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  
•       •       •

20051 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 02:01:16 PM  

Kit Fister: And we have Wrathskellar in with the totally obvious troll, and the ever-amusing squirrelflavoredyogart continuing to stamp his foot and pout because people are discussing the concept of self defense and use against robbers in a legitimate situation, based on the case at hand.

Good show, gentlemen. Fark never ceases to be boring.

Oh, and Wrathskellar: I want my 20 seconds back from reading your post. Plonk.


I now have squirrel and Wrath marked in green as Pro-Criminal Anti-Gun Bedwetters.
 
2012-08-29 02:07:02 PM  

AngryDragon: And climate change isn't real because it was cold outside in my neighborhood yesterday...


I think you missed my point. For that statistic to be reasonably accurate, 19,160 of every 100,000 people would have to die via homicide annually in the US. According to the CDC, there are only 794 deaths per 100,000 people annually. So violence kills 24 times as many people annually as actually die in the US.
 
2012-08-29 02:09:23 PM  
Reposted without permission;


While many say it is better to be lucky than good, no one is lucky every time. In this post I am going to attempt to provide some insight into street encounters. Other may have different viewpoints. I am not here to argue. I will say some of the comments I have seen posted in the threads about this sort of matter make me realize that while some ARFCOMMERS are clearly street veterans others are not. This is really for those who are not.

Background

First, my info. I worked in the street of one of America's most violent, dangerous cities for 15 years. I usually worked in the worst part of that city. I spent 15 years in patrol. I liked patrol. It was wild. Most of the time I worked in areas covered in ghetto. By that I mean large housing projects combined with run down slum housing. I have worked all shifts. Later I became an investigator including a robbery investigator. I have spent countless hours in interrogation rooms talking to hold up men. I know them. I am still an investigator but have quit playing the Robbery game because my family was starting to forget what I looked like.

The Enemy

Some may object to me calling hold up men "the enemy". You can call them whatever you like. I can assure you however they are as deadly an enemy as you will find anywhere but the battlefield. Even many soldiers probably lack the viciousness and utter disregard for life most hold up men possess.

No one wakes up in the morning one day and decides to become an armed robber. It is a gradual process that requires some experience and desensitizing. Before a man will pick up a gun and threaten to kill people who have done him no harm in order to get their usually meager possessions he has to get comfortable with some things.

He has to get used to seeing others as objects for him to exploit. He has to accept he may be killed while robbing. He has to accept the felony conviction for Robbery will haunt him all his life. He has to accept he may need to kill a completely innocent person to get away with his crime.

This is a process that starts with stealing candy at the corner store as a child. It progresses through bigger property crimes that may also involve violence. But one day G gets tired of selling his stolen property for nothing and decides it would be better to steal cash. Cut out all that tiresome sales stuff.


Keep in mind many petty thieves, auto burglars, residential and commercial burglars, paper thieves, and hustlers will get to that point and decide not to become armed robbers. Most will. It is a special group of outliers who decide threatening to kill people for a few dollars is the way to go.

Once a man starts armed robbing he has crossed a line most won't. Don't forget that when you are looking these bastards in the eye. Their decision to kill you is already made. Your life means nothing to him. Only his does. His sole motivation for not killing you is he doesn't want a murder case. He has already accepted he may pick one up though.

We hunt hold up men around the clock once they are identified. We send teams of fire breathing fence jumper/door kickers to find them. We will bring their mother to the office and convince her she is going to jail if we don't have Junior in our office in an hour. We have her call her son crying hysterically for him to turn himself in before she is arrested and held without bond as a material witness and her home seized for harboring him. Most of the time they won't. fark their own momma.

We will hit all Juniors friends and family's houses. We make it so no one will harbor him. He is so hot no one will let him in their house or even talk on the phone with him. We put money on him so he knows he is right to be betrayed and set up. We do this because of one thing.

That thing is they WILL kill someone if they keep robbing. That is why the city is willing to pay all the overtime. They don't want the murders. Think about that when you see Junior coming. The more robberies he does the closer he is to killing someone. Maybe you.

The guys who hit you on the street are gang members. They are Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, Crips, Sureonos, many others. They do not see themselves as part of society. The street is all they know. They don't expect to live long or stay out of prison. They take a delight in your fear and suffering. They are warped individuals for the most part. They can be extremely dangerous.

One time we were locking up a hold up man and having a conversation about how they target their victims. I was saying they pick easy ones, another guy was saying they preferred easy ones but would take anybody.

I pointed out a uniform Officer there was an NFL size guy to that hold up man. Frankly the dude was a monster. I asked hold up man if he would rob him. He said "If I needed the money".

You

Chances are good you are a law abiding person except for maybe a little light weed smoking and maybe driving a little drunk every once in a while. Most of your life you have been taught to be nice and don't point guns at people. You are the exact opposite of your enemy who was taught just the opposite. Remember a lot of street life is like prison life. Who's the man is everything. Violence is the currency of the street.

You do not possess total disregard for the lives of others and do not want to kill anyone. You are concerned about the ramifications of shooting someone. Your family, your possessions and finances on the line. Your enemy has none of these concerns.

The laws that keep you from carrying your gun in bars or where ever mean nothing to your enemy. Your reluctance to shoot someone works to is advantage. His greater experience in street violence and the element of surprise is on his side.

Everyone should call their local FBI office and get a copy of Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. When it first came out it was ground breaking because it demonstrated to academics and other elites what street police knew all along. What did it show in interviews with cop killers? Nice guys finish dead. That's right. Most of those offenders commented that the Officer they killed set himself up to be killed because of reluctance to use force early in the encounter.

You can probably find it on line now. A lot of the victim Officers were a lot like a lot of other people, normal people. They were the opposite of their enemy.

Am I advocating becoming the enemy? No. I am saying the person who is robbing you has certain traits, attitudes, and background. That is all.

Dynamics of Encounters

Hold up men target victims on the street in an impulsive, opportunistic manner. They see someone and make a quick judgment call on whether to rob them. The time between when you are targeted and they are on you isn't long. Therefore, situational awareness is everything.

If you see G coming you are in good shape. If you don't you will be the victim who says "He came out of nowhere". No he didn't. There are many tricks to watching out but simply watching your back is the main thing. Watch your back. If you do it enough it becomes second nature and you won't even realize you are doing it.

Watching out is great but unfortunately many self defense courses stop there. You have parked you car in a well lit area, are aware of your surroundings, and looky here, here comes three guys across the parking lot and they start to kind of fan out.

When you lock eyes with G the very first thing you need to do it indicate you have a weapon. It doesn't matter if you do or not. If you are a woman put your gun hand in your purse and keep it there. If you are a man fan your shirt or coat tail with your gun hand. Make it clear to dude you are mentally prepared to draw and making sure your gun is clear. This will many times result in an about face by dude. It is the single best robbery avoidance tactic IMHO.

Not long ago I was walking down the sidewalk in my town to go get my car. I was holding a folding chair in my gun hand. A car slow rolled past me with 4 heads in it. The guys in the back seat turned around as they went by looking at me. They went a little farther and U turned in the street.

Here they come back. As they started to slow down I looked at them with as contemptuous a look as I could muster and switched the chair to my left hand and flicked my shirt tail with my right hand. They just drove on mad dogging me.

In another case I was at a Christmas party and walked a girl to her car about 3 am. As we said our good-byes two guys were walking across the parking lot. One went behind a dumpster. I though he was peeing. He came out from behind the dumpster with a bottle.

As they got closer I stepped clear of that girl and unzipped my jacket at those two guys. When I did the guy threw down the bottle and they walked by cussing at me. If someone challenges you after you indicate you are armed say "I don't have a gun". Then they will know you do.

Here is an opposite story. A girl my brother knows was walking her dog when a guy approached her. She was polite. Mistake. He talked to her about the dog and said she had pretty hair and reached out and touched her hair. She did not slap his hand down or aggressively object. Mistake. He asked her if her dog bit and she said "No". At that time he slapped the shiat out of her, drug her into a wooded area, and raped her.

The answer in the street is always "No". Can I ask you something? No. Do you have a cigarette? No. Can you tell me what time it is? No. The answer is always "No". Don't be nice. Stop the encounter as soon as it starts.

When to draw

Despite warnings I often see on the Net I have yet to encounter an instance in which a hold up man called the police to report his intended victim threatened to shoot him. Thugs do not want to come into contact with the police. They may already be wanted or realize chances are good they have been identified in a recent robbery. Or what ever. They are not going to call the police if you draw on them.



Supposed two guys are approaching you in a parking lot and do the classic fan out maneuver. You indicate you have a weapon by clearing your gun hand and fanning your jacket at them. They are not discouraged. DRAW!

I am not saying you should pull your gun out, assume a Weaver stance, and scream "That's close enough motherfarkers!" What I am saying is draw your gun and hold it beside your leg as you start to move to cover. I am very fond of telephone poles. Anything will do though. They will see this. They will remember they have to be somewhere else. They will not call the police.

Then you can just put your gun back in the holster and go back to whatever you were doing like nothing happened. Why? Because nothing did happen. A happening is when shots are fired.

Do not hesitate to draw. If you are somewhere you are supposed to be and someone appears who is not supposed to be there like a closed business show him the end of your gun. Could it be Mother Teresa looking for her lost cat behind your closed business? No it is some motherfarker up to no good. He won't call the police to report he was prowling a location when a guy ran him off.

When to shoot

The time to shoot is immediately upon seeing his weapon. You are not a police man who has to try to arrest the guy. No need to scream at him. No exposure while you yell for him to drop the gun.

In deer hunting the experienced hunter takes the first good shot. May not be the perfect shot but it never is. Novices pass up a doable shot waiting for a better shot and then the deer is gone. Take the first good shot you are offered. Hopefully your alertness and hostile cues will prevent you ever having to fire. But once you see his weapon, shoot.

If a guy is coming at you with a gun in his hand shoot him. Shoot him right then. If you don't shoot first you may not shoot at all. I have known more than one person who was shot and received life changing injuries and also shot their attacker. Their only regret was not shooting sooner. Like Bill Jordan said "Nothing disturbs your enemy's aim like a slug delivered to the belt buckle area".

Guns and weapons

The handgun is the best weapon you can carry easily. I understand it is not always possible to have one due to laws, restrictions, whatever. I am not telling anyone to disregard laws about carrying weapons. Each person has to decide for themselves what they are comfortable with. I will say there is no substitute for a pistol when you need one.


Also if you can not be trusted with a pistol after a few drinks you can't be trusted with a pistol period. Booze is liquid bad judgment no doubt but it shouldn't make you into a damn moron. If you are a moron sober I don't know what to tell you.

Types of guns and ammo are always debated and probably always will be. I have seen people shot with all common calibers. My conclusion is if you hit someone between the collar bone and the tip of their ribs three times with anything, they are handled. Bigger is better but something is better than nothing. Get your front sight on his shirt and stay on him as long as he is standing with whatever gun you have.

Just have a gun with sure fire ammo. Draw early and fire immediately upon seeing his weapon. That course of action is about all you can do to up your odds of ending things favorably. Guns like the Ruger LC9, SIG 239, Glock 26/27 are examples of guns small enough to carry but with enough power and capacity to be useful. Do not be afraid to use a French Lebelle if that is the only gun you have. A gun is a gun. I like a Glock 19.

Training

We all want the best training. It can be expensive if you are having to pay for it and it can be hard to find the time to do it. There is a whole lot of BS out there. What can you do? Boobiesol handling is not rocket surgery. If you will learn the basics and practice on your own you can be fine. Smooth draw, quick pairs, reload. If you know those things well you can be OK.

I know a young man who shot down two hold up men in 2010 at very close range while he and his GF were walking home from the store. He in Wyatt Earp like fashion ignored the fire coming from the gunman and killed him and wounded his accomplice. He nor his GF were injured. He like many was willing to give them the money until he picked up on nonverbal cues that because of his GF they were not quite satisfied with the money. He had a Glock 27.

He had only the most basic of training in gun handling but did do some draws and some dry fire a couple times a week and live fired maybe once a month. That basic skill combined with knowing what to do was enough. He shot at the first possible moment despite having let the guys get the drop on them. When the gunman turned his head because a car drove by that was the opening. A split second is a long time sometimes.

Work on some one hand shooting at close range. That is a skill not as popular as it once was and you want to use two hands when you can. Often you can find yourself doing something with your off hand though so be able to shoot with one hand out to 5 yards or so.


After

If it comes to pass you are forced to shoot someone do not feel bad. When the police come just tell them a guy threatened you with deadly force and you were forced to fire. I know there are bad police out there in some parts of the country who don't support self defense. I can't help you with that.

Do not talk to them until you have your attorney present. Now most young guys don't have an attorney on retainer and you may have no idea who to call. That is OK. You will figure it out but in the mean time don't talk about what happened other than to say you were forced to fire. You don't have to be an asshole just remember wait for your attorney.

Hopefully you will not give a statement for a couple days. Remember if you are put in jail that doesn't mean you are charged. Most places can hold you 48 or 72 hours on a felony before charging you or letting you go. Breath deep and get an attorney.

Expect to never get your gun back. You may get it back one day but maybe not. Do not buy expensive guns for the street. Buy yourself a nice sporting gun if you want a nice gun. Keep your street guns basic. The factory Model 10 Smith and the GI 45 have done a lot of work over the years and aren't fancy.

Worlds

We all live in different worlds. My world is filled with felons and gang members. Violence is common place. No one would be surprised if one of their friends called and said they shot a hold up man at a place of business or parking lot. In the past when I made calls the fact that the guy who is beating his GF is also on parole for 2nd degree murder flavored my world.

You may live in a smaller, less violent place where shootings seldom occur and it would be a rare to shoot a hold up man. I envy you and will be moving to a place like your town as soon as I can.

But be advised no matter where you are a hold man is going to be about the same. Whether he is a home boy or a guy who just exited the interstate into your town and needs some quick money. He is going to have a vicious streak and no regard for your life. Treat him like he treats you.

Giving them the money, doing what they say, all that may work but there is no guarantee. If you have never read Jeff Cooper's book The Principles of Personal Defense I suggest you order a copy immediately. It is a short book but summarizes a lot of important things.

Last year we had a trial here regarding an armed robbery that occurred. Three or four guys took a young couple from a parking garage near a college out by some railroad tracks where they raped, shot, and beat them. Their lives will never be the same.

The lesser thugs all turned on the trigger man at trial. The trigger man's statement in the paper was after all that had happened he felt like he was a victim. Think about that. That is the mindset you are up against.
 
2012-08-29 02:09:57 PM  

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.


I tried to find a link to a video for Super Cop by Ray Stevens, but gave up.
 
2012-08-29 02:10:41 PM  

Divorach: If the answer to guns is moar guns then...

We should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons then, right? Because more of them will make the world safer?

Yes?


Well, anecdotally, the old axiom of "don't fear the guy with lots of guns, fear the guy with only one" is out there, but I think you're oversimplifying and detracting from the actual point being made, though it's a wonderful strawman.

Guns serve a purpose, whether that purpose is for hunting, self defense, target practice, or population control of livestock.

In the past 10,000 years, we have learned that, no matter what we do, the only thing that changes is that humans devise ever more sophisticated and efficient means of killing each other. We have not eliminated rape, murder, theft, adultery, lying, cheating, fraud, abuse of one another, or any of the other deadly vices of mankind, no matter how high and mighty people want to be about it. Take the most safe and serene place on earth, then have two people left to their own devices with one having something the other wants. Think there won't be trouble?

The only thing gun control will do is eliminate violent crime perpetrated by those who go to the trouble of lawfully obtaining a gun. Those who buy guns off the street, or from the black market, will still have guns and still use them. Those who otherwise would commit violent acts will find other ways to do so than use a gun.

You will also, however, deprive those who are physically unable to match the size and strength of their attacker (women, elderly people, etc.) of the one tool that is likely to allow them to effectively mount a defense against an attack, and thus you weaken a segment of the population against would-be rapists, thieves, etc.

It frightens me that there are people out there, though, who are so hung up on the tool that they fail to consider the consequences of attacking the tool and not looking at the root causes and finding ways of solving those instead.

Many people will post crime statistics showing how the US has a higher crime rate than other countries, and try to suggest that somehow gun laws would make a difference. I respectfully suggest that if you're going to do so, to be intellectually honest in the argument, you also provide data comparing and contrasting the overall demographics of age, race, poverty, living conditions, etc. between the nations you're bringing up. I would be willing to bet money that, given the basic considerations of these conditions outside of actual acts of crime, you would find that the nations had a far more homogenous culture, a far more even distribution of wealth, lower unemployment rates, higher levels of education on average, better living conditions, etc.

When the US has equalled all of these other conditions and gun ownership alone is the varying factor, then we can discuss whether gun ownership actually makes as much difference as you say in violent crime.
 
2012-08-29 02:12:50 PM  

DingleberryMoose: voodoowizard: Even better, they where armed with pellet or BB guns. First link says BB, second link says pellet.

Either is .17 caliber, most guns that will shoot one will shoot the other. And the .17 HMR is available in a handgun that looks much like those pictured and is quite deadly, so there was no real way for Gramps to know those weren't lethal weapons. It's still a good shoot, but my estimation of the perps' IQ just shrunk from an already very low number.

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 512x384]
Taurus Tracker in .17 Hornandy Magnum Rimfire


Except that's a Colt 1911, likely a series 80, and likely .45 ACP...
 
2012-08-29 02:14:22 PM  

Diogenes The Cynic:
Do you know how I know you never read the Federalist Papers?
The ones who established the Constitution actually did believe in standing armies. Hamilton pointed out that Native Americans, or the French could declare war on America, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it because we didn't know we needed the army assembled in advance. The militias they talk about are probably state militias set up to protect against pirates, and frontier towns. All of them were rolled into the national reserve in the 1970's. But SCOTUS says it applies to the individual, whatever you may think. Plus, in the absence of state militias, were out on our own for forming them anyways.


Despite that they argued in favor of standing armies, the fact is that there was none. And until one could be authorized, funded and raised, citizens and citizen militias were the first line of national defense. We seem to be largely in agreement on that point. Are you going somewhere with this?

Diogenes The Cynic: And you say that the gap between a militia and a professional army is too great to be bridged. Notwithstanding all the countries where guys with rifles have overthrown repressive regimes, if you're right, banning guns would be a moot point because its pointless according to your own logic.


I have no idea what logic your referring to, but do you have an example of a couple of those oppressive regimes overthrown by guys with rifles? (Post WWI, please.)

Diogenes The Cynic: Outlawing every semi-auto would make only bolt actions, and shotguns legal. Revolvers, self-loading rifles, and pistols would all be illegal under your proposed nonsense.


Revolvers are not semi-automatic. Lever action rifles are not semi-automatic, and pump actions aren't either. I'm not advocating the elimination of personal right to own a weapon. Only that the weapons folks are currently allowed to use are more trouble than they're worth. The only benefit of a 20-shot semi-auto pistol is the ability to kill many people very quickly. That should be illegal.

I'm 46. I've been shooting since I was 10, hunting since I was 12. Killed my first deer at 14. I just went shooting with my dad a couple weeks ago. Sporting clays are (is?) fun.
 
2012-08-29 02:17:40 PM  

84Charlie: Kit Fister: And we have Wrathskellar in with the totally obvious troll, and the ever-amusing squirrelflavoredyogart continuing to stamp his foot and pout because people are discussing the concept of self defense and use against robbers in a legitimate situation, based on the case at hand.

Good show, gentlemen. Fark never ceases to be boring.

Oh, and Wrathskellar: I want my 20 seconds back from reading your post. Plonk.

I now have squirrel and Wrath marked in green as Pro-Criminal Anti-Gun Bedwetters.


Would not yellow be a more appropriate colour?
 
2012-08-29 02:20:53 PM  

Kit Fister: DingleberryMoose: voodoowizard: Even better, they where armed with pellet or BB guns. First link says BB, second link says pellet.

Either is .17 caliber, most guns that will shoot one will shoot the other. And the .17 HMR is available in a handgun that looks much like those pictured and is quite deadly, so there was no real way for Gramps to know those weren't lethal weapons. It's still a good shoot, but my estimation of the perps' IQ just shrunk from an already very low number.

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 512x384]
Taurus Tracker in .17 Hornandy Magnum Rimfire

Except that's a Colt 1911, likely a series 80, and likely .45 ACP...


Oops, hotlinked the wrong image. Since that particular Taurus is a wheelgun, I'll give you an Accelerator image for your trouble:
www.excelarms.com 
/available in .22 mag or .17 HMR
 
2012-08-29 02:20:55 PM  
Not okay to carry a gun for some gun control advocates, but if the government kills people with impunity its a free pass.
 
2012-08-29 02:23:32 PM  

Wrathskellar: Diogenes The Cynic:
Do you know how I know you never read the Federalist Papers?
The ones who established the Constitution actually did believe in standing armies. Hamilton pointed out that Native Americans, or the French could declare war on America, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it because we didn't know we needed the army assembled in advance. The militias they talk about are probably state militias set up to protect against pirates, and frontier towns. All of them were rolled into the national reserve in the 1970's. But SCOTUS says it applies to the individual, whatever you may think. Plus, in the absence of state militias, were out on our own for forming them anyways.

Despite that they argued in favor of standing armies, the fact is that there was none. And until one could be authorized, funded and raised, citizens and citizen militias were the first line of national defense. We seem to be largely in agreement on that point. Are you going somewhere with this?

Diogenes The Cynic: And you say that the gap between a militia and a professional army is too great to be bridged. Notwithstanding all the countries where guys with rifles have overthrown repressive regimes, if you're right, banning guns would be a moot point because its pointless according to your own logic.

I have no idea what logic your referring to, but do you have an example of a couple of those oppressive regimes overthrown by guys with rifles? (Post WWI, please.)

Diogenes The Cynic: Outlawing every semi-auto would make only bolt actions, and shotguns legal. Revolvers, self-loading rifles, and pistols would all be illegal under your proposed nonsense.

Revolvers are not semi-automatic. Lever action rifles are not semi-automatic, and pump actions aren't either. I'm not advocating the elimination of personal right to own a weapon. Only that the weapons folks are currently allowed to use are more trouble than they're worth. The only benefit of a 20-shot semi-auto pistol is the abili ...


You did not address my previous question. You claimed not to be "trolling": why did you lie?
 
2012-08-29 02:26:42 PM  

Wrathskellar: Revolvers are not semi-automatic. Lever action rifles are not semi-automatic, and pump actions aren't either. I'm not advocating the elimination of personal right to own a weapon. Only that the weapons folks are currently allowed to use are more trouble than they're worth. The only benefit of a 20-shot semi-auto pistol is the ability to kill many people very quickly. That should be illegal.

I'm 46. I've been shooting since I was 10, hunting since I was 12. Killed my first deer at 14. I just went shooting with my dad a couple weeks ago. Sporting clays are (is?) fun.


And who the hell are you to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't own?

Alright, fine. We should outlaw computers and the internet, because they're more trouble than they're worth. The only benefit of a computer is that they make people able to access porn, illegal information, or commit crimes against others by stealing their information very quick and easy.

Gee, this is fun!

Okay, okay, no, it's not fun. And it's retarded.
 
2012-08-29 02:28:08 PM  

jafiwam


Reposted without permission;


Learn to link.
 
2012-08-29 02:30:54 PM  

Dimensio: You did not address my previous question. You claimed not to be "trolling": why did you lie?


Perhaps to him he wasn't trolling, he simply believes that because he personally does not engage in ownership of or sports that utilize the types of guns he advocates against, that such a ban is reasonable since it really doesn't affect him, and while stupid, this is the type of thing that happens all too often: people advocate for laws or changes that they really don't consider too hard because the way it's presented doesn't affect them directly, so no one else should have a problem with it, right?
 
2012-08-29 02:34:16 PM  

Wrathskellar: Diogenes The Cynic:
Do you know how I know you never read the Federalist Papers?
The ones who established the Constitution actually did believe in standing armies. Hamilton pointed out that Native Americans, or the French could declare war on America, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it because we didn't know we needed the army assembled in advance. The militias they talk about are probably state militias set up to protect against pirates, and frontier towns. All of them were rolled into the national reserve in the 1970's. But SCOTUS says it applies to the individual, whatever you may think. Plus, in the absence of state militias, were out on our own for forming them anyways.

Despite that they argued in favor of standing armies, the fact is that there was none. And until one could be authorized, funded and raised, citizens and citizen militias were the first line of national defense. We seem to be largely in agreement on that point. Are you going somewhere with this?

Diogenes The Cynic: And you say that the gap between a militia and a professional army is too great to be bridged. Notwithstanding all the countries where guys with rifles have overthrown repressive regimes, if you're right, banning guns would be a moot point because its pointless according to your own logic.

I have no idea what logic your referring to, but do you have an example of a couple of those oppressive regimes overthrown by guys with rifles? (Post WWI, please.)

Diogenes The Cynic: Outlawing every semi-auto would make only bolt actions, and shotguns legal. Revolvers, self-loading rifles, and pistols would all be illegal under your proposed nonsense.

Revolvers are not semi-automatic. Lever action rifles are not semi-automatic, and pump actions aren't either. I'm not advocating the elimination of personal right to own a weapon. Only that the weapons folks are currently allowed to use are more trouble than they're worth. The only benefit of a 20-shot semi-auto pistol is the abili ...


And if the weapon you use to hunt with carried 10 more rounds would that automatically designate its purpose as killing lots of people? Or would that make you a responsible, sane human being for not killing other people with it? How about we enact measures to reduce the causes of crime, rather than attributing malice to an object? A gun can just as easily be used as a paperweight, even a bludgeon if we stay along the lines of weaponry. The actions of a few is not a rational basis to limit the liberties of the many or deprive them of property.
 
2012-08-29 02:34:58 PM  

Pete_T_Mann: Pribar: I love how your graphic lists Switzerland, where basically every male between the ages of 20 and 30 has a real honest to God assault rifle (with select fire) at home and gun ownership is pretty much on par with the US, showing its the culture not the guns, but lets go on trying to regulate the guns, not change the culture.

Their weapons have been altered to fire semi only. They are still "deadly assault rifles" though, according the the definition of our wonderful media, and most everybody does have one.

Loaded Six String: 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.

Actually, its my understanding that the college eduction programs in prisons were pretty effective at stopping recidivism. Of course they were scrapped as being too costly, even though they stopped the much greater cost of housing inmates.


I wonder, is this what it feels like to know nothing what so ever?

Sorry, allow me to rephrase... can you cite a source for any facts backing up your assertions? Because, my good man, I call bullshiat.
 
2012-08-29 02:36:16 PM  

Wrathskellar: Diogenes The Cynic:
Do you know how I know you never read the Federalist Papers?
The ones who established the Constitution actually did believe in standing armies. Hamilton pointed out that Native Americans, or the French could declare war on America, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it because we didn't know we needed the army assembled in advance. The militias they talk about are probably state militias set up to protect against pirates, and frontier towns. All of them were rolled into the national reserve in the 1970's. But SCOTUS says it applies to the individual, whatever you may think. Plus, in the absence of state militias, were out on our own for forming them anyways.

Despite that they argued in favor of standing armies, the fact is that there was none. And until one could be authorized, funded and raised, citizens and citizen militias were the first line of national defense. We seem to be largely in agreement on that point. Are you going somewhere with this?

Diogenes The Cynic: And you say that the gap between a militia and a professional army is too great to be bridged. Notwithstanding all the countries where guys with rifles have overthrown repressive regimes, if you're right, banning guns would be a moot point because its pointless according to your own logic.

I have no idea what logic your referring to, but do you have an example of a couple of those oppressive regimes overthrown by guys with rifles? (Post WWI, please.)

Diogenes The Cynic: Outlawing every semi-auto would make only bolt actions, and shotguns legal. Revolvers, self-loading rifles, and pistols would all be illegal under your proposed nonsense.

Revolvers are not semi-automatic. Lever action rifles are not semi-automatic, and pump actions aren't either. I'm not advocating the elimination of personal right to own a weapon. Only that the weapons folks are currently allowed to use are more trouble than they're worth. The only benefit of a 20-shot semi-auto pistol is the abili ...


d1g4sq00ps2bp3.cloudfront.net
 
2012-08-29 02:36:46 PM  

Kit Fister: And who the hell are you to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't own?

Alright, fine. We should outlaw computers and the internet, because they're more trouble than they're worth. The only benefit of a computer is that they make people able to access porn, illegal information, or commit crimes against others by stealing their information very quick and easy.

Gee, this is fun!

Okay, okay, no, it's not fun. And it's retarded.


You are drinking WAY to early in the day and need to stop beating your mother.

We get it. Your sense of value revolves around your gun.

Seek help. Seek MASSIVE help.
 
2012-08-29 02:46:13 PM  

Kit Fister: Dimensio: You did not address my previous question. You claimed not to be "trolling": why did you lie?

Perhaps to him he wasn't trolling, he simply believes that because he personally does not engage in ownership of or sports that utilize the types of guns he advocates against, that such a ban is reasonable since it really doesn't affect him, and while stupid, this is the type of thing that happens all too often: people advocate for laws or changes that they really don't consider too hard because the way it's presented doesn't affect them directly, so no one else should have a problem with it, right?


Are you saying, then, that I should instead have posted notsureiftrollingorjuststupid.jpg?
 
2012-08-29 02:47:08 PM  

Wholesale Ass: Kit Fister: And who the hell are you to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't own?

Alright, fine. We should outlaw computers and the internet, because they're more trouble than they're worth. The only benefit of a computer is that they make people able to access porn, illegal information, or commit crimes against others by stealing their information very quick and easy.

Gee, this is fun!

Okay, okay, no, it's not fun. And it's retarded.

You are drinking WAY to early in the day and need to stop beating your mother.

We get it. Your sense of value revolves around your gun.

Seek help. Seek MASSIVE help.


I find you amusing that you assume that I drink, or that my sense of value has anything to do with a gun?

A gun's a tool, like a chainsaw or a screw driver. I get no more value from it than I do from anything else, it simply provides a useful purpose in one area that I regard as necessary.

My issue is purely based on the assumption that any one person has the right or privilege of dictating to others what is and is not appropriate beyond the minimums we already set out.
 
2012-08-29 02:48:31 PM  

Dimensio: Kit Fister: Dimensio: You did not address my previous question. You claimed not to be "trolling": why did you lie?

Perhaps to him he wasn't trolling, he simply believes that because he personally does not engage in ownership of or sports that utilize the types of guns he advocates against, that such a ban is reasonable since it really doesn't affect him, and while stupid, this is the type of thing that happens all too often: people advocate for laws or changes that they really don't consider too hard because the way it's presented doesn't affect them directly, so no one else should have a problem with it, right?

Are you saying, then, that I should instead have posted notsureiftrollingorjuststupid.jpg?


Probably, much like WHolesale Ass there, who can't be bothered to review the thread or learn about a person before making assumptions. But, hey, you know what they say about assuming and all that, and his name pretty much gives it away.

Ah well, you can't expect reasoned discourse and such on the internet from everyone.
 
2012-08-29 02:49:48 PM  

Loaded Six String: And if the weapon you use to hunt with carried 10 more rounds would that automatically designate its purpose as killing lots of people? Or would that make you a responsible, sane human being for not killing other people with it? How about we enact measures to reduce the causes of crime, rather than attributing malice to an object? A gun can just as easily be used as a paperweight, even a bludgeon if we stay along the lines of weaponry. The actions of a few is not a rational basis to limit the liberties of the many or deprive them of property.


So you're cool with private ownership of mortars and attack helicopters and nukes? I'm simply drawing a line, because I believe it needs to be drawn, and that it's reasonable (not perfect, but reasonable) to do so where semi-auto meets manual load. High-capacity is an admittedly arbitrary number.
 
2012-08-29 02:51:41 PM  

quatchi: 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.


Ooo, a butter knife gun. Awesome.
 
2012-08-29 02:56:11 PM  

Wrathskellar: Loaded Six String: And if the weapon you use to hunt with carried 10 more rounds would that automatically designate its purpose as killing lots of people? Or would that make you a responsible, sane human being for not killing other people with it? How about we enact measures to reduce the causes of crime, rather than attributing malice to an object? A gun can just as easily be used as a paperweight, even a bludgeon if we stay along the lines of weaponry. The actions of a few is not a rational basis to limit the liberties of the many or deprive them of property.

So you're cool with private ownership of mortars and attack helicopters and nukes? I'm simply drawing a line, because I believe it needs to be drawn, and that it's reasonable (not perfect, but reasonable) to do so where semi-auto meets manual load. High-capacity is an admittedly arbitrary number.


Fully automatic weapons are already banned (post-86 manufacture) or heavily restricted (pre-86 manufacture), explosives and antipersonnel devices are already banned/heavily restricted, etc.

What more lines need to be drawn? Frankly, if someone wanted to own a mortar or an attack helo (some guys with a lot of money already do), tanks, etc. go for it. The weapons would have to be deactivated as they are already illegal to own, so you'd essentially have a fancy, worn out piece of military hardware that you can point to and say "gee ain't it cool".

Hell, there are people with private ownership of decommissioned jet fighters, and old navy warships are decommissioned and given away to communities for museums or purchased for scrap.

it seems irrational to me that we have to keep passing laws redefining what is and isn't banned simply because people fail to understand what laws we already have on the books.

So, again, I ask, who are you to determine what should and shouldn't be illegal based on your own sense of morality or beliefs? It's no different, far as I can tell, than telling people who can and can't get married, what sexual activities are or aren't legal, etc.

I know your heart is in the right place, but in the end, beyond the sensationalism, there are so many ways that prove more effective in lowering the actual crime rate in general that also don't require banning anything, rather than simply banning guns, or booze or whatever and not doing anything to address the reasons behind crime...
 
2012-08-29 02:57:28 PM  
People kill people. People who want to kill someone can do it easier if they have access to a gun.
 
2012-08-29 02:57:35 PM  

Wrathskellar: Loaded Six String: And if the weapon you use to hunt with carried 10 more rounds would that automatically designate its purpose as killing lots of people? Or would that make you a responsible, sane human being for not killing other people with it? How about we enact measures to reduce the causes of crime, rather than attributing malice to an object? A gun can just as easily be used as a paperweight, even a bludgeon if we stay along the lines of weaponry. The actions of a few is not a rational basis to limit the liberties of the many or deprive them of property.

So you're cool with private ownership of mortars and attack helicopters and nukes? I'm simply drawing a line, because I believe it needs to be drawn, and that it's reasonable (not perfect, but reasonable) to do so where semi-auto meets manual load. High-capacity is an admittedly arbitrary number.


A "line" was already "drawn" in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. You have provided no rational justification for altering that "line" and imposing further restriction upon civilian firearm ownership. You have not even explained how current owners would be properly compensated for the property that you propose to render illegal and confiscate, nor have you explained an efficient means of confiscating all currently owned semi-automatic firearms.
 
2012-08-29 03:00:35 PM  
Mind you, the constitution gives the right to bear arms and does not qualify that except to say that you can form armed militia for the purpose of overthrowing the government AFAIK so the arms you can bear should be fit for that purpose.
 
2012-08-29 03:01:10 PM  

Wrathskellar: Loaded Six String: And if the weapon you use to hunt with carried 10 more rounds would that automatically designate its purpose as killing lots of people? Or would that make you a responsible, sane human being for not killing other people with it? How about we enact measures to reduce the causes of crime, rather than attributing malice to an object? A gun can just as easily be used as a paperweight, even a bludgeon if we stay along the lines of weaponry. The actions of a few is not a rational basis to limit the liberties of the many or deprive them of property.

So you're cool with private ownership of mortars and attack helicopters and nukes? I'm simply drawing a line, because I believe it needs to be drawn, and that it's reasonable (not perfect, but reasonable) to do so where semi-auto meets manual load. High-capacity is an admittedly arbitrary number.


The rare sighting of a Fudd. You guys have become an endangered species, with good reason.

Fudd defined:

Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.
 
2012-08-29 03:01:42 PM  

Wrathskellar: Loaded Six String: And if the weapon you use to hunt with carried 10 more rounds would that automatically designate its purpose as killing lots of people? Or would that make you a responsible, sane human being for not killing other people with it? How about we enact measures to reduce the causes of crime, rather than attributing malice to an object? A gun can just as easily be used as a paperweight, even a bludgeon if we stay along the lines of weaponry. The actions of a few is not a rational basis to limit the liberties of the many or deprive them of property.

So you're cool with private ownership of mortars and attack helicopters and nukes? I'm simply drawing a line, because I believe it needs to be drawn, and that it's reasonable (not perfect, but reasonable) to do so where semi-auto meets manual load. High-capacity is an admittedly arbitrary number.


So you go straight to the adbsurd? Alright, fine. Step by step. Private ownership of mortars would be dependent on whether they are classified as NFA registered items, destructive devices, or ordnance. The Second Amendment does reaffirm the right to own ordnance, but arms. Weapons you can carry. "But what about RPGs and hand grenades?"

RPGs and hand grenades are destructive devices and already regulated, if not illegal for ownership. On top of that, nobody uses them that I've heard of, even if they are available legally or through the black market.

Nuclear weapons? Ordnance. Different classification of weapon.

Semi-automatic weapons are already in widespread use by the public, so removing them would be difficult to the point of impossibility. Once again, focus on the causes which lead to crime, not the methodology.
 
2012-08-29 03:05:54 PM  

dready zim: People kill people. People who want to kill someone can do it easier if they have access to a gun.


And yet no one person with a firearm has even come close to McVeigh's body count. Maybe kill from farther away, but easier? That's definitely debatable, considering how many people live through multiple gun shot wounds. Don't focus on the methodology of a crime, focus on what caused that crime to be committed.
 
2012-08-29 03:08:32 PM  
Kit Fister:

Dimensio:

Loaded Six String:


If I understand correctly, you're all okay with reasonable limits on private weapon ownership, and we're simply disagreeing on where that arbitrary line should be drawn.
 
2012-08-29 03:09:10 PM  

dready zim: Mind you, the constitution gives the right to bear arms and does not qualify that except to say that you can form armed militia for the purpose of overthrowing the government AFAIK so the arms you can bear should be fit for that purpose.


We may see the push to include other weaponry protected under the Second Amendment now that firearms are definite. Knives, swords, axes, nunchaku, sai, cudgels, etc.
 
2012-08-29 03:10:31 PM  

Wrathskellar: Kit Fister:

Dimensio:

Loaded Six String:

If I understand correctly, you're all okay with reasonable limits on private weapon ownership, and we're simply disagreeing on where that arbitrary line should be drawn.


I believe current federal limits acceptable, except that the 1986 Hughes amendment should be repealed.

As rifles of any type -- of which semi-automatic rifles are a smaller subset -- are used to commit murder less frequently than are unarmed attacks, I believe that any proposal to prohibit civilian ownership of any class of rifle, including semi-automatic rifles, lacks any rational basis.

I believe that prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic handguns is Unconstitutional.

Your proposals lack popular support, are at best Constitutionally questionable and cannot be feasibly implemented.
 
2012-08-29 03:10:32 PM  

Loaded Six String: dready zim: People kill people. People who want to kill someone can do it easier if they have access to a gun.

And yet no one person with a firearm has even come close to McVeigh's body count. Maybe kill from farther away, but easier? That's definitely debatable, considering how many people live through multiple gun shot wounds. Don't focus on the methodology of a crime, focus on what caused that crime to be committed.


Bombs:
- Can be made from regularly-available household or farm chemicals and/or fuels.
- Can be made in a variety of forms that are easy to disguise, easily be man-portable, and easily be made extremely deadly.
- Take little experience or technology to build
- Far more effective at taking out large groups of people.

A vote for me is a vote for outlawing Diesel Fuel and Fertilizer
 
2012-08-29 03:11:24 PM  

Orgasmatron138: Thank god a human being was killed in the name of protecting material goods and money.


Really? He didn't catch the guy sneaking into the store after hours to rob the till.....The dude was an armed robber, brandishing a firearm with an implied intent to use said weapon to achieve his goal....that's how armed robbery works. This man was threatening grave harm or death to another human....he suffered the consequences of his choice.
 
2012-08-29 03:14:09 PM  

Wrathskellar: Kit Fister:

Dimensio:

Loaded Six String:

If I understand correctly, you're all okay with reasonable limits on private weapon ownership, and we're simply disagreeing on where that arbitrary line should be drawn.


Pretty much, and as Dimensio stated, the National Firearms Act of 1934 has support from a fair amount of gun owners, so there isn't too much of a push to get automatic weaponry reduced in restrictive scope. Many firearms owners are through giving up ground on the issue though, as every time a new restriction is made, it leads to "just a little bit more" with the end goal being no more firearms. That's not rational. If you want to make the nation safer, there are plenty of more effective ways of going about it that don't involve depriving law abiding citizens of their property.
 
2012-08-29 03:14:27 PM  

Wrathskellar: Kit Fister:

Dimensio:

Loaded Six String:

If I understand correctly, you're all okay with reasonable limits on private weapon ownership, and we're simply disagreeing on where that arbitrary line should be drawn.


No, we're okay with reasonable restrictions that require education before getting guns. We are also OK with existing gun laws. We are not okay with extending new restrictions on anything else, because the guns themselves aren't the bloody cause of crime.
 
2012-08-29 03:15:26 PM  

dready zim: People who want to kill someone can do it easier if they have access to a gun.


People who want to kill someone and get away with it will use a knife.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-08-29 03:16:03 PM  

Kit Fister: We are not okay with extending new restrictions on anything else, because the guns themselves aren't the bloody cause of crime.


Simmer down, sport. You're talking sense on Fark.
 
2012-08-29 03:19:34 PM  

Kit Fister: Loaded Six String: dready zim: People kill people. People who want to kill someone can do it easier if they have access to a gun.

And yet no one person with a firearm has even come close to McVeigh's body count. Maybe kill from farther away, but easier? That's definitely debatable, considering how many people live through multiple gun shot wounds. Don't focus on the methodology of a crime, focus on what caused that crime to be committed.

Bombs:
- Can be made from regularly-available household or farm chemicals and/or fuels.
- Can be made in a variety of forms that are easy to disguise, easily be man-portable, and easily be made extremely deadly.
- Take little experience or technology to build
- Far more effective at taking out large groups of people.

A vote for me is a vote for outlawing Diesel Fuel and Fertilizer


Skip the construction and just use the accelerant to start a fire in an occupied building. Less effort and just as nearly effective. I imagine it is largely thanks to the fetishizing of firearms in popular culture as some sort of power totem capable of slaying all of one's enemies with impunity that we have as many people as we do who decide to use firearms rather than any other method to commit massacres or terrorism.
 
2012-08-29 03:19:57 PM  
Charles Martel is that shirt reference to Mia Zapata?

Link
 
2012-08-29 03:23:48 PM  

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


You obviously have MASSIVE reading comprehension issues. 2nd paragraph: "The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says a customer at the store on Dunn Avenue shot 19 year-old Rakeem Odoms three times when Odoms refused to hand over his gun."
 
2012-08-29 03:27:32 PM  

Cinaed: jbabbler: The man wasn't killed for theft. He was shot because he was in the middle of committing a violent crime.

Ah, so it's violent crime that deserves death without benefit of judge or jury then?

And a CSB moment.

Whole Wheat: I remember when a Wendy's in was robbed at gunpoint...

CSB. And the average citizen will be able to make the distinction between robbery and robbery-with-intent-to-execute?


Your stupidity makes me sad.
 
2012-08-29 03:29:32 PM  

DingleberryMoose: Kit Fister: We are not okay with extending new restrictions on anything else, because the guns themselves aren't the bloody cause of crime.

Simmer down, sport. You're talking sense on Fark.


Oh, right. Uhm...Guns cause crime like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat?
 
2012-08-29 03:29:59 PM  
A man got executed for robbing a store?
 
2012-08-29 03:31:39 PM  

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.


Wait... did anyone look at his graph? It claims that roughly 1/5th the US population was murdered in 2006. We had nearly 20,000 homicides for every 100,000 people?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-29 03:33:28 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

You obviously have MASSIVE reading comprehension issues. 2nd paragraph: "The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says a customer at the store on Dunn Avenue shot 19 year-old Rakeem Odoms three times when Odoms refused to hand over his gun."


Addendum: Since is appears that there were almost 500 comments before someone else notice the sentence "The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says a customer at the store on Dunn Avenue shot 19 year-old Rakeem Odoms three times when Odoms refused to hand over his gun." I'm wondering whether:
1- I clicked on the same article as everyone else
2- the article was changed
3- Fark is largely populated by kneejerk liberal morons who never let facts get in the way of a political talking point.

So which is it?
 
2012-08-29 03:33:36 PM  
Dimensio: I believe current federal limits acceptable, except that the 1986 Hughes amendment should be repealed.

As rifles of any type -- of which semi-automatic rifles are a smaller subset -- are used to commit murder less frequently than are unarmed attacks, I believe that any proposal to prohibit civilian ownership of any class of rifle, including semi-automatic rifles, lacks any rational basis.


Why do you believe that fully automatic weapons should be prohibited? Why do you believe that restriction is reasonable, but what I'm proposing is not?

Dimensio:I believe that prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic handguns is Unconstitutional.

That may or may not be, but that's why I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Dimensio:Your proposals lack popular support, are at best Constitutionally questionable and cannot be feasibly implemented.

Considering the tone of the responses thus far, I'm taking that as a compliment :-)
 
2012-08-29 03:35:05 PM  

tstrimp: 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.

Wait... did anyone look at his graph? It claims that roughly 1/5th the US population was murdered in 2006. We had nearly 20,000 homicides for every 100,000 people?

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


LOL! Shhhhhhhh..... you are not supposed to question graph-based facts. Doubleplusungood.
 
2012-08-29 03:35:43 PM  

ActionFigure: A man got executed for robbing a store?


A man got executed for using the implied threat of force (pointing a gun at someone and telling them to do something they don't want to do) that presented a credible risk to other people's life. This was in the course of the committing a robbery, but the outcome was not the result of the robbery, per se. Juxtaposition the two and assuming the end result was the result of the robbery is disingenuous at best, and downright dishonest at first.

'A man got executed for going to a convenience store?'
 
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