If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WOKV Jacksonville)   Store customer with a concealed weapons permit attempts to stop a robbery. He wounds bystanders and gets into a shootout with police when they think he's the robber. Just kidding. He shot the robber dead and the police thanked him   (wokv.com) divider line 754
    More: Hero, concealed firearm, bystanders, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, dollar stores, North Side, robbery  
•       •       •

20050 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2012 at 5:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



754 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-29 10:13:26 AM  

Cinaed: Kit Fister: Or, you know, being witness to actual situations...

And you're not effected by those experiences, you're not making potentially lethal assumptions based on traumatic events in your life?

I feel you're approaching this with a kill-or-be-killed mentality, and that just ends up with one, or more, bodies on the floor.


When it's my life or the life of someone I love/someone who is innocent? You're damned right I approach this with a kill or be killed mentality. That's the reality of these situations. To approach them in any other manner is foolish.

Ask any cop who goes up against an armed subject how he approaches the situation. But, wipe your mouth first.
 
2012-08-29 10:14:01 AM  

Loaded Six String: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Kit Fister: You may see it as your obligation, but that doesn't equate to what the SCOTUS ruling meant. You must admit that you can't be everywhere all the time. No matter how many cops there are, it's just not possible without living in a police state. Therefore, the primary onus for protection lands on the person. If cops can protect people, great

That is correct. The OP stated that "that the police have no obligation to protect anyone" which is categorically incorrect. Let's say I am on-duty and happen to walk into the local Stop-n-Rob to this scenario. By his logic I can turn around and leave because I don't have an obligation to act when in fact I do.

Unless you would be found culpable in the results of the robbery, be it the death of the clerk or not, would determine whether you have a legal obligation to do so. The Supreme Court has already determined that you do not, so any attempt to prosecute you for that outcome would be tough to stick. You have no legal obligation to protect a citizen anymore, but your personal choice to retain that obligation is commendable. Thank you for that.


The SCOTUS ruling basically relieved the officers/departments from any civil liability in which they failed to act. Basically they were tasked with determining if you are guaranteed police protection under the due process clause. They determined that you do not , but that is not the end all be all to the discussion.

Our state code on the responsibility of the police:

"The police force of a locality is hereby invested with all the power and authority which formerly belonged to the office of constable at common law and is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals, the safeguard of life and property, the preservation of peace and the enforcement of state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances"

So, I do have the obligation to protect.

/and thank you for the thank you
 
2012-08-29 10:14:14 AM  
A dead robber always means a good day! All you Farkers can hesitate, think, plot all you want "Is he armed?" "Will he hurt me?" "Will he go through with it?" and by the time you finally came up with a decision you're probably already dead. To hell with that. If someone barges into a store in a threatening manner I'm going to take action IMMEDIATELY and take them out.
 
2012-08-29 10:14:52 AM  

Cinaed: I'm trying to decide whether or not robbing the Dollar Store is a despicable enough act that death is the appropriate penalty.

I mean, even in Saudia Arabia they don'd kill a man for theft.


Yes, they do.
 
2012-08-29 10:15:00 AM  
Cool; Robbery is now punishable by death. USA!
 
2012-08-29 10:15:05 AM  

Whole Wheat: Here is the article I referenced earlier


You'll have to explain how one horrific event means all robberies will end in such a fashion.
 
2012-08-29 10:15:33 AM  

cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String: Actually, homophobia and xenophobia are currently associated with irrational hatred more than irrational fear. Hoplophobia when used in context to irrational fear of weapons is correct, homophobia and xenophobia being used to describe irrational hatred is a perversion of the meaning of those words. Someone with an irrational hatred of homosexuals isn't homophobic, they're a bigot.

I think it has a whole lot more to do with gun-advocates pervasive (and totally baseless) narrative of victimhood and martyrdom.

I hope that someday, you poor, downtrodden gunowners can overcome the discrimination that you face.


A significant portion of the population wishes to deprive gun owners of their property and an effective means to defend themselves from grievous bodily harm or death, while painting them in wide swaths as "nuts", "mentally unstable", "genital deficient", "a danger to society as a whole", while focusing on an extreme minority of their number as justification for these insults and restrictions of liberty. Does that sound baseless to you? Or is it in fact some facets of bigotry in the guise of public safety?

You should probably take a moment to think about how quickly you demeaned a large group of people because of their choice to own an object of which you object.

I still stand by my definition of hoplophobia as an irrational fear of weapons, homophobia as an irrational fear or homosexuals, xenophobia as an irrational fear of new/ foreign things, and bigotry as irrational hatred, because that's what all of those words mean.
 
2012-08-29 10:15:56 AM  

Cinaed: kim jong-un: So you agree.

Alas, no. I'm mocking your wonderfully intricate hypothetical situation.

Loaded Six String: I appreciate your advocacy for state mandated and funded tactical training for all concealed carry licensees...

Tactical? No. It's not a question of proper handling and use of the weapon. I'm referring to the training given for officers to react to circumstances and situations, and when/where/how to apply deadly force. Oddly enough, it's at the bottom of the list.


Uhm, actually, about 10% of CCW training classes (both in MI and Colorado, can't speak for other states) are actual gun handling. The other 90% is legal discussion given by police officers, prosecutors, criminal attorneys, etc. on exactly when and where is appropriate to apply deadly force.

So, about an hour of the course is spent on actual guns and gun safety, the other 9+ are spent on covering the legal basics.
 
2012-08-29 10:17:01 AM  
There are certainly a lot of people in this thread crying over the dead guy. Are we running out of pistol toting armed robbers or something?
 
2012-08-29 10:17:09 AM  

Cinaed: Whole Wheat: Here is the article I referenced earlier

You'll have to explain how one horrific event means all robberies will end in such a fashion.


No, I really don't. The robber should show his good intentions by not robbing. I think you must be trolling.....
 
2012-08-29 10:17:16 AM  

Girion47: Loaded Six String: Blasted phone posting... at any rate it appears AngryDragon made my point for me. Holding the robber(s) at gunpoint would have 3 possible outcomes. The robber complies and waits to be arrested, the robber turns to retaliate, or the robber flees the scene, likely to attempt armed robbery again at a later date. The first option is the preferred outcome, but not guarunteed, the second outcome poses risk to everyone involved, and the third outcome is unacceptable. If a shot can be taken with minimal risk to unintended targets, it is the most logical choice, as it prevents the clerk from being shot out of impatience, negligence, or malice (again, assuming a smart shot can be made) as well as preventing future crimes being perpetrated by that robber. Recidivism amongst violent criminals is very high, and being that there is no effective rehabilitation program in place, the only end to recidivism is life imprisonment or death. It is distasteful to say, but most often true.

I'm all for the death penalty and punishing those that do wrong, but the way you look at it is part of the problem. the real end to recidivism is better rehabilitation programs, not prisons.


That's precisely what I said and advocated. Incarceration more often than not breeds more crime.
 
2012-08-29 10:18:19 AM  
Good work, citizen.
 
2012-08-29 10:18:23 AM  
i141.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-29 10:19:52 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Loaded Six String: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Kit Fister: You may see it as your obligation, but that doesn't equate to what the SCOTUS ruling meant. You must admit that you can't be everywhere all the time. No matter how many cops there are, it's just not possible without living in a police state. Therefore, the primary onus for protection lands on the person. If cops can protect people, great

That is correct. The OP stated that "that the police have no obligation to protect anyone" which is categorically incorrect. Let's say I am on-duty and happen to walk into the local Stop-n-Rob to this scenario. By his logic I can turn around and leave because I don't have an obligation to act when in fact I do.

Unless you would be found culpable in the results of the robbery, be it the death of the clerk or not, would determine whether you have a legal obligation to do so. The Supreme Court has already determined that you do not, so any attempt to prosecute you for that outcome would be tough to stick. You have no legal obligation to protect a citizen anymore, but your personal choice to retain that obligation is commendable. Thank you for that.

The SCOTUS ruling basically relieved the officers/departments from any civil liability in which they failed to act. Basically they were tasked with determining if you are guaranteed police protection under the due process clause. They determined that you do not , but that is not the end all be all to the discussion.

Our state code on the responsibility of the police:

"The police force of a locality is hereby invested with all the power and authority which formerly belonged to the office of constable at common law and is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals, the safeguard of life and property, the preservation of peace and the enforcement of state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances"

So, I do have the obligation to protect.

/and thank you for the thank you


Again, i think it should be noted that the distinction here is this: Your responsibility, by law, is the responsibility many others have by honor: If you see someone harming someone else, or threatening such, you step in and stop it, rather than look away.

You do not, and cannot, have the obligation to be everywhere all the time to prevent any possible harm from befalling every citizen, and cannot be held liable if you weren't able to intervene in time, etc.

Only the individual can be 100% responsible for their own safety all the time, including providing for their own self defense should they be forced to employ it. If they're lucky enough to be attacked in front of a cop, they can depend on the cop to stop the attack, though.
 
2012-08-29 10:20:06 AM  

Corvus: Cool can I link the link when gun fight broke out at a party recently here killing lots of innocent victims from stray bullet fire?


That depenmds, were any of the shooters legal concealed carry permit holders? If not, then your article doen't really apply, does it?
 
2012-08-29 10:20:13 AM  

Cinaed: kim jong-un: So you agree.

Alas, no. I'm mocking your wonderfully intricate hypothetical situation.

Loaded Six String: I appreciate your advocacy for state mandated and funded tactical training for all concealed carry licensees...

Tactical? No. It's not a question of proper handling and use of the weapon. I'm referring to the training given for officers to react to circumstances and situations, and when/where/how to apply deadly force. Oddly enough, it's at the bottom of the list.


Situational awareness and assessment is a part of tactical training.
 
2012-08-29 10:20:42 AM  

thetubameister: Cool; Robbery is now punishable by death. USA!


As you read through the thread, you'll find you've been preemptively mocked several times, so there's no need for anyone to comment upon your stupidity here.
 
2012-08-29 10:21:04 AM  

cassanovascotian: Sure, Let's do that. Comparisons against Europe would involve cultural differences, so that complicates things, but Canada and the US are pretty similar -the only major difference being gun control legislation.... and what's the result?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x615]

yeah, so ... I'm gonna go ahead and say that guns have a lot to do with it.


Are you really that BLAZINGLY stupid?

How in the blue fark could the US have had a murder rate of 19,160 per 100,000 population in 2006? Did I miss 60,000,000 people getting killed that year? Fark, even Stalin couldn't beat that rate.

The homicide rate in Canada in 2006 was 1.9 per 100,000, in the United States it was 5.6 (and has since declined to 4.8). Yes, it is unacceptable that our homicide rate is so high. No, the "simple" answer is not to ban guns. 

Further, the graph presented, even if the X axis was properly labelled, is intellectually dishonest as it does not account for the larger population of the US.

Taking some statistics from our British friends who got it from the FBI, even if we eliminated all firearms murders (67.5% of murders) our murder rate would still be 1.6 per 100,000 - nigh on the Canadian rate all in.
 
2012-08-29 10:21:18 AM  

Whole Wheat: Cinaed: Whole Wheat: Here is the article I referenced earlier

You'll have to explain how one horrific event means all robberies will end in such a fashion.

No, I really don't. The robber should show his good intentions by not robbing. I think you must be trolling.....


It wouldn't surprise me if this guy actually believed what he was saying. It feels like one of those women who defend abusive husbands because "they only made a mistake, they can change", and keep chanting that all the way to the grave.
 
2012-08-29 10:21:32 AM  

Kit Fister: When it's my life or the life of someone I love/someone who is innocent? You're damned right I approach this with a kill or be killed mentality. That's the reality of these situations. To approach them in any other manner is foolish.

Ask any cop who goes up against an armed subject how he approaches the situation. But, wipe your mouth first.


I would assume the cop would instruct the subject to put the weapon down. Loudly, and clearly, without any sudden moves to provoke the subject. But hey, shooting first works too.
Robbery is not 'kill or be killed'. Never has been. Pretending that it is only justifies killing.
 
2012-08-29 10:22:26 AM  

DingleberryMoose: thetubameister: Cool; Robbery is now punishable by death. USA!

As you read through the thread, you'll find you've been preemptively mocked several times, so there's no need for anyone to comment upon your stupidity here.


Please, excuse, the, surplus, comma, above. Thanks.
 
2012-08-29 10:22:44 AM  

Kit Fister: The other 90% is legal discussion given by police officers, prosecutors, criminal attorneys, etc. on exactly when and where is appropriate to apply deadly force.


Something I would think everyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon around should have the pleasure of taking.
 
2012-08-29 10:23:49 AM  

SanjiSasuke: Agreed. If armed, nice work taking them down. If not, I think it was a bit much. An unarmed robber should be stopped, of course, but not killed.


O wise one, how would you propose to accomplish "stopping" without "killing" (consistently, and with reasonable safety for bystanders, clerks, and CCW holder) when the perp has a loaded gun with finger on the trigger on target already?

I'll wait while you compose your answer.

/snicker snicker rolls eyes
 
2012-08-29 10:25:03 AM  

Bladel: I don't get the headline. The wild & outlandish is the setup, while the normal & banal is the punchline?

Comedy doesn't work that way


(yeah yeah, Welcome to Fark).


Let me help you out. It wasn't meant to be comedy. It was meant to be a counterpoint to those people that go into gun threads and actually suggest that concealed carry will result in that outlandish part really happening. The joke is they don't believe it to be outlandish.
 
2012-08-29 10:25:09 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Loaded Six String: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Kit Fister: You may see it as your obligation, but that doesn't equate to what the SCOTUS ruling meant. You must admit that you can't be everywhere all the time. No matter how many cops there are, it's just not possible without living in a police state. Therefore, the primary onus for protection lands on the person. If cops can protect people, great

That is correct. The OP stated that "that the police have no obligation to protect anyone" which is categorically incorrect. Let's say I am on-duty and happen to walk into the local Stop-n-Rob to this scenario. By his logic I can turn around and leave because I don't have an obligation to act when in fact I do.

Unless you would be found culpable in the results of the robbery, be it the death of the clerk or not, would determine whether you have a legal obligation to do so. The Supreme Court has already determined that you do not, so any attempt to prosecute you for that outcome would be tough to stick. You have no legal obligation to protect a citizen anymore, but your personal choice to retain that obligation is commendable. Thank you for that.

The SCOTUS ruling basically relieved the officers/departments from any civil liability in which they failed to act. Basically they were tasked with determining if you are guaranteed police protection under the due process clause. They determined that you do not , but that is not the end all be all to the discussion.

Our state code on the responsibility of the police:

"The police force of a locality is hereby invested with all the power and authority which formerly belonged to the office of constable at common law and is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals, the safeguard of life and property, the preservation of peace and the enforcement of state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances"

So, I do have the obligation to protect.

/and thank you for the thank you


I see, protection from our current overly litigious society. It's a shame that determination had to be made.

/You're welcome
 
2012-08-29 10:25:22 AM  

Whole Wheat: No, I really don't.


And yet everything you've said thus far speaks to the contrary.
 
2012-08-29 10:25:24 AM  

Cinaed: Kit Fister: The other 90% is legal discussion given by police officers, prosecutors, criminal attorneys, etc. on exactly when and where is appropriate to apply deadly force.

Something I would think everyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon around should have the pleasure of taking.


Yep. And I, along with a lot of other people i know with CCWs, take a year-long course offered by police departments through schools with criminal justice degree programs on legal applications of deadly force, etc.

Only thing I don't have right now is the police academy training on the finer points of tactical driving, writing tickets, police procedure, etc.
 
2012-08-29 10:25:49 AM  

Cinaed: Kit Fister: When it's my life or the life of someone I love/someone who is innocent? You're damned right I approach this with a kill or be killed mentality. That's the reality of these situations. To approach them in any other manner is foolish.

Ask any cop who goes up against an armed subject how he approaches the situation. But, wipe your mouth first.

I would assume the cop would instruct the subject to put the weapon down. Loudly, and clearly, without any sudden moves to provoke the subject. But hey, shooting first works too.
Robbery is not 'kill or be killed'. Never has been. Pretending that it is only justifies killing.


You need to post the data on how many times that this worked effectively for the officer. You are assuming the same outcome for all situations based on this one, happily-ending situation.

/am I doing this right?
 
2012-08-29 10:26:29 AM  

Loaded Six String: I see, protection from our current overly litigious society.


Don't get me started....
 
2012-08-29 10:27:47 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Loaded Six String: I see, protection from our current overly litigious society.

Don't get me started....


by the way, aside from favoriting you, I'm notifying you I'm filing a suit because you hurt my delicate sensibilities regarding police being ignorant assholes and disillusioning me of that belief.

/just joking
//don't tase me, bro...
 
2012-08-29 10:28:05 AM  

Loaded Six String: because of their choice


Loaded Six String: cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String:
A significant portion of the population wishes to deprive gun owners of their property and an effective means to defend themselves from grievous bodily harm or death, while painting them in wide swaths as "nuts", "mentally unstable", "genital deficient", "a danger to society as a whole", while focusing on an extreme minority of their number as justification for these insults and restrictions of liberty. Does that sound baseless to you? Or is it in fact some facets of bigotry in the guise of public safety?

You should probably take a moment to think about how quickly you demeaned a large group of people because of their choice to own an object of which you object.

I still stand by my definition of hoplophobia as an irrational fear of weapons, homophobia as an irrational fear or homosexuals, xenophobia as an irrational fear of new/ foreign things, and bigotry as irrational hatred, because that's what all of those words mean.


See, that's the difference right there.
 
2012-08-29 10:28:14 AM  

fisker: I used to live down the street form this guy who thought he was a cop.

He pimped out his car, walked around in clothing VERY similar to an officers uniform, but was not an officer of the law.

I know of other people that sit around on their computers all day on facebook's missing person's cause and community sites that pretend like they are solving cases, scolding family and friends and local police for not doing their jobs and or exercising their moral responsibilities.

All we need now is these same types of people walking around in stores not even shopping but armed waiting for what ever they believe to be a potential problem.


Almost 4% of the eligible population of the State of Michigan has a concealed weapons permit. That's almost 400,000 people. The program has been going on for 10 years. Nothing like what you describe has EVER happened here. In fact, only about 2% of permit holders have been sanctioned for any kind of misbehavior, including DUI, etc.

Those statistics are good enough for me.
 
2012-08-29 10:29:15 AM  

Cinaed: Kit Fister: When it's my life or the life of someone I love/someone who is innocent? You're damned right I approach this with a kill or be killed mentality. That's the reality of these situations. To approach them in any other manner is foolish.

Ask any cop who goes up against an armed subject how he approaches the situation. But, wipe your mouth first.

I would assume the cop would instruct the subject to put the weapon down. Loudly, and clearly, without any sudden moves to provoke the subject. But hey, shooting first works too.
Robbery is not 'kill or be killed'. Never has been. Pretending that it is only justifies killing.


Please demonstrate that the armed robbers would not have used deadly force had their attempt at robbery not been interrupted. Demonstrate that the shooter could have ascertained such information with perfect certainty without causing additional risk to himself or to others through delaying his actions.

If you cannot, then the shooting was justified and any claim that it was not is a lie.
 
2012-08-29 10:30:13 AM  

AngryDragon: Almost 4% of the eligible population of the State of Michigan has a concealed weapons permit. That's almost 400,000 people. The program has been going on for 10 years. Nothing like what you describe has EVER happened here. In fact, only about 2% of permit holders have been sanctioned for any kind of misbehavior, including DUI, etc.

Those statistics are good enough for me.


They're similar in Texas. CCW holders, by and large, are the law-abiding type.
 
2012-08-29 10:32:17 AM  

Kit Fister: Yep. And I, along with a lot of other people i know with CCWs, take a year-long course offered by police departments through schools with criminal justice degree programs on legal applications of deadly force, etc.


I suspect those courses aren't mandatory.
Looked up a few states. Michigan, Virginia... requirement for a basic gun safety course seemed to be part of the process.
Anything along the lines of 'When to use Deadly Force', not so much.

Indicative of the full range of requirements, not likely. But I see Virginia as the more gun-liberal side of things, and Michigan the more gun-conservative side.
 
2012-08-29 10:33:32 AM  

DingleberryMoose: DORMAMU: Scenario: u r armed. U witnedd someone point a gun at another stating "give me your money or you die". No chance of collatetal damage as.you have a clear line of fire. Do you shoot, or do you hope he was bluffing on his statement he is prepared to kill? Why?

Scenario: u r posting from a cell phone. In answer to your question, you have to take the threat made by the armed individual seriously. You shoot if reasonably safe to do so. There is never "no chance of collateral damage."


Snerk

Yes I am on a cell. So what?

I removed the collateral damage from the scenario to isolate that which I was curious about. I wanted to test the statement "a gun is to protect YOUR life. Nithing short of that is acceptable."

by removing other variables in a hypothetical, I can test the variable I wish to, or get a direct answer. In short, is it okay to kill to defend another person's life as per whom I responded to.

/preemptive deflection deflection.
 
2012-08-29 10:35:53 AM  

Whole Wheat: You need to post the data on how many times that this worked effectively for the officer. You are assuming the same outcome for all situations based on this one, happily-ending situation.


By all means. Along with how many times it did, indeed, work effectively.
I'm sure the percentages would take a little wind out of your sails.
 
2012-08-29 10:36:46 AM  

cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String: because of their choice

Loaded Six String: cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String:
A significant portion of the population wishes to deprive gun owners of their property and an effective means to defend themselves from grievous bodily harm or death, while painting them in wide swaths as "nuts", "mentally unstable", "genital deficient", "a danger to society as a whole", while focusing on an extreme minority of their number as justification for these insults and restrictions of liberty. Does that sound baseless to you? Or is it in fact some facets of bigotry in the guise of public safety?

You should probably take a moment to think about how quickly you demeaned a large group of people because of their choice to own an object of which you object.

I still stand by my definition of hoplophobia as an irrational fear of weapons, homophobia as an irrational fear or homosexuals, xenophobia as an irrational fear of new/ foreign things, and bigotry as irrational hatred, because that's what all of those words mean.

See, that's the difference right there.


A difference how exactly? Homosexuals certainly do not choose to be homosexual, and I would not imply otherwise. They are victims of bigotry. However, people who married interracially were choosing to do so, and were also victims of bigotry.

I see you decided not to justify your belittlement of firearms owners, I'm actually curious as to why that is the case.
 
2012-08-29 10:40:49 AM  

DORMAMU: DingleberryMoose: DORMAMU: Scenario: u r armed. U witnedd someone point a gun at another stating "give me your money or you die". No chance of collatetal damage as.you have a clear line of fire. Do you shoot, or do you hope he was bluffing on his statement he is prepared to kill? Why?

Scenario: u r posting from a cell phone. In answer to your question, you have to take the threat made by the armed individual seriously. You shoot if reasonably safe to do so. There is never "no chance of collateral damage."

Snerk

Yes I am on a cell. So what?

I removed the collateral damage from the scenario to isolate that which I was curious about. I wanted to test the statement "a gun is to protect YOUR life. Nithing short of that is acceptable."

by removing other variables in a hypothetical, I can test the variable I wish to, or get a direct answer. In short, is it okay to kill to defend another person's life as per whom I responded to.

/preemptive deflection deflection.


First, I like your handle. Dormamu was a favorite villain when I was growing up. Second, I post from a phone frequently, there's nothing wrong with it. Third, it is acceptable to kill a person to defend another when the other is unreasonably threatened by the person in question.
 
2012-08-29 10:41:12 AM  

ModernLuddite: Hey now, a man died so that Dollar General could keep their 40$. A terrible tragedy has been averted!

//Just kidding. I love it when old men shoot blacks.
///I'm going to masturbate and watch the RNC now.


If you don't want to get shot maybe you shouldn't try robbing a place. Just a thought.
 
2012-08-29 10:43:34 AM  

Cinaed: Whole Wheat: You need to post the data on how many times that this worked effectively for the officer. You are assuming the same outcome for all situations based on this one, happily-ending situation.

By all means. Along with how many times it did, indeed, work effectively.
I'm sure the percentages would take a little wind out of your sails.


I am interested.
 
2012-08-29 10:43:49 AM  
It's very easy to tell if a bad guy will shoot you or not. If they point their gun at you and demand something they're just kidding. However, if they cock the hammer back they mean business. This works on guns without hammers as well. They just have to make a "clicky-noise". You have to listen for it but trust me, it's there.
 
2012-08-29 10:45:28 AM  

Loaded Six String: I see you decided not to justify your belittlement of firearms owners


Because I didn't. Read my above posts. I said I can understand -on the individual level- why people feel the need to pack heat if they live in a place where everyone else around them has it as well. That doesn't change the fact that everyone would be a whole lot better off if nobody had them re: commons tragedy, etc.

Dimensio: Given your demonstrated complete ignorance of firearms, I recommend that you never touch one in your life.


ummm... ok, but you realize your making my argument for me, right?

For the sake of argument, let's say I'm a completely ignorant sociopathic lunatic who doesn't know the first damn thing about guns. According to the laws that you advocate for, I can still go out there and get my hands on one of them with a minimal amount of paperwork and basic tests.

feel safer?
 
2012-08-29 10:45:39 AM  

Cinaed: Kit Fister: Yep. And I, along with a lot of other people i know with CCWs, take a year-long course offered by police departments through schools with criminal justice degree programs on legal applications of deadly force, etc.

I suspect those courses aren't mandatory.
Looked up a few states. Michigan, Virginia... requirement for a basic gun safety course seemed to be part of the process.
Anything along the lines of 'When to use Deadly Force', not so much.

Indicative of the full range of requirements, not likely. But I see Virginia as the more gun-liberal side of things, and Michigan the more gun-conservative side.


It can be different between classes in the area too. I think the basic gun safety class at Bass Pro Shops counts for your CCW permit here. Some offer a basic and an advanced class with the legal aspects added to the second course. Someone that get's their CCW and isn't well versed in the legal aspects of shooting is a dangerous person.
 
2012-08-29 10:50:59 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Cinaed: Kit Fister: Yep. And I, along with a lot of other people i know with CCWs, take a year-long course offered by police departments through schools with criminal justice degree programs on legal applications of deadly force, etc.

I suspect those courses aren't mandatory.
Looked up a few states. Michigan, Virginia... requirement for a basic gun safety course seemed to be part of the process.
Anything along the lines of 'When to use Deadly Force', not so much.

Indicative of the full range of requirements, not likely. But I see Virginia as the more gun-liberal side of things, and Michigan the more gun-conservative side.

It can be different between classes in the area too. I think the basic gun safety class at Bass Pro Shops counts for your CCW permit here. Some offer a basic and an advanced class with the legal aspects added to the second course. Someone that get's their CCW and isn't well versed in the legal aspects of shooting is a dangerous person.


But the data on CCW holders puts the lie to that, since the number of CCW holders who commit crimes is a stunning minority. So, isn't this "Dangerous CCW Holder" as much of a myth as the "Reckless, shoot anything that moves" CCW holder?
 
2012-08-29 10:52:34 AM  

cassanovascotian: For the sake of argument, let's say I'm a completely ignorant sociopathic lunatic who doesn't know the first damn thing about guns. According to the laws that you advocate for, I can still go out there and get my hands on one of them with a minimal amount of paperwork and basic tests.


If you have been adjudicated as mentally defective, which is a possible consequence of being a "sociopathic lunatic", then you will be unable to legally acquire firearms.

Additionally, under the laws that you advocate, absolutely no individual will be permitted to possess any firearm at all ever.
 
2012-08-29 10:53:29 AM  
Rufus Lee King

Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Where but on FARK could you find people chiming in to defend armed robbery?

Brady Center, million mom marches, or any other random DNC rally.


cajunns

so this dirty harry wannabee decides that a human life is cheaper than the contents of the till at Dollar General.
What's heroic about that; if anything
The idiots that decided life is cheaper than the contents of the till at Dollar General, were the two guys that picked up firearms to take those contents. As to "what's heroic", I don't know. You and your side are the ones defending the violent offenders who consider life so cheap and to threaten murder over 40 bucks.


Mija

A man is dead over a little money and I bet the killer calls himself a Christian. As a responsible gun owner and a Christian
You are neither, you're trying to create a political point.

I would not kill someone over money or property.
No, because as an anti-gun coward, you'd be on your knees hoping the armed robber who feels 40 bucks is worth the taking the life of the Dollar store clerk decides not to put you down.
Thou shalt not kill is not an option, it's a commandment.
Umm sorry mr "christian" (poser) the Commandment is "Thou salt not murder". There's a huge difference between the two terms.



jbabbler
...I carry a gun because a police officer is just too damn heavy.

Ain't that the truth.
www.upl.co
 
2012-08-29 10:55:18 AM  

Mija: A man is dead over a little money and I bet the killer calls himself a Christian. As a responsible gun owner and a Christian I would not kill someone over money or property. Thou shalt not kill is not an option, it's a commandment. A gun is to protect your life. Nothing short of that is acceptable.


So if you, as an armed citizen, saw another person being assaulted with a deadly weapon, being raped or beaten, being threatend with a deadly weapon, you would do nothing to prevent that person's imminent demise?

Your callousness and/or cowardice is disgusting.
 
2012-08-29 10:55:49 AM  

Kit Fister: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Cinaed: Kit Fister: Yep. And I, along with a lot of other people i know with CCWs, take a year-long course offered by police departments through schools with criminal justice degree programs on legal applications of deadly force, etc.

I suspect those courses aren't mandatory.
Looked up a few states. Michigan, Virginia... requirement for a basic gun safety course seemed to be part of the process.
Anything along the lines of 'When to use Deadly Force', not so much.

Indicative of the full range of requirements, not likely. But I see Virginia as the more gun-liberal side of things, and Michigan the more gun-conservative side.

It can be different between classes in the area too. I think the basic gun safety class at Bass Pro Shops counts for your CCW permit here. Some offer a basic and an advanced class with the legal aspects added to the second course. Someone that get's their CCW and isn't well versed in the legal aspects of shooting is a dangerous person.

But the data on CCW holders puts the lie to that, since the number of CCW holders who commit crimes is a stunning minority. So, isn't this "Dangerous CCW Holder" as much of a myth as the "Reckless, shoot anything that moves" CCW holder?


I agree sir dgby's last sentence.

Your data in regards to the crime rate of ccw holders and percentage sanctioned just means a stunning majority DO educate themselves.

It does not detract from the statement "a ccw holder who does not educate themselves as to the laws is dangerous"
 
2012-08-29 10:56:23 AM  

Dr J Zoidberg: ModernLuddite: Hey now, a man died so that Dollar General could keep their 40$. A terrible tragedy has been averted!

//Just kidding. I love it when old men shoot blacks.
///I'm going to masturbate and watch the RNC now.

If you don't want to get shot maybe you shouldn't try robbing a place. Just a thought.


Don't go injecting common sense in a gun thread now!
 
Displayed 50 of 754 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report