladly take “passive” over dead any day.