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 10:56:56 AM

cassanovascotian: 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.


Your belittlement was in the form or painting firearms owners as having a persecution complex. Your response to my list of possibly perceived persecutions (say that 5 times) was to point out the fact that firearms ownership is a choice. I responded to that as well. All of this stemming from my pointing out that your reaction to the word hoplophobia was unjustified because the common useage of homophobia and xenophobia are incorrect applications of those words.

Everyone being better off without firearms is debatable. Everyone would without a doubt be better off without crime, so which should we be focusing on reducing? Firearms, which have an unclear net gain in benefit from reduction? Or crime, which has a very clear benefit from reduction?
 
2012-08-29 10:58:18 AM

Cinaed: DEEEEEEEEEEEEERP!


If you are a troll, then 10/10!

media.tumblr.com

If you aren't a troll, then....

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-29 10:58:31 AM

DORMAMU: 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"


I'll accept that.

I personally have nothing against the idea that if you're going to carry a gun, concealed or openly, it is wise to seek out some training. After all, the thing i've learned in my own personal pursuit of understanding the ways of self defense, is that the law and these situations are rarely simple, and no amount of training is going to prepare you for the moment you have to employ deadly force. However, what training does do is give you a hell of a lot of good sense and situational awareness to know when the hell to make yourself small.
 
2012-08-29 11:03:40 AM

Kit Fister: DORMAMU: 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"

I'll accept that.

I personally have nothing against the idea that if you're going to carry a gun, concealed or openly, it is wise to seek out some training. After all, the thing i've learned in my own personal pursuit of understanding the ways of self defense, is that the law and these situations are rarely simple, and no amount of training is going to prepare you for the moment you have to employ deadly force. However, what training does do is give ...


Indeed, and a definite benefit could be assumed if extensive courses were mandatory without posing undue financial burden to the weapon owner, same with gun safety courses in high schools. I'm also a firm believer in having the NRA's Eddie Eagle course being taught in elementary schools. "If you find a gun, STOP! Don't touch it! Tell an adult!"

So many pointless tragedies could be averted.
 
2012-08-29 11:04:41 AM

DingleberryMoose: 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.


Your handle aint to shabby either...

Now if I could get the guy I responded to....
 
2012-08-29 11:04:57 AM

Loaded Six String: Your belittlement was in the form or painting firearms owners as having a persecution complex.


I don't belittle firearm owners... but somebody who will use the word "hoplophobia" without irony? yes, I will most definitely belittle that person.

Phobia implies an irrational fear. I'm not even afraid of guns, I just happen to think that they are pointless instruments that don't serve any real purpose other than killing people.

/and don't go all "but hunting..." yeah, maybe a repeating rifle has some utility, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about semi-automatic AR-15 type stuff.
 
2012-08-29 11:05:10 AM

cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String: Should we find a nice infographic on how many people were killed with knives in each of these countries as well? Violent crime is violent crime regardless of the method. There is a root cause, or indeed many, and guns are not it.

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.


This chart and the fact that you don't know how to read it are both embarrassing.
 
2012-08-29 11:08:44 AM

cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String: Your belittlement was in the form or painting firearms owners as having a persecution complex.

I don't belittle firearm owners... but somebody who will use the word "hoplophobia" without irony? yes, I will most definitely belittle that person.

Phobia implies an irrational fear. I'm not even afraid of guns, I just happen to think that they are pointless instruments that don't serve any real purpose other than killing people.

/and don't go all "but hunting..." yeah, maybe a repeating rifle has some utility, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about semi-automatic AR-15 type stuff.


Fyi -

AR15 fires the exact same round as the .223 hunting rifle. 100% interchangeable.

Capacity is the largest difference between the two.

/fun gun fact if the day
//carry on
 
2012-08-29 11:11:06 AM
SirDigbyChickenCaesar Someone that get's their CCW and isn't well versed in the legal aspects of shooting is a dangerous person.

This, at least for Tennessee. The video we watched in the CCW class was much more about the effects alcohol than practical legal situations with firearms. It was like what I imagine a DUI rehab video would be more than about gun safety. Towards the end of the video, they just said: go check the laws on your own,.. I wouldn't say that makes the person carrying any more\less dangerous, but there are things you need to do to CYA, legally.

Odds are pretty fair that the perp's family will sue Bubba in civil court. That can't be helped, and he won't have much trouble winning the case, but he will probably be out for the time & legal fees.
 
2012-08-29 11:11:29 AM

Dimensio: 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.


But I gots better
 
2012-08-29 11:12:08 AM

galibert: doglover: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

Who cares?

Robbery is robbery. You should expect a little involuntary trepanning if you engage in the activity.

Yay! Death penalty for peeing in the bushes too?


You are dum
 
2012-08-29 11:13:46 AM

cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String: Your belittlement was in the form or painting firearms owners as having a persecution complex.

I don't belittle firearm owners... but somebody who will use the word "hoplophobia" without irony? yes, I will most definitely belittle that person.

Phobia implies an irrational fear. I'm not even afraid of guns, I just happen to think that they are pointless instruments that don't serve any real purpose other than killing people.

/and don't go all "but hunting..." yeah, maybe a repeating rifle has some utility, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about semi-automatic AR-15 type stuff.


Cattle Rancher with a herd worth several hundred thousand dollars, comprising the income his family will receive for the forseeable future vs. a pack of 10-12 coyotes that take down 1-2 cows every week or so. I know it happens, because I've been there and helped hunt the bastards. The AR, generally accurized and not configured to replicate the military carbine, is the preferred platform to quickly take out the pack without coming off the rifle to reload, etc.
 
2012-08-29 11:14:49 AM

Cinaed: Silly Jesus: OK, the derp is just too strong. I'll just pass on conversing with you in this thread and leave you visible in the hopes that you have something reasonable to contribute in some other thread.

Well then you go on cheerleading the death of two men who, at the most, deserved time in a prison and some rehabilitation rather than being killed.


Wow. Are you even paying attention?

There was one fatality, not two. No one in this thread is celebrating the fact that someone lost their life. They're relieved that it was the armed robber who instigated the situation that was shot instead of the clerk or the customers.

Nearly everyone in this thread would prefer effective rehabilitation and prevention to self-defense. They also point out that expecting some fundamental change to magically eliminate the reasons that people commit violent crime is not a realistic scenario in the current environment.

I've been present at a murder. I was sitting in my car when the person leaning into my window was shot with a hunting rifle from ~15 yards away. I then had to duck and make myself as unobtrusive as possible for nearly 15 minutes until the former police officer I was with managed to get the gun away from the killer. I spent that time listening to another human being slowly bleed to death outside my window. I sometimes have nightmares where I can hear him gurgling and moaning as his life spilled out onto the ground. The entire time I was waiting to hear the shot that would end my life or the life of the person I was with, or both.

If you haven't been in a similar situation and are advocating a particular course of action, I can assure you that you have no idea what you're talking about. In this scenario the former officer was not armed. We were less than a block from his house in a small town with nearly zero serious crime, not the inner city.

You don't know what "feeling helpless" means until someone else holds your life or the life of a loved one in their hands and there's nothing you can do about it.

We were very lucky. The officer had nearly 20 years of experience and was able to keep the murderer talking until he was distracted enough that my friend was able to grab the gun. He then had me run the 75 yards to his house to get his handcuffs so he could secure the perpetrator. We later found out that the rifle only had one round in the magazine, and my friend's negotiating skills kept him occupied and delayed him reloading. If he'd had three rounds it would have almost certainly ended with three fatalities instead of one.

Since that day my friend has never been without a gun within reach.

We were both happy that he didn't have to kill the gunman, but we also understand the outcome should have been very different and it was fortune that let us both go home that night. The criminal pled no contest to manslaughter, served his term, was released, committed some additional crime and died at the age of 32.

I'm jealous of the other countries that experience lower instances of violent crime. Less rape, less assault, less murder. It's my hope that someday we as a society will invest in the correct programs to reduce or eliminate the root causes of these ills. Until such a time as we are able to accurately identify and address those root issues the simple fact is that anyone, anywhere can be a victim through no fault of their own. As long as that is the reality it's foolish to think that gun control legislation is anything more than a band-aid.

Gun control advocates can put their fingers in their ears and hum all they want but it doesn't change the fact that this country already has an uncontrollable amount of unlicensed and unregistered firearms. Passing laws that restrict gun ownership (beyond the obviously necessary restrictions for certain criminals, automatic weapons, people with reduced mental capacity, etc.) are a lot like the TSA, security theater. There are already numerous and adequate laws to punish people who use firearms incorrectly. Further burdening people who are willing to go through the process necessary to legally purchase and register a firearm does nothing to address their illegal use. At best it helps people feel like they're doing something, while actually doing nothing to legitimately reduce the problem. In my opinion that's worse than doing nothing at all because it can result in a false sense of accomplishment.

I would be much happier to see all the effort and money spent on lobbying for tighter gun control laws for legal owners funneled into programs addressing poverty, drug abuse, and the other societal issues that ultimately result in illegal gun use. I would also really love to go to the moon and back on a flying unicorn. Both scenarios are equally likely.
 
2012-08-29 11:15:25 AM

Beemer_Vol: SirDigbyChickenCaesar Someone that get's their CCW and isn't well versed in the legal aspects of shooting is a dangerous person.

This, at least for Tennessee. The video we watched in the CCW class was much more about the effects alcohol than practical legal situations with firearms. It was like what I imagine a DUI rehab video would be more than about gun safety. Towards the end of the video, they just said: go check the laws on your own,.. I wouldn't say that makes the person carrying any more\less dangerous, but there are things you need to do to CYA, legally.

Odds are pretty fair that the perp's family will sue Bubba in civil court. That can't be helped, and he won't have much trouble winning the case, but he will probably be out for the time & legal fees.


Plus the psychological damage from having to shoot the guy, and dealing with the family/friends and their issues with his taking a life, plus possibly losing his job due to time spent in court.
 
2012-08-29 11:16:23 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: 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.


It looks to me like that's just a statement of what your Commonwealth intends the duties of a Police Officer to be, as opposed to a Sheriff for example. Regardless, it's not an enforceable law. If you ignore the robbery in progress, you aren't civilly or criminally liable. You might be subject to administrative discipline such as a suspension, perhaps unpaid.

So your legal obligation is no stronger than a Burger King employee's obligation to get me a Whopper when I order it.

You may feel a moral obligation. If so, good for you.
 
2012-08-29 11:17:45 AM

push3r: Cinaed: Silly Jesus: OK, the derp is just too strong. I'll just pass on conversing with you in this thread and leave you visible in the hopes that you have something reasonable to contribute in some other thread.

Well then you go on cheerleading the death of two men who, at the most, deserved time in a prison and some rehabilitation rather than being killed.

Wow. Are you even paying attention?

There was one fatality, not two. No one in this thread is celebrating the fact that someone lost their life. They're relieved that it was the armed robber who instigated the situation that was shot instead of the clerk or the customers.

Nearly everyone in this thread would prefer effective rehabilitation and prevention to self-defense. They also point out that expecting some fundamental change to magically eliminate the reasons that people commit violent crime is not a realistic scenario in the current environment.

I've been present at a murder. I was sitting in my car when the person leaning into my window was shot with a hunting rifle from ~15 yards away. I then had to duck and make myself as unobtrusive as possible for nearly 15 minutes until the former police officer I was with managed to get the gun away from the killer. I spent that time listening to another human being slowly bleed to death outside my window. I sometimes have nightmares where I can hear him gurgling and moaning as his life spilled out onto the ground. The entire time I was waiting to hear the shot that would end my life or the life of the person I was with, or both.

If you haven't been in a similar situation and are advocating a particular course of action, I can assure you that you have no idea what you're talking about. In this scenario the former officer was not armed. We were less than a block from his house in a small town with nearly zero serious crime, not the inner city.

You don't know what "feeling helpless" means until someone else holds your life or the life of a loved one in their han ...


windsurfatlanta.org
 
2012-08-29 11:20:03 AM

Kit Fister: Cattle Rancher with a herd worth several hundred thousand dollars, comprising the income his family will receive for the forseeable future vs. a pack of 10-12 coyotes that take down 1-2 cows every week or so. I know it happens, because I've been there and helped hunt the bastards. The AR, generally accurized and not configured to replicate the military carbine, is the preferred platform to quickly take out the pack without coming off the rifle to reload, etc.


Then give Cattle Ranchers special permission to own the guns. You know damn well this is not what we are talking about. You guys want everyone to have the right to own these things, and there's no damn reason why the crack-dealer in the hood needs to shoot coyotes
 
2012-08-29 11:20:54 AM
We know NOTHING about the guy that robbed that place.

img2.timeinc.net

That guy just killed Keanu.
 
2012-08-29 11:21:26 AM

The Iron duke: .5 and


I see you are using the Verizon Math here...
 
2012-08-29 11:21:37 AM

cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String: Your belittlement was in the form or painting firearms owners as having a persecution complex.

I don't belittle firearm owners... but somebody who will use the word "hoplophobia" without irony? yes, I will most definitely belittle that person.

Phobia implies an irrational fear. I'm not even afraid of guns, I just happen to think that they are pointless instruments that don't serve any real purpose other than killing people.

/and don't go all "but hunting..." yeah, maybe a repeating rifle has some utility, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about semi-automatic AR-15 type stuff.


The AR-15 rifle is one of the most popular centerfire target shooting rifles in the United States of America and is popular as a vermin hunting rifle, the purpose for which it was originally marketed to civilians. The AR-15 rifle does posses substantial civilian utility, and any claim that it does not is a demonstrable lie.
 
2012-08-29 11:21:39 AM

give me doughnuts: 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.


That's always something that's a judgement call weighing the risks of each situation, and the risks weighting completely personal to the individual.

Your lack of intelligence is disgusting.
 
2012-08-29 11:24:20 AM
Neat part. There was an accomplice. And now he gets to be tried for armed robbery AND murder.
Guy's having a bad day I'd guess.
 
2012-08-29 11:24:34 AM

cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String: Your belittlement was in the form or painting firearms owners as having a persecution complex.

I don't belittle firearm owners... but somebody who will use the word "hoplophobia" without irony? yes, I will most definitely belittle that person.

Phobia implies an irrational fear. I'm not even afraid of guns, I just happen to think that they are pointless instruments that don't serve any real purpose other than killing people.

/and don't go all "but hunting..." yeah, maybe a repeating rifle has some utility, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about semi-automatic AR-15 type stuff.


Perhaps you could explain to me how using the word hoplophobia without irony is deserving of belittlement, because I just can't seem to think of a reason except if it was used to describe you, seeing as you state you are not afraid of guns. As far as utility is concerned in regards to semi-automatic rifles (thanks for the appropriate semi-auto/ auto distinction by the way, shows you have some knowledge of the subject matter) since when is recreation not a utilization?

By what means is something being "pointless" a reasonable rationalization for prohibiting an object? You say you aren't afraid of guns, but I keep getting the feeling that you don't want other people to have them because they then pose a risk to public safety simply by owning that object. That's either irrational fear of the object, a tremendous distrust for all other human beings predicated on whether they possess that object or not, or dictating to other people that they shouldn't like what you don't like. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I enjoy good point/ counterpoint debate. Keeps the logic skills sharp.
 
2012-08-29 11:25:12 AM

cassanovascotian: Kit Fister: Cattle Rancher with a herd worth several hundred thousand dollars, comprising the income his family will receive for the forseeable future vs. a pack of 10-12 coyotes that take down 1-2 cows every week or so. I know it happens, because I've been there and helped hunt the bastards. The AR, generally accurized and not configured to replicate the military carbine, is the preferred platform to quickly take out the pack without coming off the rifle to reload, etc.

Then give Cattle Ranchers special permission to own the guns. You know damn well this is not what we are talking about. You guys want everyone to have the right to own these things, and there's no damn reason why the crack-dealer in the hood needs to shoot coyotes


All rifles, of which AR-15 rifles are a smaller subset, are less frequently used to commit homicide than are unarmed attacks. No rational justification exists to restrict civilian ownership of AR-15 model rifles beyond the restrictions already applied to civilian ownership of any firearm.

Unless you believe that a "crack-dealer in the hood" possessing a firearm other than an AR-15 is acceptable, your proposal is unreasonable and is without merit.
 
2012-08-29 11:27:46 AM

DORMAMU


AR15 fires the exact same round as the .223 hunting rifle. 100% interchangeable.

Capacity is the largest difference between the two.

/fun gun fact if the day


Except you're wrong. The 5.56mm NATO round operates at higher pressure than the .223.

A firearm designed for 5.56 can fire .223, but a firearm designed for .223 should not fire 5.56 as unpleasant things could happen.
 
2012-08-29 11:28:47 AM

cassanovascotian: Kit Fister: Cattle Rancher with a herd worth several hundred thousand dollars, comprising the income his family will receive for the forseeable future vs. a pack of 10-12 coyotes that take down 1-2 cows every week or so. I know it happens, because I've been there and helped hunt the bastards. The AR, generally accurized and not configured to replicate the military carbine, is the preferred platform to quickly take out the pack without coming off the rifle to reload, etc.

Then give Cattle Ranchers special permission to own the guns. You know damn well this is not what we are talking about. You guys want everyone to have the right to own these things, and there's no damn reason why the crack-dealer in the hood needs to shoot coyotes


What about a guy who lives in the suburbs who likes to go hunting coyotes? Who gets to determine who needs what?

You're not a lumberjack, do you NEED to own a chainsaw? You're not hauling/towing things, do you NEED to own a pickup truck?

You're not writing for a newspaper, you don't NEED to own/access a system by which you can mass-publish anything you want.

You're unlikely to commit a crime, you don't NEED a lawyer/due process/speedy trial/miranda rights.

This is the whole argument right here: Selective application of laws is all well and good except for when it affects you.

Do I believe a crack dealer needs an AR-15? No. Then again, the laws right now prevent him from owning one because his background check will flag him as ineligible based on a criminal history, and the price of one will be more than he wants to spend.

On the other hand, even if the guns were illegal or severely restricted, they'd still get their hands on them, likely by smuggling them in.
 
2012-08-29 11:29:24 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.


The scenario is the most simple scenario of armed robbery that can exist.

If it is too complex for you then you are mentally incompetent or lying.

Demand with Threat of violence.
Belief that the threat is real.
Action based on belief.
 
2012-08-29 11:30:23 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: DORMAMU

AR15 fires the exact same round as the .223 hunting rifle. 100% interchangeable.

Capacity is the largest difference between the two.

/fun gun fact if the day


Except you're wrong. The 5.56mm NATO round operates at higher pressure than the .223.

A firearm designed for 5.56 can fire .223, but a firearm designed for .223 should not fire 5.56 as unpleasant things could happen.


Truth.
 
2012-08-29 11:34:24 AM

quatchi: stlbluez: if they were armed with a butter knife threatening the clerks life... it's good enough.

Article says "armed". I'm just asking "armed with what?"

If it was a a gun I say fire away and hope you get nothing but net.

If it was a knife I'd say give the morons a chance to stop and wait to get arrested.

Shooting a guy with a butter knife without at least giving him the option of standing down when you have a gun out is a pussy move and I simply can't respect it.

No disrespect.


I am not obligated to give people who are threatening my life a fair chance. I don't know what you might do, what you might have in your pockets, if you have more friends outside. I would never advocate that anyone draw a gun if they are not intending to use it as there is some questionable legality regarding using or brandishing lethal force in a situation where you life is not in imminent danger, as well as the fact that escalating force can cause a situation to destabilize. If you think this is a harmless robbery, do not draw your gun, let them take the money and go. If you feel threatened or fear the consequences of letting them take control of the situation (for example, if they want to tie everyone up or start moving everyone to the back), draw, shoot, and shoot to kill.
 
2012-08-29 11:38:15 AM

cassanovascotian: Kit Fister: Cattle Rancher with a herd worth several hundred thousand dollars, comprising the income his family will receive for the forseeable future vs. a pack of 10-12 coyotes that take down 1-2 cows every week or so. I know it happens, because I've been there and helped hunt the bastards. The AR, generally accurized and not configured to replicate the military carbine, is the preferred platform to quickly take out the pack without coming off the rifle to reload, etc.

Then give Cattle Ranchers special permission to own the guns. You know damn well this is not what we are talking about. You guys want everyone to have the right to own these things, and there's no damn reason why the crack-dealer in the hood needs to shoot coyotes


Unless the crack dealer in the hood has a spotless record and hasn't been adjudicated mentally unstable, he can't legally purchase it right now. Beside the point though, as an overwhelming majority of gun crime is performed with pistols, not rifles of any sort, despite how seemingly easy it is to purchase them legally. And it's not that we want everyone to have the right to own them, everyone already has that right as laid down in the Constitution and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Restricting the availability to own certain firearms based upon permission allows for croneyism, restricting possession to only those in the right circles.
 
2012-08-29 11:52:38 AM
Gold star for Cinaed, straight forward simple trolling, redirecting and ignoring every response the whole thread and still people keep on biting. This thread may be your magnum opus.
 
2012-08-29 11:52:45 AM

Loaded Six String: cassanovascotian: Kit Fister: Cattle Rancher with a herd worth several hundred thousand dollars, comprising the income his family will receive for the forseeable future vs. a pack of 10-12 coyotes that take down 1-2 cows every week or so. I know it happens, because I've been there and helped hunt the bastards. The AR, generally accurized and not configured to replicate the military carbine, is the preferred platform to quickly take out the pack without coming off the rifle to reload, etc.

Then give Cattle Ranchers special permission to own the guns. You know damn well this is not what we are talking about. You guys want everyone to have the right to own these things, and there's no damn reason why the crack-dealer in the hood needs to shoot coyotes

Unless the crack dealer in the hood has a spotless record and hasn't been adjudicated mentally unstable, he can't legally purchase it right now. Beside the point though, as an overwhelming majority of gun crime is performed with pistols, not rifles of any sort, despite how seemingly easy it is to purchase them legally. And it's not that we want everyone to have the right to own them, everyone already has that right as laid down in the Constitution and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Restricting the availability to own certain firearms based upon permission allows for croneyism, restricting possession to only those in the right circles.


You know, Michigan has a system right now that mandates that you must get a purchase permit from the local police to buy a handgun, and then submit it within 10 days for a security check/registration. They also administer a basic handgun safety test before giving you the permit.

If you have a CCW permit, you may buy any handgun you want, but still must register it.

Frankly, I have no problem with this. I also have no problems with requiring that every CCW class include at least a day's worth of training/discussion specifically on the laws involved, above and beyond everything else. After all, even Hunter's Safety (to get your safety card that allows you to get a hunting license) covers the laws as well as safety and all that.

With regards to buying guns, I'm all for requiring a basic firearms safety class and familiarization.

Don't deny a right, but at least make sure that you know what the hell you're doing before you get the toy.
 
2012-08-29 11:53:01 AM

violentsalvation: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

So if they didn't, they are proving that a firearm is not needed to commit a violent felony, just as gun rights advocates have been saying all along. It is bad people, not bad guns. Thank you for you contribution and failed attempt at a talking point.


Hmm Violent? So too men walking into a store and saying, "Give me your money" is violent to you? Are you threatened by house guests at Thanksgiving who say, "Pass the salt" without saying, "please"?
 
2012-08-29 11:56:10 AM

Silly Jesus: Su-Su-Sudo: PreMortem

violentsalvation: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

So if they didn't, they are proving that a firearm is not needed to commit a violent felony, just as gun rights advocates have been saying all along. It is bad people, not bad guns. Thank you for you contribution and failed attempt at a talking point.

Outstanding, I can satisfy my bloodthirst by waiting in convenience stores in seedy neighborhoods. Just wait for someone to try and rob it with a milk crate. 

I'm just glad we have these fine old people with guns to act as Judge, Jury, and Executioner waiting around. It makes me feel really safe. Actually no it doesn't. I own firearms, but I also live in California where we understand that the second worse thing you can do with a gun is shoot somebody else with it, just behind shooting yourself. Last thing we need is more RoboCop style justice, where people are murdered with impunity for crimes that don't really beg for the death penalty. Screw Florida, and Screw their gun carrying, insane population.

So shooting someone before they get the chance to shoot the clerk that they have the gun pointed at is robocop vigilante justice and is a bad thing?

Only on Fark will you find people who think that the armed robbers got treated too harshly.


The only problem with your argument is that the story make absolutely no mention of the robbers being armed. So I guess only on Fark will you find people who jump to wild farking conclusions because of their opinions...oh wait, no, you find arseholes like that everywhere. Nevermind.
 
2012-08-29 11:59:53 AM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: violentsalvation: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

So if they didn't, they are proving that a firearm is not needed to commit a violent felony, just as gun rights advocates have been saying all along. It is bad people, not bad guns. Thank you for you contribution and failed attempt at a talking point.

Hmm Violent? So too men walking into a store and saying, "Give me your money" is violent to you? Are you threatened by house guests at Thanksgiving who say, "Pass the salt" without saying, "please"?


Intellectually dishonest poster is intellectually dishonest.

You are seriously stupid if you can't figure out there's an implied threat in "give me all your money!" But, as a liberal drooler, this type of stupidity should be expected.

Carry on.
 
2012-08-29 12:02:43 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: The only problem with your argument is that the story make absolutely no mention of the robbers being armed. So I guess only on Fark will you find people who jump to wild farking conclusions because of their opinions...oh wait, no, you find arseholes like that everywhere. Nevermind.


Pot. Kettle. Black.

You people tend to think that the guy wouldn't say, keep a gun in his pocket to have just in case, during his robbery, and hide it later. Getting away with it on the short term, but getting busted later now turns from armed robbery to robbery (a lesser crime in some cases).

Not every card is visible and not every act is telegraphed befhorehand....
 
2012-08-29 12:03:07 PM

cassanovascotian: That doesn't change the fact that everyone would be a whole lot better off if nobody had them re: commons tragedy, etc.


Not at all. You can make a case (though I've never seen it supported) that society as a whole would be better off if firearms didn't exist, but there's a reason that the handgun has been called "the great equalizer": In a world without firearms, large young and middle-aged men have an enormous advantage over women, children, and the elderly when it comes to violence. A world without firearms is also one where most women can't effectively resist rapists because of the difference in sheer physical strength.
 
2012-08-29 12:04:42 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: The only problem with your argument is that the story make absolutely no mention of the robbers being armed. So I guess only on Fark will you find people who jump to wild farking conclusions because of their opinions...oh wait, no, you find arseholes like that everywhere. Nevermind.


Uhm, actually, if you go back and read through, other stories covering this have been posted repeatedly showing that the guys *were* armed.

Sorry to burst your bubble...
 
2012-08-29 12:05:48 PM

chrylis: cassanovascotian: That doesn't change the fact that everyone would be a whole lot better off if nobody had them re: commons tragedy, etc.

Not at all. You can make a case (though I've never seen it supported) that society as a whole would be better off if firearms didn't exist, but there's a reason that the handgun has been called "the great equalizer": In a world without firearms, large young and middle-aged men have an enormous advantage over women, children, and the elderly when it comes to violence. A world without firearms is also one where most women can't effectively resist rapists because of the difference in sheer physical strength.


God made man, Sam Colt made them equal.
 
2012-08-29 12:06:26 PM

quatchi: stlbluez: if they were armed with a butter knife threatening the clerks life... it's good enough.

Article says "armed". I'm just asking "armed with what?"

If it was a a gun I say fire away and hope you get nothing but net.

If it was a knife I'd say give the morons a chance to stop and wait to get arrested.

Shooting a guy with a butter knife without at least giving him the option of standing down when you have a gun out is a pussy move and I simply can't respect it.

No disrespect.


so nobody should have shot the 9/11 hijackers (if you believe the official story) ?????

some disrespect.
 
2012-08-29 12:07:55 PM

jack_sawyer75: feckingmorons: Um, that doesn't fit the popular narrative. Please don't post things like this it will give a legally armed citizenry a good name.
Done in one.


Gee, maybe if the legally armed citizenry weren't so often dickless screw-ups, they wouldn't have such a bad name in the first place.
 
2012-08-29 12:08:27 PM
chrylis: You can make a case (though I've never seen it supported) that society as a whole would be better off if firearms didn't exist, but there's a reason that the handgun has been called "the great equalizer"

In the olden days, civilized men used to carry swords. Arming everyone is a good way to encourage people to act civil.
 
2012-08-29 12:08:42 PM

Silly Jesus: themeaningoflifeisnot: dropdfun: themeaningoflifeisnot: I wonder what most cops would say if you asked them what an armed civilian should do when faced with TWO armed robbers holding someone at gunpoint with other people in the store? I would bet that "take them both on yourself" would not be considered a prudent decision.

Sorry to disappoint but I would tell them to do so if circumstances allowed for it. Better for there to be two dead criminals then one dead clerk and one dead witness to the shooting of the clerk. I know my brother who is also in law enforcement would say the same, both were law abiding concealed carrying before entering law enforcement.

You know different cops than I do. Most armed robberies do not end in murder and one civilian not trained like law enforcement to take on multiple armed attackers with innocent lives at risk is far from an optimal situation. It worked out this time because the second robber did not open fire, but few cops I know would say that the best choice in this situation is for one civilian to take on two armed opponents, unless there was no other alternative.

A gun pointed at the clerk is an imminent threat. Every cop that I know would say to do what you feel is appropriate in such a situation. Cops are familiar with armchair quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight and realize that the best person to assess the situation is the person in it. If there is a safe shot and the robber has the clerk at gunpoint, I don't know any cop that would advise against saving the life of the clerk.


Yep that's generally why require the police to identify themselves and try to diffuse the situation without going in guns-a-blazing. It's true that the best person to asses the situation is the person in it. That person was not you, so you're armchair quarterbacking just like everyone disagreeing with you.
 
2012-08-29 12:09:20 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Silly Jesus: Su-Su-Sudo: PreMortem

violentsalvation: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

So if they didn't, they are proving that a firearm is not needed to commit a violent felony, just as gun rights advocates have been saying all along. It is bad people, not bad guns. Thank you for you contribution and failed attempt at a talking point.

Outstanding, I can satisfy my bloodthirst by waiting in convenience stores in seedy neighborhoods. Just wait for someone to try and rob it with a milk crate. 

I'm just glad we have these fine old people with guns to act as Judge, Jury, and Executioner waiting around. It makes me feel really safe. Actually no it doesn't. I own firearms, but I also live in California where we understand that the second worse thing you can do with a gun is shoot somebody else with it, just behind shooting yourself. Last thing we need is more RoboCop style justice, where people are murdered with impunity for crimes that don't really beg for the death penalty. Screw Florida, and Screw their gun carrying, insane population.

So shooting someone before they get the chance to shoot the clerk that they have the gun pointed at is robocop vigilante justice and is a bad thing?

Only on Fark will you find people who think that the armed robbers got treated too harshly.

The only problem with your argument is that the story make absolutely no mention of the robbers being armed. So I guess only on Fark will you find people who jump to wild farking conclusions because of their opinions...oh wait, no, you find arseholes like that everywhere. Nevermind.


Start scrolling down from the top of the thread. Numerous links there to the story where the weapons are indeed mentioned.

Here's one to make it easier.... Link

Derpy derpy doooooooo da.
 
2012-08-29 12:10:36 PM

cryinoutloud: jack_sawyer75: feckingmorons: Um, that doesn't fit the popular narrative. Please don't post things like this it will give a legally armed citizenry a good name.
Done in one.

Gee, maybe if the legally armed citizenry weren't so often dickless screw-ups, they wouldn't have such a bad name in the first place.


Or, more to the point, maybe if the media and common anti-gun folks didn't highlight and point out the dickless screwups and instead covered fairly the vast majority of firearms owners who aren't dickless screwups, maybe they wouldn't have such a bad name in the first place.

Not everyone affected by tornados lives in a trailer park, weighs 350 pounds, and goes around in a pink moomoo with flip flops and curling rollers stuck in their hair, but given the general pop culture coverage of tornado victims, trailer parks are now generally seen as tornado magnets.
 
2012-08-29 12:11:26 PM

Silly Jesus: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Silly Jesus: Su-Su-Sudo: PreMortem

violentsalvation: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

So if they didn't, they are proving that a firearm is not needed to commit a violent felony, just as gun rights advocates have been saying all along. It is bad people, not bad guns. Thank you for you contribution and failed attempt at a talking point.

Outstanding, I can satisfy my bloodthirst by waiting in convenience stores in seedy neighborhoods. Just wait for someone to try and rob it with a milk crate. 

I'm just glad we have these fine old people with guns to act as Judge, Jury, and Executioner waiting around. It makes me feel really safe. Actually no it doesn't. I own firearms, but I also live in California where we understand that the second worse thing you can do with a gun is shoot somebody else with it, just behind shooting yourself. Last thing we need is more RoboCop style justice, where people are murdered with impunity for crimes that don't really beg for the death penalty. Screw Florida, and Screw their gun carrying, insane population.

So shooting someone before they get the chance to shoot the clerk that they have the gun pointed at is robocop vigilante justice and is a bad thing?

Only on Fark will you find people who think that the armed robbers got treated too harshly.

The only problem with your argument is that the story make absolutely no mention of the robbers being armed. So I guess only on Fark will you find people who jump to wild farking conclusions because of their opinions...oh wait, no, you find arseholes like that everywhere. Nevermind.

Start scrolling down from the top of the thread. Numerous links there to the story where the weapons are indeed mentioned.

Here's one to make it easier.... Link

Derpy derpy doooooooo da.


Shh, he has to try extra hard to cover the trolling that's already been outed and ignored earlier up the thread.
 
2012-08-29 12:14:42 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Silly Jesus: themeaningoflifeisnot: dropdfun: themeaningoflifeisnot: I wonder what most cops would say if you asked them what an armed civilian should do when faced with TWO armed robbers holding someone at gunpoint with other people in the store? I would bet that "take them both on yourself" would not be considered a prudent decision.

Sorry to disappoint but I would tell them to do so if circumstances allowed for it. Better for there to be two dead criminals then one dead clerk and one dead witness to the shooting of the clerk. I know my brother who is also in law enforcement would say the same, both were law abiding concealed carrying before entering law enforcement.

You know different cops than I do. Most armed robberies do not end in murder and one civilian not trained like law enforcement to take on multiple armed attackers with innocent lives at risk is far from an optimal situation. It worked out this time because the second robber did not open fire, but few cops I know would say that the best choice in this situation is for one civilian to take on two armed opponents, unless there was no other alternative.

A gun pointed at the clerk is an imminent threat. Every cop that I know would say to do what you feel is appropriate in such a situation. Cops are familiar with armchair quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight and realize that the best person to assess the situation is the person in it. If there is a safe shot and the robber has the clerk at gunpoint, I don't know any cop that would advise against saving the life of the clerk.

Yep that's generally why require the police to identify themselves and try to diffuse the situation without going in guns-a-blazing. It's true that the best person to asses the situation is the person in it. That person was not you, so you're armchair quarterbacking just like everyone disagreeing with you.


Incorrect. If an officer sees someone with a gun pointed at their head they have no obligation to identify themselves and attempt to diffuse the situation. That's considered an imminent threat and immediate action is justified.

My cousin had something like this happen in his town last year. Officer was patrolling on foot in the projects...he heard a commotion in an apartment...turns out it was two guys arguing. The officer rounds the corner and sees through the screen door that one guy has a knife to the throat of the other guy. BAM, he's dead. Shot the guy through the screen door. No need to identify, no need to diffuse. If you are a split second from killing another person, then there is no burden to speak to you.

And I'm not armchair quarterbacking anything. I'm not criticizing any of the actions that the guy took or saying that they could have or should have been done differently.
 
2012-08-29 12:15:04 PM

Kit Fister: Or, more to the point, maybe if the media and common anti-gun folks didn't highlight and point out the dickless screwups and instead covered fairly the vast majority of firearms owners who aren't dickless screwups, maybe they wouldn't have such a bad name in the first place.


This.

278 CCL holders shot and killed people who were perpetrating crimes which justified the action in 2010 according to FBI statistics. How many did you hear about? I didn't hear about many.
 
2012-08-29 12:15:29 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: The only problem with your argument is that the story make absolutely no mention of the robbers being armed. So I guess only on Fark will you find people who jump to wild farking conclusions because of their opinions...oh wait, no, you find arseholes like that everywhere. Nevermind.


There were many links posted above that gave more information, such as the fact they came in with HANDGUNS. I guess they should have just bought them ice cream instead...
 
2012-08-29 12:16:31 PM

Kit Fister: squirrelflavoredyogurt: The only problem with your argument is that the story make absolutely no mention of the robbers being armed. So I guess only on Fark will you find people who jump to wild farking conclusions because of their opinions...oh wait, no, you find arseholes like that everywhere. Nevermind.

Uhm, actually, if you go back and read through, other stories covering this have been posted repeatedly showing that the guys *were* armed.

Sorry to burst your bubble...


Wow you're right. I'm sure that he read through every other comment and was aware that they were in fact armed, because he *clearly* made mention of it in his argument.
 
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