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  
•       •       •

20053 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
 
2012-08-29 12:48:46 AM  
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.
 
2012-08-29 12:51:16 AM  
Who robs a Dollar General!?!?
 
2012-08-29 12:52:22 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who robs a Dollar General!?!?


Fifty Cent?
 
2012-08-29 01:56:24 AM  

Relatively Obscure: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who robs a Dollar General!?!?

Fifty Cent?


Mr. Woolworth.. .5 and .10 My Lawn, get off it....
 
2012-08-29 01:58:44 AM  
So, he filled out the paperwork then?
 
2012-08-29 02:04:20 AM  
This automatically means Charleton Heston is president and we're moving to the gold standard.
 
2012-08-29 02:18:56 AM  
If he'd been at the Empire State Building, 9 people wouldn't have been shot by cops.
 
2012-08-29 02:28:13 AM  

Relatively Obscure: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who robs a Dollar General!?!?

Fifty Cent?


Winnar.
 
2012-08-29 02:38:00 AM  
I don't get the headline. The wild & outlandish is the setup, while the normal & banal is the punchline?

Comedy doesn't work that way


(yeah yeah, Welcome to Fark).
 
2012-08-29 02:45:49 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who robs a Dollar General!?!?

 
2012-08-29 02:58:20 AM  
Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.
 
2012-08-29 03:32:25 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-29 03:36:37 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-29 03:43:45 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.


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.
 
2012-08-29 03:47:07 AM  

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.


Your name is now..The Milk Man...
 
2012-08-29 03:52:07 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.


Wow, a little anxious that someone might undermine your hero of the hour? Of course robbery is robbery, even without a gun. Where did I say it wasn't? But a guy shooting an unarmed suspect doesn't have quite the cachet as defending life and property from an armed criminal, does it?
 
2012-08-29 04:00:08 AM  

themeaningoflifeisnot: 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.

Wow, a little anxious that someone might undermine your hero of the hour? Of course robbery is robbery, even without a gun. Where did I say it wasn't? But a guy shooting an unarmed suspect doesn't have quite the cachet as defending life and property from an armed criminal, does it?


If I was wrong about what your comment meant, my apologies. Gun threads have been ridiculous lately. As have been the shootings. :(
 
2012-08-29 04:08:02 AM  

violentsalvation: themeaningoflifeisnot: 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.

Wow, a little anxious that someone might undermine your hero of the hour? Of course robbery is robbery, even without a gun. Where did I say it wasn't? But a guy shooting an unarmed suspect doesn't have quite the cachet as defending life and property from an armed criminal, does it?

If I was wrong about what your comment meant, my apologies. Gun threads have been ridiculous lately. As have been the shootings. :(


No problem. What you say about these threads is true.
 
2012-08-29 04:26:27 AM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-29 04:44:08 AM  

The Iron duke: 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.

Your name is now..The Milk Man...


And your name is now... The Snark Proof Monk
 
2012-08-29 05:10:50 AM  

PreMortem: The Iron duke: 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.

Your name is now..The Milk Man...

And your name is now... The Snark Proof Monk


The mirror..look in it...I like that though! (Your Farky is still the milk man..)
 
2012-08-29 05:23:14 AM  

Relatively Obscure: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who robs a Dollar General!?!?

Fifty Cent?


Lawls! ^_^

I'm pro gun, pro 2nd amendment and pro CC but I too would like to know what, if anything, these two robbers were armed with before qualifying this guy as any kind of hero. 

"There was a citizen who had a concealed firearms permit that was inside the store as a customer," says Lt. Schoonover. "He fired at the suspect, striking him and killing him." + "There are no charges pending against the customer." =/= "the police thanked him" but hey, welcome to Fark headlines and all that.

/Why don't we have more stories about corduroy pillows?
 
2012-08-29 05:47:55 AM  
Cool can I link the link when gun fight broke out at a party recently here killing lots of innocent victims from stray bullet fire?
 
2012-08-29 05:49:44 AM  
em.. whatever
 
2012-08-29 05:53:33 AM  

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.


take a short course and they will probably give you an uniform and pay check to do that.
 
2012-08-29 05:55:00 AM  

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.


Well its gotta work out well once in a while. Law of averages! Sometimes you get the robber and are a hero and sometimes you get the innocent little kid bystander and, well, you tried. Its cool
 
2012-08-29 05:55:05 AM  
Hey now, a man died so that Dollar General could keep their 40$. A terrible tragedy has been averted!

//Just kidding. I love it when old men shoot blacks.
///I'm going to masturbate and watch the RNC now.
 
2012-08-29 05:56:09 AM  
Reminds me of that other story of the two perps who got shot by an old guy with a conceal and carry license. And he only hit the robbers but no one else. These old guys can really handle a gun as opposed to the spray and pray articles I've read about younger guys with guns who try to save the day. Or the cops even. Wasn't all those innocent bystanders at the Empire State Building shooting found to have been shot by the cops?
 
2012-08-29 05:57:53 AM  
You wait long enough, anything comes true.
 
2012-08-29 05:57:59 AM  

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?
 
2012-08-29 05:58:07 AM  

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


Link

According to the report, the customer -- a 57-year-old grandfather -- and two store employees were inside the Dollar General store Monday around 9 p.m. when two armed men entered the store with the intention to rob it.

"One of them had the clerk and one of them was at the front cash register," Lt. Rob Schoonover of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office told Jacksonville.com.
 
2012-08-29 06:02:44 AM  
This happens all the time. Even more common is when someone shows a bad guy their gun and the bad guy decides it's not worth the effort. Those aren't really reported much.
 
2012-08-29 06:06:08 AM  
I thought the point of the headline was more about how this guy handled this type of situation better than the NYPD.
 
2012-08-29 06:07:49 AM  
Counterpoint: Trayvon Martin

.. as long as we're picking particular instances.
 
2012-08-29 06:07:51 AM  
Despite this, people will still come back to the Giffords shooting and the man who said, "I thought I had identified the shooter but I wasn't sure and didn't fire" as..

"ZOMG HE ALMOST SHOT SOMEONE"
 
2012-08-29 06:08:22 AM  

Drasancas: Counterpoint: Trayvon Martin

.. as long as we're picking particular instances.


1/10
 
2012-08-29 06:10:40 AM  
This totally means people with mental illnesses should have unlimited access to machine guns.
 
2012-08-29 06:15:54 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?


peeing in the bushes = big fine, name on a life changing sex offender list, unwanted media coverage.
 
2012-08-29 06:17:20 AM  
It could have easily gone the other way. just sayin
 
2012-08-29 06:17:46 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?


No... more like summary death penalty the moment you point a gun & threaten someone else's life.
 
2012-08-29 06:18:12 AM  

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


Ohhhh. Good question!
 
2012-08-29 06:18:30 AM  

lewismarktwo: This happens all the time. Even more common is when someone shows a bad guy their gun and the bad guy decides it's not worth the effort. Those aren't really reported much.


or when the bad guy shoots him,takes his gun then flees. then all you have is a dead body.
 
2012-08-29 06:19:41 AM  
Shadowtag thought the point of the headline was more about how this guy handled this type of situation better than the NYPD


I took it to be as a response to the often made delusional claim that 'armed defense is a myth" and that "you will only harm innocent bystanders" and or "interfere with the job of the police" ....etc....


Great, So the dude saved a Dollar General. Too bad we never have armed citizens present at these random killing sprees. This is NO Dirty Harry "fantasy" as some limp-wrist types would assert. Just once I would like to hear about someone RETURNING FIRE. I wonder the outcome........
 
2012-08-29 06:22:01 AM  

Drasancas: Counterpoint: Trayvon Martin

.. as long as we're picking particular instances.


This.
 
2012-08-29 06:22:17 AM  
If I may be so bold, there is a time and place for citizens with concealed carry permits to act. This was one of those times. Dollar General stores are usually brightly lit, full of metal racks to slow (not stop) any stray fire and sparsely populated. The man assessed the situation, determined and then took his shot. Had any of the factors been different, it probably would not have been wise for him to take a shot.
 
2012-08-29 06:23:22 AM  

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

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


Yep... We should definitely just LET the poor underprivelidged just threaten peoples lives and take what they want.
If there's ONE thing we've learned from years of armed robberies... it's that no one ever gets killed as long as they comply.
The poor misunderstood little darlings didn't really mean it.
 
2012-08-29 06:24:03 AM  
Sideshow Bob would have pwned him good.
 
2012-08-29 06:25:19 AM  

quatchi: I'm pro gun, pro 2nd amendment and pro CC but I too would like to know what, if anything, these two robbers were armed with before qualifying this guy as any kind of hero.


if they were armed with a butter knife threatening the clerks life... it's good enough.
 
2012-08-29 06:26:30 AM  

stlbluez: Yep... We should definitely just LET the poor underprivelidged just threaten peoples lives and take what they want.
If there's ONE thing we've learned from years of armed robberies... it's that no one ever gets killed as long as they comply.
The poor misunderstood little darlings didn't really mean it.


It's almost as if black and white are the only choices.
 
2012-08-29 06:26:52 AM  

Hobodeluxe: lewismarktwo: This happens all the time. Even more common is when someone shows a bad guy their gun and the bad guy decides it's not worth the effort. Those aren't really reported much.

or when the bad guy shoots him,takes his gun then flees. then all you have is a dead body.


Yeah, bad guys are really brave dudes and attack armed victims all the time. LOL.
 
2012-08-29 06:27:29 AM  

craigdamage: Shadowtag thought the point of the headline was more about how this guy handled this type of situation better than the NYPD


I took it to be as a response to the often made delusional claim that 'armed defense is a myth" and that "you will only harm innocent bystanders" and or "interfere with the job of the police" ....etc....


Great, So the dude saved a Dollar General. Too bad we never have armed citizens present at these random killing sprees. This is NO Dirty Harry "fantasy" as some limp-wrist types would assert. Just once I would like to hear about someone RETURNING FIRE. I wonder the outcome........


The random killing sprees are usually in "gun free zones". You know the places where a rational law abiding citizen will...well...abide by the law, but a nutcase will stroll in shooting. Churches, schools, theaters, casinos, and military bases (I know that last one sounds odd).

There was a case a little while ago of a teacher who left his firearm in the car, complying with the law, and had to go get it when a gunman entered his school. I can't remember how many he shot before the teacher retrieved his firearm and brought it to an end.

Gun free zones are only gun free for the sane.
 
2012-08-29 06:27:30 AM  
How is this not homicide?
 
2012-08-29 06:27:31 AM  

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


I'm slightly more accepting of that response. Though, that clerk is a pussy and should undertake some self-defense training.
 
2012-08-29 06:27:58 AM  
Anyone read the comments below the story. Whole lotta derp, there.
 
2012-08-29 06:28:54 AM  

Accolade: How is this not homicide?


Let me help you with that
 
2012-08-29 06:30:22 AM  

AngryDragon: The random killing sprees are usually in "gun free zones".


Yes, Jonestown was a gun free zone.
 
2012-08-29 06:32:30 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-29 06:33:11 AM  

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


Two unidentified men entered the store about 9:20 p.m., both with handguns
 
2012-08-29 06:33:12 AM  
NBC link with more info on the story:
Armed robbery is Armed robbery

per the article, The perps WERE armed. At that point, i don't care if you're armed with a box cutter or a sharp pencil. If you use it to threaten to kill/hurt/maim someone in order to rob them, then you deserve to be shot.

/yes, that includes milk crates.
 
2012-08-29 06:35:22 AM  

puffy999: AngryDragon: The random killing sprees are usually in "gun free zones".

Yes, Jonestown was a gun free zone.


what about Waco, Texas??


/just sayin' is all
 
2012-08-29 06:36:15 AM  
Normally in cases like this the press publishes the name, home address, and work info of the citizen defender. I'm sure it's just an oversight.
 
2012-08-29 06:37:03 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 have been in law enforcement. A man with a knife at 20 feet can easily kill you before you have a prayer of drawing and firing. Police are training that a bladed weapon within 21 feet is a lethal threat and force is acceptable, in fact mandatory. And body armor will not stop a blade (well, maybe a butter knife)
 
2012-08-29 06:37:53 AM  
So a concealed carry holder uses common sense and situational judgement to know he can safely use his weapon without endangering innocent bystanders, and protect a human life?

I don't see a story here, at all.

Nor do I see a comparison here with, for example, a crowded movie theatre filled with a panicing, fleeing crowd, pitch black, and homemade tear gas.

Just heading that argument off.
 
2012-08-29 06:41:18 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.


A butter knife can still be used to stab fatally, though they may not seem like it. Given that the distance between the robber and the armed customer was 20 feet (speculation of course, but for the purpose of
 
2012-08-29 06:46:11 AM  
Loaded Six String: A butter knife can still be used to stab fatally, though they may not seem like it. Given that the distance between the robber and the armed customer was 20 feet (speculation of course, but for the purpose of

The problem is that you're expecting to hold a layperson to the same standard as a Law Enforcement Officer, which is not going to happen. A lay person is not going to be held to the Tueller Drill Standard. All that is going to be necessary for a court to rule in favor of him is that he felt his life was reasonably threatened by the guy holding a bladed weapon, and that he had no duty to retreat.
 
2012-08-29 06:46:31 AM  
You can kill people for robbing a store?
 
2012-08-29 06:46:50 AM  

Hobodeluxe: It could have easily gone the other way. just sayin


You mean the way where the perps shoot the clerk dead instead?
 
2012-08-29 06:46:59 AM  
If the robbers had been white, this might have become a big news story.
 
2012-08-29 06:47:52 AM  
fisker: You can kill people for robbing a store?

In Tennessee, you can kill someone for reaching in your car uninvited. You can also legally run their ass over, and leave them there.

Of course, you can also justifiably shoot someone dead who's holding a weapon to someone else and demanding their money. It doesn't matter if they're at the ATM, or in a store.
 
2012-08-29 06:49:27 AM  
i21.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-29 06:49:30 AM  

jjorsett: You mean the way where the perps shoot the clerk dead instead?


OK that was a good one.
 
2012-08-29 06:50:22 AM  

fisker: You can kill people for robbing a store?


.
.
Yes. It makes you think twice about your plans for this evening. Florida, where sanity and logic prevails, well, at least in the coastal areas, the coastal areas south of Tamp Bay.
 
2012-08-29 06:50:33 AM  

AngryDragon: 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 have been in law enforcement. A man with a knife at 20 feet can easily kill you before you have a prayer of drawing and firing. Police are training that a bladed weapon within 21 feet is a lethal threat and force is acceptable, in fact mandatory. And body armor will not stop a blade (well, maybe a butter knife)


That why I said "gun out".

I have no idea what the exact parameters of the confrontation entailed here I'm just generalizing.
 
2012-08-29 06:51:05 AM  

danielscissorhands: If the robbers had been white, this might have become a big news story.


If they were white, they'd have been wearing suits and doing it from a computer.... and no, it didn't make too much of a headline.
 
2012-08-29 06:51:34 AM  
JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]

West Germany?

1990 called. They want their Political Demarcations back.
 
2012-08-29 06:52:27 AM  
quatchi: That why I said "gun out".

I have no idea what the exact parameters of the confrontation entailed here I'm just generalizing.


Technically, if he had a gun pointed at the clerk and was threatening to kill him, the guy could have walked right up to the back of the robber and shot him in the head without saying a word, and it would have been kosher.
 
2012-08-29 06:52:44 AM  

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


that's a great comparison because drunken gun fights are just as lawful as using a gun to thwart a robbery
 
2012-08-29 06:53:09 AM  
Blasted phone posting... at any rate it appears AngryDragon made my point for me. Holding the robber(s) at gunpoint would have 3 possible outcomes. The robber complies and waits to be arrested, the robber turns to retaliate, or the robber flees the scene, likely to attempt armed robbery again at a later date. The first option is the preferred outcome, but not guarunteed, the second outcome poses risk to everyone involved, and the third outcome is unacceptable. If a shot can be taken with minimal risk to unintended targets, it is the most logical choice, as it prevents the clerk from being shot out of impatience, negligence, or malice (again, assuming a smart shot can be made) as well as preventing future crimes being perpetrated by that robber. Recidivism amongst violent criminals is very high, and being that there is no effective rehabilitation program in place, the only end to recidivism is life imprisonment or death. It is distasteful to say, but most often true.
 
2012-08-29 06:55:44 AM  
I'm trying to decide whether or not robbing the Dollar Store is a despicable enough act that death is the appropriate penalty.

I mean, even in Saudia Arabia they don'd kill a man for theft.
 
2012-08-29 06:55:53 AM  

BronyMedic: Loaded Six String: A butter knife can still be used to stab fatally, though they may not seem like it. Given that the distance between the robber and the armed customer was 20 feet (speculation of course, but for the purpose of

The problem is that you're expecting to hold a layperson to the same standard as a Law Enforcement Officer, which is not going to happen. A lay person is not going to be held to the Tueller Drill Standard. All that is going to be necessary for a court to rule in favor of him is that he felt his life was reasonably threatened by the guy holding a bladed weapon, and that he had no duty to retreat.


Indeed, and my post would have ended up in agreement had my stupid phone not given me an issue.
 
2012-08-29 06:56:55 AM  

JRoo: [i21.derpimage.com image 300herps x 300derps]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_United_States
 
2012-08-29 06:58:06 AM  

BronyMedic: Technically, if he had a gun pointed at the clerk and was threatening to kill him, the guy could have walked right up to the back of the robber and shot him in the head without saying a word, and it would have been kosher.


And I woulda bought him a beer afterwords that being the case.
 
2012-08-29 06:59:00 AM  

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.

 
2012-08-29 06:59:36 AM  

BronyMedic: So a concealed carry holder uses common sense and situational judgement to know he can safely use his weapon without endangering innocent bystanders, and protect a human life?

I don't see a story here, at all.

Nor do I see a comparison here with, for example, a crowded movie theatre filled with a panicing, fleeing crowd, pitch black, and homemade tear gas.

Just heading that argument off.


This. I'm guessing that since this was a late-night convenience store visit, there were few if any "bystanders".
 
2012-08-29 07:01:10 AM  
I'm not necessarily against this, either. Armed robbery shan't be tolerated, and clearly many violent offenders won't be rehabilitated in life. But I mean, sometimes the human race makes me wonder.
 
2012-08-29 07:01:15 AM  

AngryDragon: I have been in law enforcement. A man with a knife at 20 feet can easily kill you before you have a prayer of drawing and firing. Police are training that a bladed weapon within 21 feet is a lethal threat and force is acceptable, in fact mandatory. And body armor will not stop a blade (well, maybe a butter knife)


What if he comes at you with a banana?
 
2012-08-29 07:02:14 AM  
Cinaed: I'm trying to decide whether or not robbing the Dollar Store is a despicable enough act that death is the appropriate penalty.

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


I guarantee you, talking with many Americans who have worked in Saudi, that the Saudi police would not have hesitated to increase the daily lead intake of someone who was using a gun to rob someone.

Those nice little things like Murdock v. City of Memphis don't exist in those countries. And neither does the whole thing about cruel and unusual punishment. They just amputate their hands with a machete.

And then again, you're talking about a lay person who's an armed civilian. They're not held to the same judgement or procedural standards as a Police Officer.
 
2012-08-29 07:02:21 AM  

fisker: You can kill people for robbing a store?


Its not unusual for robbers to kill their victims in a botched robbery.
So, yes, robbing a store can get you killed by fearful customers and staff.
 
2012-08-29 07:03:19 AM  

JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]


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.
 
2012-08-29 07:03:32 AM  

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

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


nah... only life imprisonment.... on the 3rd conviction, having had their right arm and left foot amputated for the prior two offenses... according to sharia anyway.
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1895&CATE=12
 
2012-08-29 07:04:13 AM  
Cinaed: I'm trying to decide whether or not robbing the Dollar Store is a despicable enough act that death is the appropriate penalty.

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


Good thing it wasn't the justice system behind it, eh?
 
2012-08-29 07:06:20 AM  

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

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


.
.
If they can be taken alive then I too am all for chopping off their hands on national TV.
 
2012-08-29 07:06:29 AM  

JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]


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.
 
2012-08-29 07:07:08 AM  

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.


Guns aren't the cause, they just make it easier.

Deer hunting is popular, but moreso for those who use guns over bows. I don't know if there are any knife, fountain pen, or grenade hunting seasons for deer...
 
2012-08-29 07:07:36 AM  

craigdamage: Shadowtag thought the point of the headline was more about how this guy handled this type of situation better than the NYPD


I took it to be as a response to the often made delusional claim that 'armed defense is a myth" and that "you will only harm innocent bystanders" and or "interfere with the job of the police" ....etc....


Great, So the dude saved a Dollar General. Too bad we never have armed citizens present at these random killing sprees. This is NO Dirty Harry "fantasy" as some limp-wrist types would assert. Just once I would like to hear about someone RETURNING FIRE. I wonder the outcome........


That's pretty much what happened to Charles Whitman. He started shooting out of a clocktower, and it gets reported on the news. Austin police didn't have longguns at the time, so people just started driving up to the police stations, and dropping off their hunting rifles. Return fire from rifles was what made Whitman move his shooting position into a narrower field of view.

He was killed when a gun owner who was carrying his gun with him, an armed off duty cop, and two other cops ran up the tower, and shot him.
 
2012-08-29 07:08:00 AM  

soporific: AngryDragon: I have been in law enforcement. A man with a knife at 20 feet can easily kill you before you have a prayer of drawing and firing. Police are training that a bladed weapon within 21 feet is a lethal threat and force is acceptable, in fact mandatory. And body armor will not stop a blade (well, maybe a butter knife)

What if he comes at you with a banana?


Retaliate with a durian to the face.
 
2012-08-29 07:08:43 AM  
I mean, microwaves aren't popular simply because people like to cook food. It's a LOT easier, and faster, with much less attention to detail to pop a bag of popcorn in a microwave than to even cook JiffyPop on the stove top.
 
2012-08-29 07:09:07 AM  

puffy999: 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.

Guns aren't the cause, they just make it easier.

Deer hunting is popular, but moreso for those who use guns over bows. I don't know if there are any knife, fountain pen, or grenade hunting seasons for deer...


technically, its called "BUICK season, but you can use any car or vehicle, really.
 
2012-08-29 07:09:31 AM  

puffy999: 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.


Is this your way of saying "This"? If so, thanks I guess.
 
2012-08-29 07:11:22 AM  

Loaded Six String: ...and being that there is no effective rehabilitation program in place


And whose fault would that be, I wonder?
 
2012-08-29 07:11:43 AM  
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.

The only people who keep their issue-weapons in their homes are members of the Militia and members of the Swiss regular military, and they have to keep their ammunition and magazines in sealed containers which are regularly inspected by their superiors. That was before 2007, now they aren't allowed to keep the ammunition for those weapons at home, they have to report to an armorer to obtain it.

In addition, after the end of their service period, if they choose to keep their weapon, the rifle has it's select fire action removed, and replaced with a semi-auto version.

Purchases of non-Army firearms are also regulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Army-issued_ a rms
 
2012-08-29 07:13:18 AM  
Seriously, BronyMedic is trying to land on my Favorites list.
 
2012-08-29 07:13:49 AM  
Uh oh LOOKS like he's TAKING A HIGHWAY TO THE DANGER ZONE
 
2012-08-29 07:14:32 AM  
Hold on a sec, need to pull up my armchair then decide how I want to use this situation to prove or disprove my already made up mind about this certain topic.


Oh but I do love the bloodlust comments. I'd bet money this guy is going to have nightmares for the rest of his life. BLOOD. LUST. PUPPIES.
 
2012-08-29 07:16:27 AM  

puffy999: 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.

Guns aren't the cause, they just make it easier.

Deer hunting is popular, but moreso for those who use guns over bows. I don't know if there are any knife, fountain pen, or grenade hunting seasons for deer...


Taking on a buck with anything without a decent reach and speed is nigh impossible, so meh. Taking down a store clerk with a knife, your neighbor with a rock, or your spouse with your bear hands is not so impossible, so if the root cause leading to these acts of violence is not removed, the violence will still occur with or without a firearm, with surprisingly similar end results.
 
2012-08-29 07:17:31 AM  
Loaded Six String: Taking on a buck with anything without a decent reach and speed is nigh impossible, so meh. Taking down a store clerk with a knife, your neighbor with a rock, or your spouse with your bear hands is not so impossible, so if the root cause leading to these acts of violence is not removed, the violence will still occur with or without a firearm, with surprisingly similar end results.

I demand the right, in that case, to walk around with a concealed compound bow, like my forefathers before me in Europe.

If it is good enough to take down a buck, then by god, it's good enough to put a hole in some punk trying to steal my wallet.
 
2012-08-29 07:17:38 AM  

Loaded Six String: Taking down a store clerk with a knife, your neighbor with a rock, or your spouse with your bear hands is not so impossible, so if the root cause leading to these acts of violence is not removed, the violence will still occur with or without a firearm, with surprisingly similar end results.


Most robbers, even those who present weapons, don't use them, even when denied the goods for which they asked.
 
2012-08-29 07:18:22 AM  

BronyMedic: Loaded Six String: Taking on a buck with anything without a decent reach and speed is nigh impossible, so meh. Taking down a store clerk with a knife, your neighbor with a rock, or your spouse with your bear hands is not so impossible, so if the root cause leading to these acts of violence is not removed, the violence will still occur with or without a firearm, with surprisingly similar end results.

I demand the right, in that case, to walk around with a concealed compound bow, like my forefathers before me in Europe.

If it is good enough to take down a buck, then by god, it's good enough to put a hole in some punk trying to steal my wallet.


Done, favorited.
 
2012-08-29 07:18:40 AM  

Cinaed: Loaded Six String: ...and being that there is no effective rehabilitation program in place

And whose fault would that be, I wonder?


The creators of our judicial system who based it on puritanical values of punishment rather than rehabilitation?
 
2012-08-29 07:18:56 AM  

puffy999: Loaded Six String: Taking down a store clerk with a knife, your neighbor with a rock, or your spouse with your bear hands is not so impossible, so if the root cause leading to these acts of violence is not removed, the violence will still occur with or without a firearm, with surprisingly similar end results.

Most robbers, even those who present weapons, don't use them, even when denied the goods for which they asked.


Do you want to be the guy who takes that risk?
 
2012-08-29 07:19:03 AM  
Also, I WISH I had bear hands...
 
2012-08-29 07:19:55 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-29 07:20:03 AM  
puffy999: Done, favorited.

I'm serious.

Do you realize how classy awesome it would be to take down a guy with a gun at twenty feet with a broadhead?

If you want to seriously up the ante, put it right between his eyes. That way, when you walk up and jiggle it, hopefully it lands at the right point in the brain that it makes the legs twitch.
 
2012-08-29 07:20:16 AM  

Pribar: JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]

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.


So you're saying you are against any kind of gun restriction at all?The mentally ill should have access to guns and people with criminal records should have access to guns?

At least until the culture changes?
 
2012-08-29 07:20:18 AM  

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

Comedy doesn't work that way


(yeah yeah, Welcome to Fark).


This is the equivalent of the cliche of a snooty person with their nose in the air say, "How droll."
 
2012-08-29 07:22:58 AM  

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. .....


Well, I see I was beat to it, ignore this part of previous post
 
2012-08-29 07:23:39 AM  

BronyMedic: 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.

The only people who keep their issue-weapons in their homes are members of the Militia and members of the Swiss regular military, and they have to keep their ammunition and magazines in sealed containers which are regularly inspected by their superiors. That was before 2007, now they aren't allowed to keep the ammunition for those weapons at home, they have to report to an armorer to obtain it.

In addition, after the end of their service period, if they choose to keep their weapon, the rifle has it's select fire action removed, and replaced with a semi-auto version.

Purchases of non-Army firearms are also regulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Army-issued_ a rms


Actually the sealed ammo was their issued ammo and it was sealed only to make sure that they did not use it for non mil use, and as for the regulated sales I lived there for 7 years and as a resident alien I was issued a weapons acquisition permit (I still have it framed on my I love me wall) and bought a K 31 so I could shoot with the locals who were hosting me, the only difference between their gun laws and ours was the fact it was a bit harder to get a carry permit than it is in the states.


/oh and so far the US govt won't subsidize my ammo like the Swiss does for its citizens.
 
2012-08-29 07:23:47 AM  

BronyMedic: Loaded Six String: Taking on a buck with anything without a decent reach and speed is nigh impossible, so meh. Taking down a store clerk with a knife, your neighbor with a rock, or your spouse with your bear hands is not so impossible, so if the root cause leading to these acts of violence is not removed, the violence will still occur with or without a firearm, with surprisingly similar end results.

I demand the right, in that case, to walk around with a concealed compound bow, like my forefathers before me in Europe.

If it is good enough to take down a buck, then by god, it's good enough to put a hole in some punk trying to steal my wallet.


While I find the idea of concealing a compound bow humorous, it's not really outlandish. The 2nd Amendment applies to arms, not firearms specifically. Other hand carried weapons just haven't made it into the Supreme Court yet. There is honestly no rational reason not to allow you to carry a bow, hatchet, flail, sword, cudgel, etc. The only thing stopping a person from doing so is the laws currently in place not having been contested yet, and the fear of other people around you. The ubiquitous use of the pharase "armed and dangerous" has precluded from the minds of many in the public the possibility for someone to just be "armed".
 
2012-08-29 07:23:51 AM  
fisker You can kill people for robbing a store?

A smart person would ask:

"If I try to rob a store with a weapon,can I get my ass killed?"

....this is THE question every single criminal is NOW asking in the neighborhood of that Dollar General.


Thanks JRoo for that utterly tired,overused and misleading piece of "statistical" BS
The USA has the largest population of those nations listed and over 60% of the "gun-killings" are suicide.

....also,after having seen the FREAKONOMICS documentary,I seriously question the number of "reported killings" in Japan.
 
2012-08-29 07:24:00 AM  

Diogenes The Cynic: Do you want to be the guy who takes that risk?


Asking someone who's a good shot at a moving target, but someone who understands people and stats to a degree... yes. I will.

YMMV.

Of course, do people realize anymore that there are methods of defense other than guns?
 
2012-08-29 07:24:51 AM  
Both the robbers were armed.

http://m.jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-08-28/story/customer-kills- g unman-during-jacksonville-robbery-attempt
 
2012-08-29 07:26:14 AM  

Pete_T_Mann: 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.


The modern prison system, in and of itself, causes recidivism. It makes some non-violent drug offenders into violent offenders, though not routinely.
 
2012-08-29 07:26:54 AM  

Quasar: This automatically means Charleton Heston is president and we're moving to the gold standard.


Thank you! Usually this moronic meme is a headline and I have no idea who has foisted their unfunny, unimaginative and repetitive tripe on the rest of us. Kudos on your forthrightness about your lack of a sense of humor!
 
2012-08-29 07:27:20 AM  
It always surprises me how people take a single event such as this and starts attaching all kinds of rhetoric to make their point.

It doesn't matter who "wins" in the scenario. It gets twisted regardless.

The customer figuratively has blood on his hands. His own experience is based greatly on how proud or reluctant he was to use his gun to take a life. He could have done nothing and a simple robbery would have been successful. He could have done nothing and a clerk would be dead. He could have simply scared them off with a warning shot. He could have gotten himself shot protecting a dollar store. He could have... He could have...

The rambling point I'm trying to make is that it seems obnoxious to make a bold stand on this story because because it could easily happen differently and work against you making your point.
 
2012-08-29 07:29:18 AM  

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


Someone did that?
 
2012-08-29 07:29:37 AM  

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.




Incorrect, the weapons I referred to is their issued weapon, every male who is physically and mentally fit and is between the ages of 20 and 30 is part of the militia and is issued with a Sig 550 that they keep at home while they are in the militia, it is a true assault weapon, when they leave military service they can keep the rifle but it has the select fire option removed
 
2012-08-29 07:30:04 AM  
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.
 
2012-08-29 07:30:08 AM  

Cinaed: Loaded Six String: ...and being that there is no effective rehabilitation program in place

And whose fault would that be, I wonder?


The guy who chose to rob a convenience store had to be dealt with by the customers and staff.
"Fixing the prison system" was not an option presented to the shooter.
 
2012-08-29 07:30:12 AM  
Rufus Lee King: Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Where but on FARK could you find people chiming in to defend armed robbery?

I don't think anyone has done that.

I think people are trying to make a misguided attempt to say that the guy could have done anything but shoot and kill someone. Some people like to live in a fairy tale land where the Disney Villains surrender to the Prince when he draws his sword.
 
2012-08-29 07:30:45 AM  
wwwdelivery.superstock.com 

How many times does the latter actually happen vs the former.
 
2012-08-29 07:31:16 AM  

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.


So, when faced with a situation where lives could be in danger, including your own, you find it incumbent upon yourself to make sure its a fair fight?
 
2012-08-29 07:31:26 AM  
Thank god he was there to kill someone so some corporation saved the $50 they had in the register.
 
2012-08-29 07:31:57 AM  

JRoo: Pribar: JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]

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.

So you're saying you are against any kind of gun restriction at all?The mentally ill should have access to guns and people with criminal records should have access to guns?

At least until the culture changes?


The restrictions currently in place are measures to reduce the ease of acquirement by persons agreed by societal norms to be untrustworthy or unsafe to the public at large to own firearms. Additional restrictions often proposed are either previous restrictions which were shown to have no effect on violent crime whatsoever, or would make the acquirement of firearms by the law abiding public difficult to the point of being out of reach of the lower economic strata, similar to the effects of proposed voter ID laws. Until society or humanity as a whole no longer feels the need to harm one another out of fear, desperation, or rage it is an increasingly bad idea to either remove all restrictions, or attempt to disarm the public.
 
2012-08-29 07:31:59 AM  
andersoncouncil42: [wwwdelivery.superstock.com image 233x350] 

How many times does the latter actually happen vs the former.


What does someone using a concealed weapon lawfully have to do with a bunch of guys repairing an electrical pole?

Are you saying they should shoot the insulators and expect it to work?
 
2012-08-29 07:32:46 AM  

BronyMedic: andersoncouncil42: [wwwdelivery.superstock.com image 233x350] 

How many times does the latter actually happen vs the former.

What does someone using a concealed weapon lawfully have to do with a bunch of guys repairing an electrical pole?

Are you saying they should shoot the insulators and expect it to work?


Cherry picking data
 
2012-08-29 07:35:33 AM  

Pribar: JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]

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.


swiss resident here.

this is exaggerated. not everyone here is armed. if youre still in the service age you have your weapon at home but youre not allowed to touch your ammo or have much of it. if youre no longer in the service you can keep your weapon but it gets cut to semiauto.

gun demographics split sorta like the US does; more popular in the rural than in urban areas. most of the swiss i know cant WAIT to get rid of their guns when thye turn 30 and get out of the service. The gun culture in the US is much more "gung ho". Its more regarded here as a duty to be grimly done than something people are getting worked up about and joining the nra over. granted that segment does exist here too but its much larger in the US.

my perspective on it is admittedly skewed from living in zurich and luzern which are urban and progressive and not conservative.

however, i really wish the NRA and the politically active pro gun guys would quit using Switzerland as a model of why everyone in the US should be able to get a sturmgewehr. The reaons switzerland is has so little crime isnt because theyre armed to the teeth; the way the swiss are obliged to store their firearms its not a deterrrent to B&E, rather, Switzerland has so little crime because it has it has a number of very comprehensive safety nets which these same people would call "socialism".

mandatory health insurance purchase
good job security
generous vacation for full time workers
paid maternity leave
80% of your salary for up to 2 years if youre unemployed

id say its reasons like this that people arent snapping and going postal and killing people like you hear about people in the US doing when "they wouldnt give me my unemployment check" or "i lost my house when my wife got sick" or whatever.

that being said, cant wait till i can get a stgw57, theyre only a few hundred bucks here.
 
2012-08-29 07:35:53 AM  
andersoncouncil42: BronyMedic: andersoncouncil42: [wwwdelivery.superstock.com image 233x350] 

How many times does the latter actually happen vs the former.

What does someone using a concealed weapon lawfully have to do with a bunch of guys repairing an electrical pole?

Are you saying they should shoot the insulators and expect it to work?

Cherry picking data


My idea was funnier. :(
 
2012-08-29 07:37:06 AM  
Quatchi is the first Farkonian to show any intelligence in this thread.

you dont shoot unarmed people. you use reasonable force. you warn before firing. yeah, these are 'disadvantages' to our police and citizenry against criminals, but zomg it perpetuates something called 'civilized society'.

Boo for just shooting anyone dead for any crime. Fark that. not cool. Guess what, pulling a gun and a loud voice on someone without a gun coulda handled that situation fine. Now some mom is crying someonwhere cuz her kid robbed a dollar store like a dummy and died.

Seriously, you ppl know jack shiat about the offenders. What if he was robbing the store to buy some formula for his kids? Unlikely, but YOU DONT know. Shame on you people whose first instinct is to cheer this crap on.

Real ballz is being the 'good guy' and doing all the stuff the good guys do.
 
2012-08-29 07:37:27 AM  

elguerodiablo: Thank god he was there to kill someone so some corporation saved the $50 they had in the register.


Counterpoint: Homicide is immoral, but can be ethical. This is not marginalizing the life of another, but understanding the human condition as it is now.
 
2012-08-29 07:37:43 AM  
Lot of guys with really small genitalia in this thread.

Which one of you underendowed losers is really George ZImmerman?
 
2012-08-29 07:37:51 AM  

Pribar: BronyMedic: 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.

The only people who keep their issue-weapons in their homes are members of the Militia and members of the Swiss regular military, and they have to keep their ammunition and magazines in sealed containers which are regularly inspected by their superiors. That was before 2007, now they aren't allowed to keep the ammunition for those weapons at home, they have to report to an armorer to obtain it.

In addition, after the end of their service period, if they choose to keep their weapon, the rifle has it's select fire action removed, and replaced with a semi-auto version.

Purchases of non-Army firearms are also regulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Army-issued_ a rms

Actually the sealed ammo was their issued ammo and it was sealed only to make sure that they did not use it for non mil use, and as for the regulated sales I lived there for 7 years and as a resident alien I was issued a weapons acquisition permit (I still have it framed on my I love me wall) and bought a K 31 so I could shoot with the locals who were hosting me, the only difference between their gun laws and ours was the fact it was a bit harder to get a carry permit than it is in the states.


/oh and so far the US govt won't subsidize my ammo like the Swiss does for its citizens.


you were "issued" a Waffenschein?

ive never heard of that, you have to apply for one and only permanent residents or passholders may get one. did you marry a swiss?
 
2012-08-29 07:38:18 AM  

Pete_T_Mann: 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.


That kind of sh*t pisses me off to no end
 
2012-08-29 07:38:25 AM  

BronyMedic: Some people like to live in a fairy tale land where the Disney Villains surrender to the Prince when he draws his sword.


That kind of thinking is a part of the reason why some police departments in this country have a "shoot first, second, third, and ask questions when someone is dead" policy.

BronyMedic: I think people are trying to make a misguided attempt to say that the guy could have done anything but shoot and kill someone.


It's not really fair for anyone to judge this person, because we weren't there.
 
2012-08-29 07:38:59 AM  

Father_Jack: The reaons switzerland is has so little crime isnt because theyre armed to the teeth; the way the swiss are obliged to store their firearms its not a deterrrent to B&E, rather, Switzerland has so little crime because it has it has a number of very comprehensive safety nets which these same people would call "socialism".


It's a part of the NRA argument.
Fix all these other things and the crime problem goes away.
We can have our cake and eat it too or we can try to get rid of the guns, and probably fail, while fixing nothing.
 
2012-08-29 07:41:08 AM  
so this dirty harry wannabee decides that a human life is cheaper than the contents of the till at Dollar General.
What's heroic about that; if anything
 
2012-08-29 07:41:26 AM  

craigdamage: fisker You can kill people for robbing a store?

A smart person would ask:

"If I try to rob a store with a weapon,can I get my ass killed?"

....this is THE question every single criminal is NOW asking in the neighborhood of that Dollar General.


I agree, there are better ways to rob people.

What the fark are you talking about? Why aren't the employees of that store armed? Why are ALL employees EVERYWHERE armed?
 
2012-08-29 07:41:49 AM  

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

Two unidentified men entered the store about 9:20 p.m., both with handguns


Okay. Old guy gets a pat on the head. His action, while risky, was justifiable.
 
2012-08-29 07:42:33 AM  

elguerodiablo: Thank god he was there to kill someone so some corporation saved the $50 they had in the register.


....or, you know, the life of the clerk.

notsureifseriousorjustmildlyretarded.jpg
 
2012-08-29 07:42:35 AM  

Axias: Quatchi is the first Farkonian to show any intelligence in this thread.

you dont shoot unarmed people. you use reasonable force. you warn before firing. yeah, these are 'disadvantages' to our police and citizenry against criminals, but zomg it perpetuates something called 'civilized society'.

Boo for just shooting anyone dead for any crime. Fark that. not cool. Guess what, pulling a gun and a loud voice on someone without a gun coulda handled that situation fine. Now some mom is crying someonwhere cuz her kid robbed a dollar store like a dummy and died.

Seriously, you ppl know jack shiat about the offenders. What if he was robbing the store to buy some formula for his kids? Unlikely, but YOU DONT know. Shame on you people whose first instinct is to cheer this crap on.

Real ballz is being the 'good guy' and doing all the stuff the good guys do.


Civilised society doesn't commit armed robbery. The use of deadly force in a situation not deemed a "forcible fealony" i.e. rape, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, carries stiff penalties when the justice system works as intended. "Real ballz" is choosing an option other than armed robbery to feed your children, even if it means allowing yourself to starve so they may live.
 
2012-08-29 07:42:45 AM  

Father_Jack: Pribar: JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]

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.

swiss resident here.

Snip

..


cut your rambling knee jerk post down so I could reply without the wall of text that said the same thing I did but in many many more words Its the culture not the guns read before your knee goes all jerky next time Padre, ok?
 
2012-08-29 07:42:48 AM  
Incidentally, yes, the drunken psycho who I'd never seen before DID surrender when I drew my weapon. Apparently, a board with a nail in it isn't a match for a loaded rifle.

/actually, was indirectly threatened later in the night because some drunken coont mistook me for the guy who had been ARRESTED after i intervened
 
2012-08-29 07:42:52 AM  

puffy999: BronyMedic: I think people are trying to make a misguided attempt to say that the guy could have done anything but shoot and kill someone.

It's not really fair for anyone to judge this person, because we weren't there.


Hey man, armchairs are comfy. I installed a cup holder and a toilet on mine. Now I'm comfortable while I figure out foreign policy. By the way I totally would have killed Hitler with my bare hands.
 
2012-08-29 07:42:57 AM  

puffy999: Also, I WISH I had bear hands...


If I had bear hands, I'd take on a buck mano a mano.
 
2012-08-29 07:43:26 AM  
Axias: Seriously, you ppl know jack shiat about the offenders. What if he was robbing the store to buy some formula for his kids? Unlikely, but YOU DONT know. Shame on you people whose first instinct is to cheer this crap on.

Sorry, but no.

No, this argument doesn't fly. It's not even intelligent. It's a "just asking questions" argument. You're trying to villify a man who was following the law when he did what he did to protect another.

It is not on the CCW, or even Law Enforcement, to determine at the time someone has a gun to someone's face, why he's doing it.

All they have to determine is that they are threatening someone's life, and that their immediate action can reduce or prevent further loss of life from the perp's actions. The relevance and reason behind them are irrelevant. All that matters at that point is that he knows someone has a gun to someone else's face, and any reasonable man can interpret that as justification to shoot someone.

Axias: Boo for just shooting anyone dead for any crime. Fark that. not cool. Guess what, pulling a gun and a loud voice on someone without a gun coulda handled that situation fine. Now some mom is crying someonwhere cuz her kid robbed a dollar store like a dummy and died.

You know how I know you've been watching too many old cop movies?
 
2012-08-29 07:44:07 AM  

puffy999: Diogenes The Cynic: Do you want to be the guy who takes that risk?

Asking someone who's a good shot at a moving target, but someone who understands people and stats to a degree... yes. I will.

YMMV.

Of course, do people realize anymore that there are methods of defense other than guns?


Please, tell us what there is that is more effective?
 
2012-08-29 07:44:26 AM  
Incidentally, I'm really happy I moved... the crazies in this area are more tolerable, even if thieves roam about once every year.
 
2012-08-29 07:45:54 AM  
If Obama had a son he'd look like one of these perps.
 
2012-08-29 07:46:59 AM  

craigdamage: Just once I would like to hear about someone RETURNING FIRE. I wonder the outcome........


It's happened:

Appalachian School of Law shooting. (didn't technically return fire, but two armed students stopped the shooter)

Some other incidents where armed citizens intervened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Mall_shooting (didn't really help, but didn't make it worse)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting (Off-duty police officers engaged shooter and stopped him)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shooting s (civilian engaged shooter, wounding him badly enough he committed suicide)
 
2012-08-29 07:47:24 AM  

fisker: craigdamage: fisker You can kill people for robbing a store?

A smart person would ask:

"If I try to rob a store with a weapon,can I get my ass killed?"

....this is THE question every single criminal is NOW asking in the neighborhood of that Dollar General.

I agree, there are better ways to rob people.

What the fark are you talking about? Why aren't the employees of that store armed? Why are aren't ALL employees EVERYWHERE armed?


\FTFY

Walmart greeters are pissy enough as it is...
 
2012-08-29 07:48:15 AM  
The plural of anecdote is not data.
 
2012-08-29 07:48:56 AM  

jso2897: The plural of anecdote is not data.


Actually, it sort of is.
 
2012-08-29 07:49:18 AM  

puffy999: Incidentally, yes, the drunken psycho who I'd never seen before DID surrender when I drew my weapon. Apparently, a board with a nail in it isn't a match for a loaded rifle.

/actually, was indirectly threatened later in the night because some drunken coont mistook me for the guy who had been ARRESTED after i intervened


Sounds like an interesting story. Rifles aren't used very often in self defense situations, or crime for that matter.
 
2012-08-29 07:52:02 AM  

Loaded Six String: Axias: Quatchi is the first Farkonian to show any intelligence in this thread.

you dont shoot unarmed people. you use reasonable force. you warn before firing. yeah, these are 'disadvantages' to our police and citizenry against criminals, but zomg it perpetuates something called 'civilized society'.

Boo for just shooting anyone dead for any crime. Fark that. not cool. Guess what, pulling a gun and a loud voice on someone without a gun coulda handled that situation fine. Now some mom is crying someonwhere cuz her kid robbed a dollar store like a dummy and died.

Seriously, you ppl know jack shiat about the offenders. What if he was robbing the store to buy some formula for his kids? Unlikely, but YOU DONT know. Shame on you people whose first instinct is to cheer this crap on.

Real ballz is being the 'good guy' and doing all the stuff the good guys do.

Civilised society doesn't commit armed robbery. The use of deadly force in a situation not deemed a "forcible fealony" i.e. rape, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, carries stiff penalties when the justice system works as intended. "Real ballz" is choosing an option other than armed robbery to feed your children, even if it means allowing yourself to starve so they may live.


As one more addition to the "what if" situation you built, if he was trying to rob the store to feed his children, why wouldn't he sell his pistol first?
 
2012-08-29 07:53:27 AM  

psunbird92: If Obama had a son he'd look like one of these perps.


If Obama had a son he'd be black and that is all this world needs in today's economy.
 
2012-08-29 07:53:45 AM  
Is it just me, or is there more derp in here than normal? It's not about the $40-$50 in the register, it's about two ARMED MOTHER farkING ROBBERS! Have you retards not heard the (weekly) news of mass shootings? At what point do you expect someone to act who has the means available? After the clerk gets shot, or do you wait for it to be one of the customers...and just hope that you aren't first? What the farking fark?! Go be dumb on Yahoo...
 
2012-08-29 07:55:56 AM  

Pribar: Father_Jack: Pribar: JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]

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.

swiss resident here.

Snip

..

cut your rambling knee jerk post down so I could reply without the wall of text that said the same thing I did but in many many more words Its the culture not the guns read before your knee goes all jerky next time Padre, ok?


damn someone got all butt hurty.

furhermore, no, i dont think its "the culture", at least not how i define the word. Thats such a general term as to be meaningless in this sense. Why are more americans killed with guns in the US than in Switzerland? "The Culture"? Thats, yknow, kinda derpy.
 
2012-08-29 07:57:50 AM  
Flashback time:

AntiGunFarker: Guns only get used to hurt innocent people. How often does an ITG actualy save the day? In any kind of situtation like that, a gun holder would probably run and hide, or end up shooting some kid down the street by mistake.

What now, AntiGunFarker?
 
2012-08-29 07:57:51 AM  

dittybopper: craigdamage: Just once I would like to hear about someone RETURNING FIRE. I wonder the outcome........

It's happened:

Appalachian School of Law shooting. (didn't technically return fire, but two armed students stopped the shooter)

Some other incidents where armed citizens intervened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Mall_shooting (didn't really help, but didn't make it worse)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting (Off-duty police officers engaged shooter and stopped him)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shooting s (civilian engaged shooter, wounding him badly enough he committed suicide)


Generally, what we call "mass shootings" occur in places where only unlawful gun possession would have a gun there. At least the large and 'successful' shootings such as John Holmes in Colorado tend to be.

Which tends to automatically weed out the people being looked for, while at the same time increase the effectiveness of the shootings so they are heard about, which are the ones that are counter evidence to the sought info.

In cases where an armed citizen intervenes, it's "one person shot, one person wounded" or "one wounded" and doesn't make big news. What would have happened given time and freedom to act is never on the radar, because it didn't happen, because someone intervened, which then keeps the info out of the general nationwide MSM eye.

Anyone expecting "to hear" about a stopped shooting by normal media input is stupid. Dig for it, and you'll find it.
 
2012-08-29 07:59:04 AM  

EZ Writer: Is it just me, or is there more derp in here than normal? It's not about the $40-$50 in the register, it's about two ARMED MOTHER farkING ROBBERS! Have you retards not heard the (weekly) news of mass shootings? At what point do you expect someone to act who has the means available? After the clerk gets shot, or do you wait for it to be one of the customers...and just hope that you aren't first? What the farking fark?! Go be dumb on Yahoo...


Coward.
 
2012-08-29 07:59:50 AM  
Father_Jack: damn someone got all butt hurty.

furhermore, no, i dont think its "the culture", at least not how i define the word. Thats such a general term as to be meaningless in this sense. Why are more americans killed with guns in the US than in Switzerland? "The Culture"? Thats, yknow, kinda derpy.


Considering guns are universally available as legal purchases in Switzerland, approaching the same level - if not exceeding - of ownership as the per person gun ownership of the United States - culture is definitely a factor.

But you're trying to say the exact same culture as the United States exists in Switzerland.
 
2012-08-29 08:00:45 AM  

Pribar: Incorrect, the weapons I referred to is their issued weapon, every male who is physically and mentally fit and is between the ages of 20 and 30 is part of the militia and is issued with a Sig 550 that they keep at home while they are in the militia, it is a true assault weapon, when they leave military service they can keep the rifle but it has the select fire option removed


My mistake. There are pro gunners here that make it sound like you get issued a true assault rifle for life in Switzerland, and that every single person has one. I knew that wasn't right, but didn't know how things actually worked. I'd rather err on the side of caution than spread misinformation. Or rather, misinformation thats incorrectly favorable to a side I agree with.
 
2012-08-29 08:00:48 AM  

Father_Jack: Pribar: Father_Jack: Pribar: JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]

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.

swiss resident here.

Snip

..

cut your rambling knee jerk post down so I could reply without the wall of text that said the same thing I did but in many many more words Its the culture not the guns read before your knee goes all jerky next time Padre, ok?

damn someone got all butt hurty.

furhermore, no, i dont think its "the culture", at least not how i define the word. Thats such a general term as to be meaningless in this sense. Why are more americans killed with guns in the US than in Switzerland? "The Culture"? Thats, yknow, kinda derpy.


How many inner city gangs do you have in Switzerland?
 
2012-08-29 08:02:26 AM  
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.
 
2012-08-29 08:02:41 AM  

Father_Jack: Pribar: Father_Jack: Pribar: JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]

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.

swiss resident here.

Snip

..

cut your rambling knee jerk post down so I could reply without the wall of text that said the same thing I did but in many many more words Its the culture not the guns read before your knee goes all jerky next time Padre, ok?

damn someone got all butt hurty.

furhermore, no, i dont think its "the culture", at least not how i define the word. Thats such a general term as to be meaningless in this sense. Why are more americans killed with guns in the US than in Switzerland? "The Culture"? Thats, yknow, kinda derpy.


Could it be because there are more of us, like a couple of hundred million more? Numbers, how the fark do the work?
encrypted-tbn0.google.com
 
2012-08-29 08:04:40 AM  
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.

Please, continue "making" up facts to support your position and portray this guy as a "decider" CCW holder.
 
2012-08-29 08:04:50 AM  

BronyMedic: Loaded Six String: Taking on a buck with anything without a decent reach and speed is nigh impossible, so meh. Taking down a store clerk with a knife, your neighbor with a rock, or your spouse with your bear hands is not so impossible, so if the root cause leading to these acts of violence is not removed, the violence will still occur with or without a firearm, with surprisingly similar end results.

I demand the right, in that case, to walk around with a concealed compound bow, like my forefathers before me in Europe.

If it is good enough to take down a buck, then by god, it's good enough to put a hole in some punk trying to steal my wallet.


Dude, if you can conceal a compound bow, then by God, I say go for it. In fact, I'd love to see the face of some thug when you go all Hawkeye on him.

/dammit now you show up in green
 
2012-08-29 08:05:52 AM  
MythDragon: Dude, if you can conceal a compound bow, then by God, I say go for it. In fact, I'd love to see the face of some thug when you go all Hawkeye on him.

I imagine it would go something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvQJh-nS9TI
 
2012-08-29 08:05:55 AM  

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

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


There it is, I was waiting for someone to somehow make this about race.
 
2012-08-29 08:06:54 AM  

BronyMedic: Father_Jack: damn someone got all butt hurty.

furhermore, no, i dont think its "the culture", at least not how i define the word. Thats such a general term as to be meaningless in this sense. Why are more americans killed with guns in the US than in Switzerland? "The Culture"? Thats, yknow, kinda derpy.

Considering guns are universally available as legal purchases in Switzerland, approaching the same level - if not exceeding - of ownership as the per person gun ownership of the United States - culture is definitely a factor.

But you're trying to say the exact same culture as the United States exists in Switzerland.


Where am i saying that? I don't mean to give the impression that im saying that at all.

Im trying to argue that I believe the difference in crime is due to the strength of swiss institutions and the society they've built which keeps people from become the sort of desperate people who seem to commit a good portion of the gun crime in the US. Admittedly, we could be arguing semantics; perhaps you'd define Swiss employment/healthcare/social service institutions as part of their "culture". I don't; to me culture is more intangible.
 
2012-08-29 08:07:01 AM  
jbabbler: There it is, I was waiting for someone to somehow make this about race.

Don't worry. In just a few posts, I'm sure someone will compare this guy to that clown in Florida, Zimmerman.

You know. Even though the situation was nothing alike.
 
2012-08-29 08:07:46 AM  

BronyMedic: 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.

Please, continue "making" up facts to support your position and portray this guy as a "decider" CCW holder.


What facts are made up? The more complete story limked in the thread explained that both robbers were armed with handguns, one had a clerk at gunpoint, and none of the employees were hurt. Pretty simple. And every single cop I personally know--at least 15--would undoubtedly say that a civilian taking on two robbers armed with handguns is not the best choice, especially of there are other lives at stake.
 
2012-08-29 08:10:43 AM  

puffy999: Loaded Six String: Taking down a store clerk with a knife, your neighbor with a rock, or your spouse with your bear hands is not so impossible, so if the root cause leading to these acts of violence is not removed, the violence will still occur with or without a firearm, with surprisingly similar end results.

Most robbers, even those who present weapons, don't use them, even when denied the goods for which they asked.


They have used the weapon, maybe not to kill you, but as a tool to threaten you with death.
 
2012-08-29 08:11:51 AM  

themeaningoflifeisnot: BronyMedic: 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.

Please, continue "making" up facts to support your position and portray this guy as a "decider" CCW holder.

What facts are made up? The more complete story limked in the thread explained that both robbers were armed with handguns, one had a clerk at gunpoint, and none of the employees were hurt. Pretty simple. And every single cop I personally know--at least 15--would undoubtedly say that a civilian taking on two robbers armed with handguns is not the best choice, especially of there are other lives at stake.


Well admittedly the police shoot like NY cops in most areas so it's understandable that they'd be concerned without an 9 times the manpower, an armored vehicle, gunship helicopter and a tank or two firing.
 
2012-08-29 08:13:24 AM  

The Muthaship: jso2897: The plural of anecdote is not data.

Actually, it sort of is.


Ok, point taken: if you gather up ALL the anecdotes and incidents, without cherrypicking, you end up with data - eventually.
 
2012-08-29 08:13:39 AM  
We need to start breeding African-American robbers so all the cool white people in this thread can have things to shoot at.

Oh I forgot, that's already happening.

People are SO SMART walking around with hand guns because they are PLANNING AHEAD!

If one, JUST ONE of those rednecks would have adopted that pathetic black child WHEN IT WAS BORN we wouldn't be having this problem.

THAT is how you plan ahead.
 
2012-08-29 08:13:47 AM  

jafiwam: Generally, what we call "mass shootings" occur in places where only unlawful gun possession would have a gun there. At least the large and 'successful' shootings such as John Holmes in Colorado tend to be.


That dude murdered some ass in his day.
 
2012-08-29 08:14:19 AM  

Relatively Obscure: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who robs a Dollar General!?!?

Fifty Cent?


You made boogers come out my nose so I thought I'd share the mental image. You try getting them out from between the keys on this keyboard
 
2012-08-29 08:15:19 AM  
The simple math here is this - if you commit violence upon another for your own sake as a means to "get ahead" you become a selfish prick. That attitude becomes self empowering and makes you want to empower yourself more. It's escalation.

Yes, you can argue getting your damn fool head blown off for robbing someone is a bit extreme - or you can argue for the more simple and logical fact that if more people took a stand and we had more people willing to try to prevent damn fools from trying to rob everything from toys'r'us to jewelry stores constantly there wouldn't be a as much of a need for an self policing armed populace..

However, because this is, you know, reality we as a culture don't have a way to stop people from using guns we should instead try to promote the people who legally and rightfully can carry to carry and suddenly "a gun behind every bush" makes friendly neighbors and less crime friendly neighborhoods.

This happened at a dollar general and there was even a Fark thread about it.

The same usual suspects came into that thread stating "OMG THE POOR ROBBER," Stop feeding the trolls kids. They are getting old.

Good on the person who stopped the robbery - obviously we wish he could have de-escalated the situation without needing to draw and shoot, but that isn't what happened.
 
2012-08-29 08:15:51 AM  

quatchi: Relatively Obscure: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who robs a Dollar General!?!?

Fifty Cent?

Lawls! ^_^

I'm pro gun, pro 2nd amendment and pro CC but I too would like to know what, if anything, these two robbers were armed with before qualifying this guy as any kind of hero. 


Who cares if they were? By their act they spit in the face of civilization and society and we're better off without them.
 
2012-08-29 08:16:09 AM  

puffy999: 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.

Guns aren't the cause, they just make it easier.

Deer hunting is popular, but moreso for those who use guns over bows. I don't know if there are any knife, fountain pen, or grenade hunting seasons for deer...


...because hunting is constitutionally regulated by the states, and various classes of items (including spears) have different seasons for different animals in different states. I don't even hunt and I know this. Go away you useless commenter you.
 
2012-08-29 08:16:20 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-29 08:16:57 AM  
Handgun - $450
Ammunition - $3
Price of Life in the USA - $0
 
2012-08-29 08:17:05 AM  

craigdamage: Shadowtag thought the point of the headline was more about how this guy handled this type of situation better than the NYPD


I took it to be as a response to the often made delusional claim that 'armed defense is a myth" and that "you will only harm innocent bystanders" and or "interfere with the job of the police" ....etc....


Great, So the dude saved a Dollar General. Too bad we never have armed citizens present at these random killing sprees. This is NO Dirty Harry "fantasy" as some limp-wrist types would assert. Just once I would like to hear about someone RETURNING FIRE. I wonder the outcome........


That's because these killing sprees occur where armed citizens are not allowed. They may be crazy but apparently not stupid. They choose locations where the targets are numerous and armed opposition is forbidden.
 
2012-08-29 08:17:24 AM  

fisker: We need to start breeding African-American robbers so all the cool white people in this thread can have things to shoot at.

Oh I forgot, that's already happening.

People are SO SMART walking around with hand guns because they are PLANNING AHEAD!

If one, JUST ONE of those rednecks would have adopted that pathetic black child WHEN IT WAS BORN we wouldn't be having this problem.

THAT is how you plan ahead.


While I agree that more kids in the foster care system should be adopted by loving parents who aren't paid by the state to care for them, the rest of your post is bad and you should feel bad.
 
2012-08-29 08:17:29 AM  
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.
 
2012-08-29 08:18:29 AM  

fisker:

People are SO SMART walking around with hand guns because they are PLANNING AHEAD!

If one, JUST ONE of those rednecks would have adopted that pathetic black child WHEN IT WAS BORN we wouldn't be having this problem.

THAT is how you plan ahead.


Riiiiiight.... because baby-daddy wearing a jimmy in the first place to PREVENT an orphan child wouldn't be planning ahead, would it?
 
2012-08-29 08:18:53 AM  

BostonEMT: puffy999: AngryDragon: The random killing sprees are usually in "gun free zones".

Yes, Jonestown was a gun free zone.

what about Waco, Texas??


/just sayin' is all


Yes, Waco was a gun free zone when all those people were shot and killed. I am sure you are talking about the Lubys restraunt where a man shot and killed a bunch of the customers. After that shooting the restraunt put a sign on the front door saying your CCW was welcome.
 
2012-08-29 08:19:05 AM  

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.


The cops aren't there to protect you. They show up after the crime has been committed and try and figure out what happened. In fact, the SCOTUS has plainly stated that the police have no obligation to protect anyone.
 
2012-08-29 08:19:38 AM  

Marcintosh: Relatively Obscure: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who robs a Dollar General!?!?

Fifty Cent?

You made boogers come out my nose so I thought I'd share the mental image. You try getting them out from between the keys on this keyboard


That is why he just got favorited.
 
2012-08-29 08:19:54 AM  
Don't you dare sully RoboCop's good name, don't you dare!!!
 
2012-08-29 08:20:02 AM  

cajunns: so this dirty harry wannabee decides that a human life is cheaper than the contents of the till at Dollar General.
What's heroic about that; if anything


you know how I know you're using an iPad?
 
2012-08-29 08:21:12 AM  

I'm an excellent driver: Price of Life in the USA - $0


Really? This guy risked a potentially long period of incarceration if the police decided to charge him to save the life of someone he likely didn't even know. Sounds like it's valuable to me.....oh wait, troll...
 
2012-08-29 08:21:13 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-29 08:21:47 AM  

I'm an excellent driver: Handgun - $450
Ammunition - $3
Price of Life in the USA - $0

whatever the victim of the armed robber had in their wallet.

I can't believe how many people are going to claim that the armed customer shot the armed robber in defense of the store's money. It actually boggles my mind.
 
2012-08-29 08:23:49 AM  

Su-Su-Sudo

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.


You seem to be confusing Criminal Law with Natural Law- the latter including, among other things, the right to self defense, and by extension, the defense of innocents.
 
2012-08-29 08:25:28 AM  
Fundamentally this debate comes down to a question of whether you want individuals to take responsibility for enforcing social control - for example, by using their personal fire arms to mete out lethal force - or whether you want there to be a larger process by which people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, allowed competent professional representation, and tried by a jury of their peers overseen by a professional judge. It's a question of every-man-for-himself vigilantism versus a justice system with checks and balances. I would wager that the justice system with checks and balances model results in a lot less indiscriminate exercise of power and a lot lower false-positive conviction rate.

Of course, this is America, so guns are good, but only in the hands of rugged individualists who use them to protect their private property and the private property of others (by the way, is Grampa Gun going to send a bill for security services rendered to the owner of the store?). And, also being America, the justice system is not nearly just.

Why do you people have such a hard on for firearms?
 
2012-08-29 08:25:41 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-29 08:25:49 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-29 08:26:01 AM  

BronyMedic: MythDragon: Dude, if you can conceal a compound bow, then by God, I say go for it. In fact, I'd love to see the face of some thug when you go all Hawkeye on him.

I imagine it would go something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvQJh-nS9TI


Try this one for archery badassery


/Oh and Father_Jack when most people refer to a culture they mean the people, government and institutions of the nation, you are arguing semantics which is asinine. The Swiss are a lot like Americans as far as firearms go, the city dwellers see guns as useless relics of a bygone era and want them outlawed, the rural areas tend to see them as either facts of life or cherished traditions that need maintaining. As to how I obtained my permit, you will find a lot of leeway in the laws if you are ex military assisting in the dismantling of the Saint-Maurice fortifications (and happen to be friendly with the local officials) waivers can be obtained, exemptions granted as long as the Germanic obsessive need for paperwork is met.
 
2012-08-29 08:26:03 AM  
Yeah, sorry, I didnt see the other link where it said they had guns. Who robs a dollar store, with guns?
 
2012-08-29 08:26:53 AM  

BostonEMT: fisker:

People are SO SMART walking around with hand guns because they are PLANNING AHEAD!

If one, JUST ONE of those rednecks would have adopted that pathetic black child WHEN IT WAS BORN we wouldn't be having this problem.

THAT is how you plan ahead.

Riiiiiight.... because baby-daddy wearing a jimmy in the first place to PREVENT an orphan child wouldn't be planning ahead, would it?


Baby daddy should have been shot dead by the grandfather of the hero of this dollar store incident years ago.

WHAT?
 
2012-08-29 08:26:54 AM  

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


Ha, no. We know that in America, all gun owners are responsible, and would never do anything with their weapons to cause unneeded injury and/or death.
 
2012-08-29 08:27:36 AM  

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

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


You seem to fail to grasp the difference between a penalty and a consequence. You threaten someone's life with a weapon while committing a crime the consequence may very well be death when someone intervenes on behalf of the person you are threatening to murder.
 
2012-08-29 08:28:15 AM  

Silly Jesus: 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.


Actually, more accurately, because this story has no way to point out how the gun involved was bad or the guy was a psycho killer and able to be held up as the poster child of why guns should be banned, the guy who acted to save his own life and the lives of the clerks is demonized for being a vigilante and the act of self defense/defense of others is attacked instead.

It's sort of like attacking a good samaritan at an accident since the guy was blocking traffic or some such.

If a person has a gun out and is aiming it at another person, no statistics in the world can read the person's mind or intentions, and assuming that they're not going to shoot someone or injure a bystander based on said statistics is stupid.
 
2012-08-29 08:28:37 AM  

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.


Armed robbery is a forceable fealony, which is deemed to be an appropriate situation to utilize deadly force to end, in most parts of the world even California. You're discounting how heinous assault with a deadly weapon (pulling a firearm on someone to steal their property) is, and that's intellectually disonest. On top of that, you're belittling the entire population of a state because you disagree with the actions of this one person, or perhaps many, but ultimately very few of the population. Your outrage is unbecoming.
 
2012-08-29 08:28:44 AM  

misanthropologist: Fundamentally this debate comes down to a question of whether you want individuals to take responsibility for enforcing social control - for example, by using their personal fire arms to mete out lethal force - or whether you want there to be a larger process by which people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, allowed competent professional representation, and tried by a jury of their peers overseen by a professional judge. It's a question of every-man-for-himself vigilantism versus a justice system with checks and balances. I would wager that the justice system with checks and balances model results in a lot less indiscriminate exercise of power and a lot lower false-positive conviction rate.

Of course, this is America, so guns are good, but only in the hands of rugged individualists who use them to protect their private property and the private property of others (by the way, is Grampa Gun going to send a bill for security services rendered to the owner of the store?). And, also being America, the justice system is not nearly just.

Why do you people have such a hard on for firearms?


You can't possibly be serious.

You don't see the imminent threat of having a gun in your face? You can't see that some situations dictate that you don't wait for a jury trial? Is self-defense a concept that you deem to be vile?
 
2012-08-29 08:29:53 AM  

Loaded Six String: fisker: We need to start breeding African-American robbers so all the cool white people in this thread can have things to shoot at.

Oh I forgot, that's already happening.

People are SO SMART walking around with hand guns because they are PLANNING AHEAD!

If one, JUST ONE of those rednecks would have adopted that pathetic black child WHEN IT WAS BORN we wouldn't be having this problem.

THAT is how you plan ahead.

While I agree that more kids in the foster care system should be adopted by loving parents who aren't paid by the state to care for them, the rest of your post is bad and you should feel bad.


I'm feeling pretty good about my post!
 
2012-08-29 08:30:18 AM  
I'm very disappointed that the old man wasn't able to get off shots quick enough to rid the world of the second armed robber.
 
2012-08-29 08:31:12 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-29 08:31:14 AM  

cajunns: so this dirty harry wannabee decides that a human life is cheaper than the contents of the till at Dollar General.
What's heroic about that; if anything


i.qkme.me
 
2012-08-29 08:31:16 AM  

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.


I couldn't imagine snuffing out a life for an attempted robbery. Although, if it were my wife or kid or brother behind the counter with a gun pointed in his or her face, I would be thanking the olds right now for intervening.

It would be nice if we knew the perp's intent with the gun, but we don't. They also don't have a code of honor. How many people are killed by robbers because they wanted to go all Fiddy-cent? I would not want to be put in this situation, because I would probably act the same as the olds, and, as previously mentioned, have nightmares for the rest of my life wondering if I had done the right thing. On the other hand, I could never forgive myself if I had a CCW and stood by idly as an innocent person was murdered. The person behind the counter was innocent; the robber wasn't.
 
2012-08-29 08:33:03 AM  
www.blackshards.com
 
2012-08-29 08:33:17 AM  

misanthropologist: Fundamentally this debate comes down to a question of whether you want individuals to take responsibility for enforcing social control - for example, by using their personal fire arms to mete out lethal force - or whether you want there to be a larger process by which people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, allowed competent professional representation, and tried by a jury of their peers overseen by a professional judge. It's a question of every-man-for-himself vigilantism versus a justice system with checks and balances. I would wager that the justice system with checks and balances model results in a lot less indiscriminate exercise of power and a lot lower false-positive conviction rate.

Of course, this is America, so guns are good, but only in the hands of rugged individualists who use them to protect their private property and the private property of others (by the way, is Grampa Gun going to send a bill for security services rendered to the owner of the store?). And, also being America, the justice system is not nearly just.

Why do you people have such a hard on for firearms?


Vigilante justice doesn't apply to crimes dangerous to the life of oneself or another being witnessed in progress, self preservation does. You're putting too much faith in the criminal justice system to save lives at the moment they are in danger.

Why do you believe someone who is armed is automatically armed and dangerous, whether or not their firearm is currently pointed at someone?
 
2012-08-29 08:33:25 AM  
From TFA second paragraph: "All of the sudden..." Really?? All of the sudden. Is that even English?
 
2012-08-29 08:34:14 AM  

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.


You mean like the two farking Jedi at the Empire State building?
 
2012-08-29 08:34:20 AM  

elguerodiablo: Thank god he was there to kill someone so some corporation saved the $50 they had in the register.


The robbers equated the clerk's life with the $50 in the register.
 
2012-08-29 08:34:39 AM  

misanthropologist: Fundamentally this debate comes down to a question of whether you want individuals to take responsibility for enforcing social control - for example, by using their personal fire arms to mete out lethal force - or whether you want there to be a larger process by which people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, allowed competent professional representation, and tried by a jury of their peers overseen by a professional judge. It's a question of every-man-for-himself vigilantism versus a justice system with checks and balances. I would wager that the justice system with checks and balances model results in a lot less indiscriminate exercise of power and a lot lower false-positive conviction rate.

Of course, this is America, so guns are good, but only in the hands of rugged individualists who use them to protect their private property and the private property of others (by the way, is Grampa Gun going to send a bill for security services rendered to the owner of the store?). And, also being America, the justice system is not nearly just.

Why do you people have such a hard on for firearms?


If the person has a weapon pointed at me or someone I know to be innocent and is acting in a threatening manner, then it is equally my right to defend myself if necessary. Is it always the best choice? Nope. I've walked away in a couple of situations where I could have probably legally justified using a weapon. However, in some cases, it is the best choice out of a bad hand.

As to why we have "such a hardon for firearms", mostly because those of us who choose to carry and/or own firearms for the purpose of self defense, hunting, or sport do so because we recognize that it is our right to do so, that sporting purposes are activities that we enjoy much like collecting cars or riding horses, and ultimately we understand that in a dire situation, a cop may not always be handy to stop the guy.

I would also ask, if a cop is in this situation and defends himself, it's considered part of his job. If a non-law-enforcement civilian (cops are civilians, they are not an army) happens to be forced to make the same choice, it's considered a horrible vigilante crime? I don't understand that thought process. It is my right to defend myself from death or grave bodily harm, and i will do so with whatever force is necessary.
 
2012-08-29 08:35:00 AM  

Whole Wheat: I couldn't imagine snuffing out a life for an attempted robbery. Although, if it were my wife or kid or brother behind the counter with a gun pointed in his or her face, I would be thanking the olds right now for intervening.

It would be nice if we knew the perp's intent with the gun, but we don't. They also don't have a code of honor. How many people are killed by robbers because they wanted to go all Fiddy-cent? I would not want to be put in this situation, because I would probably act the same as the olds, and, as previously mentioned, have nightmares for the rest of my life wondering if I had done the right thing. On the other hand, I could never forgive myself if I had a CCW and stood by idly as an innocent person was murdered. The person behind the counter was innocent; the robber wasn't.


Salient point emboldened. Grampa defended an innocent person from danger. Stopping the robbery was incidental.
 
2012-08-29 08:35:23 AM  

Su-Su-Sudo: Yeah, sorry, I didnt see the other link where it said they had guns. Who robs a dollar store, with guns?


Someone dumb, desperate, failed by society, or all three unfortunately.
 
2012-08-29 08:36:19 AM  
Loaded Six String

Smartest
Funniest
2012-08-29 08:28:37 AM
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.

Armed robbery is a forceable fealony, which is deemed to be an appropriate situation to utilize deadly force to end, in most parts of the world even California. You're discounting how heinous assault with a deadly weapon (pulling a firearm on someone to steal their property) is, and that's intellectually disonest. On top of that, you're belittling the entire population of a state because you disagree with the actions of this one person, or perhaps many, but ultimately very few of the population. Your outrage is unbecoming.
 
2012-08-29 08:36:38 AM  

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.


Adding to that, four swat officers, 8 patrol deputies, three FBI agents, and an ATF supervisor all agree that in this case, the guy was justified. That's the limit of the number of people I could call before getting into the office today and ask their opinions.
 
2012-08-29 08:36:50 AM  

Loaded Six String: failed by society


Oh lord....
 
2012-08-29 08:37:36 AM  
Sorry Six string, I was gonna refer you to my recant.
 
2012-08-29 08:37:48 AM  

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.


That job is already taken

i512.photobucket.com

/hot
/and special
 
2012-08-29 08:39:52 AM  

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

Ha, no. We know that in America, all gun owners are responsible, and would never do anything with their weapons to cause unneeded injury and/or death.


Firearms safety classes in high school would help reduce accidental/ negligent discharges, but asshats will be asshats, and will be appropriately punished for their actions. That's the way things have always been and should always be. If you're going to join in, bring something to the table aside from whargarbl.
 
2012-08-29 08:40:51 AM  

The Muthaship: Loaded Six String: failed by society

Oh lord....


No, there's something to this. The welfare system we have in place in the US tends to encourage long-term dependency, fails to encourage paternal involvement with children, and rewards bastardy with increased welfare checks to the mother. We, as a society, have failed in our efforts because we have an idiotic welfare system which needs a major redesign.
 
2012-08-29 08:42:18 AM  

Triumph: If he'd been at the Empire State Building, 9 people wouldn't have been shot by cops.


Because a dollar store late at night is the exact same thing as a crowded NYC sidewalk?
 
2012-08-29 08:43:59 AM  

Breech Birth: From TFA second paragraph: "All of the sudden..." Really?? All of the sudden. Is that even English?


Well, for all intensive purposes I suppose so.

/Seriously though, many idioms are ruined by idiots.
 
2012-08-29 08:43:59 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.


If a gun isnt needed to commit the robbery, then a gun shouldnt be needed to stop it.
 
2012-08-29 08:44:24 AM  

DingleberryMoose: No, there's something to this.


I'm sure his grandma did the best she could.
 
2012-08-29 08:44:24 AM  

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

yeah, so ... I'm gonna go ahead and say that guns have a lot to do with it.
 
2012-08-29 08:44:38 AM  

DingleberryMoose: The Muthaship: Loaded Six String: failed by society

Oh lord....

No, there's something to this. The welfare system we have in place in the US tends to encourage long-term dependency, fails to encourage paternal involvement with children, and rewards bastardy with increased welfare checks to the mother. We, as a society, have failed in our efforts because we have an idiotic welfare system which needs a major redesign.


Where in the article does it say that he or his family was on welfare or are you just assuming this because he is was black?
 
2012-08-29 08:44:49 AM  

Loaded Six String: Cinaed: Loaded Six String: ...and being that there is no effective rehabilitation program in place

And whose fault would that be, I wonder?

The creators of our judicial system who based it on puritanical values of punishment rather than rehabilitation?


And we can't fix that? We can't correct that? We can't educate them? We can't attempt to give them options beyond 'steal shiat, beat up people, etc'?

Granted, it might require some money, some people, and a willingness to look at people on the fringes of society with something other than disdain.

I am a firm believer in the idea that how we treat the least among us showcases just how Just and Righteous we truly are. A shame we don't nearly meet the self-image.
 
2012-08-29 08:45:36 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-29 08:45:41 AM  

Loaded Six String: Su-Su-Sudo: Yeah, sorry, I didnt see the other link where it said they had guns. Who robs a dollar store, with guns?

Someone dumb, desperate, failed by society, or all three unfortunately.


For some reason, I think that if the starving waif, left behind by society as he was, had chosen to steal groceries from Kroger instead of getting all gangsta, people wouldn't have gotten all shooty. But let's blame society.
 
2012-08-29 08:48:10 AM  

Su-Su-Sudo: Sorry Six string, I was gonna refer you to my recant.


No problem, I saw it. Painting everyone in the state of Florida as armed maniacs was still unbecoming though. Not that you have to justify yourself to me, I just disagree with broad statements disparaging a group of people because of their legislative stance on a piece of property and the right to self defense.
 
2012-08-29 08:48:56 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.


No, they also eat cheese curds. How do we know that the Canadian Government isn't putting some sort of anti-violence drugs in the cheese curds?
 
2012-08-29 08:49:23 AM  

Kit Fister: 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.

Adding to that, four swat officers, 8 patrol deputies, three FBI agents, and an ATF supervisor all agree that in this case, the guy was justified. That's the limit of the number of people I could call before getting into the office today and ask their opinions.


It's not a question as to whether the civilian was justified. Of course he was based on the facts reported. Thats an easy call that every cop would agree with. A no brainer.

The question I raise is whether law enforcement would generally advise a CCW holder to open fire when outnumbered by armed opponents and innocent bystanders are at risk. I think not.
 
2012-08-29 08:49:27 AM  
For a while in the 90's Albuquerque had more bank robberies per capita than anywhere in the US. You could also legally walk around with a gun on your hip, although most people didn't know that.

One day this old man walks in to a bank with a .45 holstered like the old west. As he comes in he realizes he's walked in on a robbery. He decides to walk in a little sideways so they couldn't see the gun, waited until he had 2 clear shots and took out both of the robbers with a single shot each.
 
2012-08-29 08:49:40 AM  
Choice comments from the the news article:

"nice shot, thats one more ghetto gopher that wont be voting for obama this november!"

"A black male! What a shocker. One of the many reasons why I carry a gun everywhere I go."

"Great Shot Gramps.....One Less Pavement Ape To Clog Up The Courts With. Now Go Cap The Other Chimp."

"They were trying to rob a Dollar General Store? What a couple of idiots!" ((This guy asserts that they were a couple. How could he possibly know that?))

"There will be one less gorilla in the mist now! WTG pops!"

"They will pin the dead coon on the coon that got away"
 
2012-08-29 08:50:48 AM  

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


so you're equating the prevalence of gangs and organized crime in the United States with that of Canada

"no, I'm not"

well your graph and your line of argumentation would be worthless without doing it, so I'll save you the trouble.

On to my main point, your opinion is worthless because you're equating two vastly different scenarios while claiming the firearm itself is the primary variable affecting gun related deaths. Begone buffoon, begone.
 
2012-08-29 08:51:20 AM  

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.


Obviously you seem to have forgotten that progressives believe OSHA standards shoud be extended to criminal activity. Shouldn't criminals have a safe work environment? An armed private citizenry under no requirement to retreat when their lives and or property are threatened create a hostile and dangerous work environment for much of their constituency.
 
2012-08-29 08:51:24 AM  

quatchi: Relatively Obscure: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who robs a Dollar General!?!?

Fifty Cent?

Lawls! ^_^

I'm pro gun, pro 2nd amendment and pro CC but I too would like to know what, if anything, these two robbers were armed with before qualifying this guy as any kind of hero. 

"There was a citizen who had a concealed firearms permit that was inside the store as a customer," says Lt. Schoonover. "He fired at the suspect, striking him and killing him." + "There are no charges pending against the customer." =/= "the police thanked him" but hey, welcome to Fark headlines and all that.

/Why don't we have more stories about corduroy pillows?


We dont have stories about coduroy pillows cause they always making new headlines...
 
2012-08-29 08:51:40 AM  

cassanovascotian: -the only major difference being gun control legislation....


sigh.. ok, income inequality and poverty rates are the other big relevent difference. Nevertheless the difference is pretty striking.
 
2012-08-29 08:51:49 AM  

MayoBoy: DingleberryMoose: The Muthaship: Loaded Six String: failed by society

Oh lord....

No, there's something to this. The welfare system we have in place in the US tends to encourage long-term dependency, fails to encourage paternal involvement with children, and rewards bastardy with increased welfare checks to the mother. We, as a society, have failed in our efforts because we have an idiotic welfare system which needs a major redesign.

Where in the article does it say that he or his family was on welfare or are you just assuming this because he is was black?


I haven't read any articles indicating the race of the dead perp. Where did you get said information, or are you inferring it?

Also, I was referring to my experience in my time as a social worker. I saw the cycle above repeated over and over among people of different races. As I worked in a majority Hispanic area, I saw it more among Hispanics. If I'd worked in a majority white or black area, I'd likely have seen it more among whites or blacks because welfare failure much more closely related to socioeconomic status than it is to race.
 
2012-08-29 08:51:50 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.


Alright, while you're at it, how about some data comparing and contrasting the socioeconomic and population distribution demographics of Canada vs. the US, the related incidents of crime of all types and flavors, etc?

Because, of course, all of the identified factors that play a part in crime statistics and homicides (drugs, gang membership, poverty, etc.) have absolutely no major bearing on the numbers, right?

Would you be surprised, then, that a mapping of homicides in the US shows that homicide rates tend to be vastly higher in urban, poverty-stricken areas that equally show higher cases of drug abuse, rape, assault, theft, etc?

It's almost as if areas where criminal organizations thrive tend to have higher cases of violent crimes...
 
2012-08-29 08:52:39 AM  

The Muthaship: Loaded Six String: failed by society

Oh lord....


Care to elaborate? A societal structure which does not attempt to rehabilitate criminals, treats substance addiction as a crime rather than an illness, continually reduces the ability to elevate one's economic status, treats pissing in public on par with sexual assault, among others, has in my opinion failed society as a whole based on these actions.
 
2012-08-29 08:52:46 AM  

cassanovascotian: Canada and the US are pretty similar -the only major difference being gun control legislation...


www.lolwut.com
 
2012-08-29 08:53:07 AM  

Shadowtag: I thought the point of the headline was more about how this guy handled this type of situation better than the NYPD.


This is pretty much what I read. The rest of the bandwagon of derp in the thread would have happened no matter what the headline said.

/don't really care about gun laws or carry laws
//used to be in favor. Then I realized most of the people around me I wouldn't trust in a vehicular emergency, much less an armed conflict.
 
2012-08-29 08:53:09 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?


If you threaten to kill an innocent person, you shouldn't be surprised if you receive a counter offer.

Robbery is not peeing in the bushes.
 
2012-08-29 08:53:15 AM  

Fibro: "They will pin the dead coon on the coon that got away"


Colorful vernacular aside, that is how the law would view it.
 
2012-08-29 08:53:31 AM  

Bruce Campbell: jafiwam: Generally, what we call "mass shootings" occur in places where only unlawful gun possession would have a gun there. At least the large and 'successful' shootings such as John Holmes in Colorado tend to be.

That dude murdered some ass in his day.


Yeah, well, spreading AIDS does that.
 
2012-08-29 08:54:41 AM  

USP .45: Begone buffoon, begone.


gosh, gun advocates are always raising the level of intellectual discourse ....

USP .45: so you're equating the prevalence of gangs and organized crime in the United States with that of Canada

per capita?

yeah. why not?
 
2012-08-29 08:55:02 AM  
Fibro

Choice comments from the the news article:

"nice shot, thats one more ghetto gopher that wont be voting for obama this november!"

"A black male! What a shocker. One of the many reasons why I carry a gun everywhere I go."

"Great Shot Gramps.....One Less Pavement Ape To Clog Up The Courts With. Now Go Cap The Other Chimp."

"They were trying to rob a Dollar General Store? What a couple of idiots!" ((This guy asserts that they were a couple. How could he possibly know that?))

"There will be one less gorilla in the mist now! WTG pops!"

"They will pin the dead coon on the coon that got away" 


Makes it much easier to make broad generalizations about the populations of certain states.
 
2012-08-29 08:55:06 AM  

kim jong-un: If you threaten to kill...


So armed robbery is worthy of the death penalty then, yes?
Tell me more of what you believe people should be gunned down over.
 
2012-08-29 08:55:28 AM  

themeaningoflifeisnot: Kit Fister: 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.

Adding to that, four swat officers, 8 patrol deputies, three FBI agents, and an ATF supervisor all agree that in this case, the guy was justified. That's the limit of the number of people I could call before getting into the office today and ask their opinions.

It's not a question as to whether the civilian was justified. Of course he was based on the facts reported. Thats an easy call that every cop would agree wit ...


You think wrong.
 
2012-08-29 08:56:09 AM  

Cinaed: Loaded Six String: Cinaed: Loaded Six String: ...and being that there is no effective rehabilitation program in place

And whose fault would that be, I wonder?

The creators of our judicial system who based it on puritanical values of punishment rather than rehabilitation?

And we can't fix that? We can't correct that? We can't educate them? We can't attempt to give them options beyond 'steal shiat, beat up people, etc'?

Granted, it might require some money, some people, and a willingness to look at people on the fringes of society with something other than disdain.

I am a firm believer in the idea that how we treat the least among us showcases just how Just and Righteous we truly are. A shame we don't nearly meet the self-image.


Ask your representatives for that change.
Right now we're choosing between mandatory abortions for everyone or turning the Smithsonian into a creationist museum.

It would be nice if there were actual choices on the ballot, but the herp-derp is just too strong these days.
 
2012-08-29 08:56:23 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.


And what of the social structures between these two countries? With universal health care in Canada, how is drug addiction and use treated when compared to the US? How is the welfare system different? Poverty levels? Every single root cause of violent crime? I'm going to go ahead and say that no, the guns don't have a lot to do with it.
 
2012-08-29 08:57:41 AM  
Loaded Six String I can't believe how many people are going to claim that the armed customer shot the armed robber in defense of the store's money. It actually boggles my mind.

Second.

I live in Dallas. There have been some horrendously awful robberies here in recent memory. Evening news showed some quite disturbing murders take place in shops where victims showed NO ATTEMPTS AT RESISTING.

#1 scumbag walks into gas station with pistol. Clerk quickly comply but dude pops him three times in chest for NO REASON. On his way out the door there is an elderly woman pumping gas. He shoots at her for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. Clerk suffocates on his own blood and dies.

#2 "gangsta" walks into hippie style "head shop" with pistol. Loses nerve for robbery but before leaving store fires randomly at customers. His homies are outside waiting in car and he doesn't want to lose any of his "ghetto-cred" One dead 16 year old girl.

I made my mind up after these two events. If I ever see somebody approaching me with a weapon in ANY circumstance or in ANY enviorenment that douche has exactly 1/2 sec to put me down because I will snap into "condition RED" instantly.

small penis? sure whatever...
"internet TOUGH guy"?? go ahead with that one too...
I've quick drawn twice so far. NO SHOTS FIRED. NO INCIDENT RECORDED FOR MISLEADING STATISTIC. Been carrying legal since 97. I'm NOT Dirty Harry. I am alive and safe though.
 
2012-08-29 08:58:33 AM  

Cinaed: Loaded Six String: Cinaed: Loaded Six String: ...and being that there is no effective rehabilitation program in place

And whose fault would that be, I wonder?

The creators of our judicial system who based it on puritanical values of punishment rather than rehabilitation?

And we can't fix that? We can't correct that? We can't educate them? We can't attempt to give them options beyond 'steal shiat, beat up people, etc'?

Granted, it might require some money, some people, and a willingness to look at people on the fringes of society with something other than disdain.

I am a firm believer in the idea that how we treat the least among us showcases just how Just and Righteous we truly are. A shame we don't nearly meet the self-image.


Personally, I would love for us to fix that. The policy on drug use and addiction alone is shameful. I was merely pointing that out as the reason why crime in this country has a tendency to beget more crime.
 
2012-08-29 09:00:05 AM  

Cinaed: kim jong-un: If you threaten to kill...

So armed robbery is worthy of the death penalty then, yes?
Tell me more of what you believe people should be gunned down over.


When they point guns in your face, professor. You have to be trolling to not understand this concept.
 
2012-08-29 09:00:07 AM  

Cinaed: kim jong-un: If you threaten to kill...

So armed robbery is worthy of the death penalty then, yes?
Tell me more of what you believe people should be gunned down over.


Do you feel that you should be able to shoot someone who has a gun to your head?
 
2012-08-29 09:00:53 AM  

themeaningoflifeisnot: The question I raise is whether law enforcement would generally advise a CCW holder to open fire when outnumbered by armed opponents and innocent bystanders are at risk. I think not.


Every law enforcement officer I've worked with, trained with, or know personally have basically boiled it down to this: If you're in a situation where the choices are risk getting killed or defend yourself, you defend yourself where you have no other choice. If you see a burning building, you call the fire department and help those you can without putting yourself in grave danger. If you're *in* a burning building, you help whomever you can who are also in danger while trying to get yourself *out*.

That's the general line they've always drawn, and relating it back to the topic at hand, I think the best way to look at it is this:

If you're not in the store and you observe a robbery in progress, but are not in imminent harm yourself, you don't just barge into the store and start shooting.

If you're in a store and a guy pulls a gun and demands money from the clerk and store patrons, and an opportunity presents itself to end said situation, you end the situation, if you have a clear shot, the advantage of surprise, the guy isn't staring at you while you're fumbling your gun out, etc.

Interestingly, when asked about it, the multitude of officers also generally agree: if you're going to face an armed threat, do so with equal or overwhelming force. Attempting to disarm or otherwise stop an attacker who has a weapon already out and ready to go without completely disabling him is more risky than just shooting him and ending it if at all possible.

(And, if at all possible, know your target and what is beyond and don't take the shot if an innocent bystander is standing right behind the guy.)
 
2012-08-29 09:01:05 AM  

Pribar: JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]

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.


It's a stupid graphic but the graphic is only counting handguns.
 
2012-08-29 09:01:44 AM  

Whole Wheat: Loaded Six String: Su-Su-Sudo: Yeah, sorry, I didnt see the other link where it said they had guns. Who robs a dollar store, with guns?

Someone dumb, desperate, failed by society, or all three unfortunately.

For some reason, I think that if the starving waif, left behind by society as he was, had chosen to steal groceries from Kroger instead of getting all gangsta, people wouldn't have gotten all shooty. But let's blame society.


Society isn't to blame, his actions were his. The reasons driving him to this action however, can and should be determined to see if further crime can be reduced by addressing them. It is possible to study the reasons why someone does something without claiming they are an excuse for those actions.
 
2012-08-29 09:02:17 AM  

Cinaed: kim jong-un: If you threaten to kill...

So armed robbery is worthy of the death penalty then, yes?
Tell me more of what you believe people should be gunned down over.


Another one that doesn't know the difference between penalty and consequence.
 
2012-08-29 09:03:06 AM  

Whole Wheat: When they point guns in your face, professor. You have to be trolling to not understand this concept.


I'd rather understand 'why' they've got a gun to my face. For the ten bucks in my wallet? For my shoes? I don't mind losing a pair of twenty dollar sneakers if it means I don't have to kill a man.

Silly Jesus: Do you feel that you should be able to shoot someone who has a gun to your head?


Again, I'd rather know 'why'. And if the guy has a gun to my head, shooting him will probably result in him shooting me. Not sure how that benefits either party in that particular case.
 
2012-08-29 09:03:18 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who robs a Dollar General!?!?


People who annoy you.
 
2012-08-29 09:03:32 AM  

Silly Jesus: Cinaed: kim jong-un: If you threaten to kill...

So armed robbery is worthy of the death penalty then, yes?
Tell me more of what you believe people should be gunned down over.

Do you feel that you should be able to shoot someone who has a gun to your head?


He'd be too busy pissing his pants and sucking up to the guy to think about it.
 
2012-08-29 09:03:50 AM  

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.


You do know that armed robbery entails a threat of violence and the means to carry out such a threat?

If someone says to you, 'do what I say or I will kill you.'

In the acceptable behavior spectrum, that falls well beyond the level of 'ohyou'/nuisance and falls into the 'rapist/child abuser range.

If you are killed during an armed robbery, well bye.
 
2012-08-29 09:04:19 AM  

Fibro: Choice comments from the the news article:

"nice shot, thats one more ghetto gopher that wont be voting for obama this november!"

"A black male! What a shocker. One of the many reasons why I carry a gun everywhere I go."

"Great Shot Gramps.....One Less Pavement Ape To Clog Up The Courts With. Now Go Cap The Other Chimp."

"They were trying to rob a Dollar General Store? What a couple of idiots!" ((This guy asserts that they were a couple. How could he possibly know that?))

"There will be one less gorilla in the mist now! WTG pops!"

"They will pin the dead coon on the coon that got away"


This saddens me...
 
2012-08-29 09:04:37 AM  
RevMark: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who robs a Dollar General!?!?

People who annoy you.


Look, my mother in law can be an asshole at times, but I'm pretty sure she's never tried to rob a Dollar General.
 
2012-08-29 09:06:16 AM  
Would gramps still be so bold to kill a guy that was only robbing the 99 cents store?
 
2012-08-29 09:06:49 AM  

Cinaed: Whole Wheat: When they point guns in your face, professor. You have to be trolling to not understand this concept.

I'd rather understand 'why' they've got a gun to my face. For the ten bucks in my wallet? For my shoes? I don't mind losing a pair of twenty dollar sneakers if it means I don't have to kill a man.

Silly Jesus: Do you feel that you should be able to shoot someone who has a gun to your head?

Again, I'd rather know 'why'. And if the guy has a gun to my head, shooting him will probably result in him shooting me. Not sure how that benefits either party in that particular case.


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.
 
2012-08-29 09:07:01 AM  

Cinaed: Whole Wheat: When they point guns in your face, professor. You have to be trolling to not understand this concept.

I'd rather understand 'why' they've got a gun to my face. For the ten bucks in my wallet? For my shoes? I don't mind losing a pair of twenty dollar sneakers if it means I don't have to kill a man.

Silly Jesus: Do you feel that you should be able to shoot someone who has a gun to your head?

Again, I'd rather know 'why'. And if the guy has a gun to my head, shooting him will probably result in him shooting me. Not sure how that benefits either party in that particular case.


Which is why one cannot judge what happens in the situation until one is in the situation. If simply handing over the goods will solve the problem, then by all means take that route. However, that doesn't always pacify the person committing the crime, and you may end up having to defend yourself anyway.

Why do you assume that presentation of a threat automatically means people will go "ZOMG OPEN FIRE?" and not use common sense as to whether or not it's warranted, justified, and a preferable option to just handing over the TV or the sneakers?
 
2012-08-29 09:08:02 AM  

cassanovascotian: cassanovascotian: -the only major difference being gun control legislation....

sigh.. ok, income inequality and poverty rates are the other big relevent difference. Nevertheless the difference is pretty striking.


Striking yes, but not damning. The prevalence of firearms does not contribute to the prevalence of crime, just as the prevalence of men does not contribute to the prevalence of sexual assault. You're focusing on something which is not a factor in the occurence of an action, rather the method of the action.
 
2012-08-29 09:08:16 AM  
The 2012 Florida Statutes Justifiable Use Of Force


776.031Use of force in defense of others.-A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be

776.08Forcible felony.-"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
 
2012-08-29 09:09:01 AM  
Honest question for pro gun control Farkers. If the customer with the CCL had been an off duty cop, would you still have a problem with the outcome?

/not a troll
//I know it sounds trolly
 
2012-08-29 09:10:32 AM  

Loaded Six String: Whole Wheat: Loaded Six String: Su-Su-Sudo: Yeah, sorry, I didnt see the other link where it said they had guns. Who robs a dollar store, with guns?

Someone dumb, desperate, failed by society, or all three unfortunately.

For some reason, I think that if the starving waif, left behind by society as he was, had chosen to steal groceries from Kroger instead of getting all gangsta, people wouldn't have gotten all shooty. But let's blame society.

Society isn't to blame, his actions were his. The reasons driving him to this action however, can and should be determined to see if further crime can be reduced by addressing them. It is possible to study the reasons why someone does something without claiming they are an excuse for those actions.


Dammitsomuch. You just got greened. Don't get me wrong, I am pretty liberal in my thinking. I think that money is much better spent on education, prevention, and rehabilitation, than it is on incarceration and punishment. But at the moment someone is held at gunpoint, that really doesn't matter anymore.

And now for my herp-derp moment, I see that is what you were saying in the first place.
 
2012-08-29 09:10:40 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.


You need to add Mexico to that graph, since thy have some pretty strict gun control laws as well.
 
2012-08-29 09:12:00 AM  

Cinaed: kim jong-un: If you threaten to kill...

So armed robbery is worthy of the death penalty then, yes?
Tell me more of what you believe people should be gunned down over.


By pointing a firearm at someone in order to steal their property, you have taken their life in your hands as well as your own. As someone earlier said, you're confusing punishment with consequence. Is it an appropriate punishment? In the judicial system, no. As a consequence, yes, as a threat to one's life may rightly be ended with deadly force.
 
2012-08-29 09:12:00 AM  

themeaningoflifeisnot: 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.

Wow, a little anxious that someone might undermine your hero of the hour? Of course robbery is robbery, even without a gun. Where did I say it wasn't? But a guy shooting an unarmed suspect doesn't have quite the cachet as defending life and property from an armed criminal, does it?


Agreed. If armed, nice work taking them down. If not, I think it was a bit much. An unarmed robber should be stopped, of course, but not killed.
 
2012-08-29 09:12:43 AM  

puffy999: AngryDragon: The random killing sprees are usually in "gun free zones".

Yes, Jonestown was a gun free zone.


In a different country...
 
2012-08-29 09:12:59 AM  
I should add that, having witnessed violent taking of life, and having been close to having to take such actions myself, doing so is not a wonderful experience at all. For having come *close* to that happening (guy threatening with a gun because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time in a bad neighborhood I didn't know about until I got there), I was sick for days and horribly depressed. It's not wonderful to consider taking a life, it's a sickening, dreadful feeling.

And actually having to do so is its own special level of hell because you've got to deal with having killed someone and the guilt/fear/depression/trauma of having done so, plus the police, the questioning, the potential of legal action and consequences of having to pay for such legal defense, the repercussions it has on your life, your relationship with family and friends...it's not pleasant.

I try my damnedest to avoid the shiat at all costs simply because I know what it's like to deal with the consequences. I also remain willing and prepared to defend myself or others should it be required of me, damned the consequences, because life has taught me that there's never a cop around when you're thrown against a wall by three guys and stabbed repeatedly, shot at, mugged, robbed, or otherwise put in grave danger.
 
2012-08-29 09:13:00 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.

I know that this has been probably extensively covered, VIOLENTSALVATION, but let's be very clear about your message above. In it, you attempt to be the "pro-gun voice of reason", and more to the point, condemn others elsewhere for poor quality discussion.

However, your VERY FIRST point is based on a strawman. You state "... they are proving that a firearm is not needed to commit a violent felony, just as gun rights advocates have been saying all along." Your implication here is what --- that "gun rights opponents" have been stating that a firearm is needed to commit a violent felony? WHO says that? NOBODY. If you start the discussion with such rhetorical nonsense - and such absolutest rhetorical nonsense at that, can you see why people won't take you seriously?

Honestly, if you're going to play such rhetorical nonsense games from day 1, how can we expect to engage you in intelligent conversation about the effect of guns which intelligent people view as a STATISTICAL phenomenon? It's like the idiots who claim that strong gun laws in norway didn't stop Brevik... of course they didn't. But a little statistical analysis shows that there is a direct correlation between availability of largely unregulated guns and gun violence. Advocates like yourself like to lump all "violent crime" into one boat - citing, for example, the UK's knife crime statistics. However, the reality is that the knife crime provably leads to fewer deaths and less severe injuries.

honestly, you came to this thread defensive, edgy, and right of the bat shot from the hip with a bullshiat argument. i havent read what has transpired in the 250 posts after that, but i sure hope it's somebody with a clue giving you the what's what about dragging down the quality of debate while pretending to uphold it.
 
2012-08-29 09:13:24 AM  

Callous: Another one that doesn't know the difference between penalty and consequence.


Such as 5-10 in a prison? The life long stigma of being a felon?
You'll have to explain how shooting a man down is somehow more worthy a reaction.
 
2012-08-29 09:13:30 AM  
Thank god a human being was killed in the name of protecting material goods and money.
 
2012-08-29 09:13:34 AM  
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.
 
2012-08-29 09:13:37 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.



Your point is valid, however, the numbers you show only reinforce why a regular Joe might want to carry a firearm in the first place. If this many people are being murdered I want to be prepared. I do a lot of running and when I run in the rural areas where I know there are a lot of dogs that are not in fenced yards or on leashes I carry an asp in case I am attacked. I have had to use it twice or have my legs chewed on by an angry canine.

If there were a magic button somewhere that would make all guns magically disappear then I would be ok with not having one myself. However, as long as the thugs have them I sure as hell want one too. I carry a gun because a police officer is just too damn heavy.
 
2012-08-29 09:14:29 AM  

way south: Cinaed: Loaded Six String: Cinaed: Loaded Six String: ...and being that there is no effective rehabilitation program in place

And whose fault would that be, I wonder?

The creators of our judicial system who based it on puritanical values of punishment rather than rehabilitation?

And we can't fix that? We can't correct that? We can't educate them? We can't attempt to give them options beyond 'steal shiat, beat up people, etc'?

Granted, it might require some money, some people, and a willingness to look at people on the fringes of society with something other than disdain.

I am a firm believer in the idea that how we treat the least among us showcases just how Just and Righteous we truly are. A shame we don't nearly meet the self-image.

Ask your representatives for that change.
Right now we're choosing between mandatory abortions for everyone or turning the Smithsonian into a creationist museum.

It would be nice if there were actual choices on the ballot, but the herp-derp is just too strong these days.


The two party system needs a major overhauling for that to happen. Campaign contributions are tantamount to bribery, and lobbying has been perverted into roughly the same. The average citizen has little to no chance being elected to high government positions due to this croneyism. I hope to take part in changing that in the future.
 
2012-08-29 09:14:35 AM  

JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]


Interesting you mentioned Switzerland with their civilian defense force.

Youtube Video 

Swiss Vote to Keep Guns at Home 
Link
 
2012-08-29 09:14:55 AM  

Silly Jesus: themeaningoflifeisnot: Kit Fister: 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.

Adding to that, four swat officers, 8 patrol deputies, three FBI agents, and an ATF supervisor all agree that in this case, the guy was justified. That's the limit of the number of people I could call before getting into the office today and ask their opinions.

It's not a question as to whether the civilian was justified. Of course he was based on the facts reported. Thats an easy call that every cop would agree wit ...

You think wrong.


There isn't a judge or jury in FLA that would hold this civilian criminally liable for this shooting if the reported facts are true. And I doubt you are going to find many cops who would say that this was not a justified use of deadly force.

I am in favor of CCWs issued under strict controls. I am glad that this situation ended with no innocent people being killed or injured. I just don't think that the civilian shooter's decision to open fire in a situation where he was outnumbered by armed attackers and innocent bystanders were at risk lends itself very well to exploitation as proof that CCW holders will create a safer American society.
 
2012-08-29 09:15:12 AM  
Pribar:
cut your rambling knee jerk post down so I could reply without the wall of text that said the same thing I did but in many many more words Its the culture not the guns read before your knee goes all jerky next time Padre, ok?


It's the gun culture.

Also, to whoever posted it up there:

The NRA's argument is pro-"socialism?" If so, I might be willing to cross the aisle.

You guys can all have your guns so you can be the badass hero next time someone goes postal, and in return, you help me pay for health care (for if I get shot being the not-badass), mental health care (to prevent such things), welfare (for the poor & desperate who might turn to crime), low-end job benefits and pay (to make slaving in the shiattiest jobs preferable to welfare and crime), and real, legit rehabilitation programs and placement services for inmates (to give a real chance to end recidivism).

We'll all be happy, and gun crime will dwindle to crimes of passion and personal revenge.
 
2012-08-29 09:15:16 AM  

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


Can one more person post this nonsense, please?

I need one more to collect the whole set....
 
2012-08-29 09:15:38 AM  

JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]


Try googling KNIFE attacks in those countries...
 
2012-08-29 09:16:16 AM  

Kit Fister: Which is why one cannot judge...


And yet you seem to think that someone with the barest of instruction is better to judge the situation. Why is that?

This isn't a cop or sherrif doing the shooting, this isn't a law enforcement professional. Don't pretend that the average schmuck has a good handle on a situation like that.

This was not the case of someone defending their family against those with explicit intent to harm. It was the farking Dollar Store with two guys looking to take money.
 
2012-08-29 09:16:22 AM  

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

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


The man wasn't killed for theft. He was shot because he was in the middle of committing a violent crime. Last year a man walked in to the Game Stop three blocks from my office and ordered everyone to the floor. He robbed the till then shot everyone in the store. When someone uses a gun to commit a crime then you have to assume they are prepared to use it.
 
2012-08-29 09:16:48 AM  

Kit Fister: Cinaed: Whole Wheat: When they point guns in your face, professor. You have to be trolling to not understand this concept.

I'd rather understand 'why' they've got a gun to my face. For the ten bucks in my wallet? For my shoes? I don't mind losing a pair of twenty dollar sneakers if it means I don't have to kill a man.

Silly Jesus: Do you feel that you should be able to shoot someone who has a gun to your head?

Again, I'd rather know 'why'. And if the guy has a gun to my head, shooting him will probably result in him shooting me. Not sure how that benefits either party in that particular case.

Which is why one cannot judge what happens in the situation until one is in the situation. If simply handing over the goods will solve the problem, then by all means take that route. However, that doesn't always pacify the person committing the crime, and you may end up having to defend yourself anyway.

Why do you assume that presentation of a threat automatically means people will go "ZOMG OPEN FIRE?" and not use common sense as to whether or not it's warranted, justified, and a preferable option to just handing over the TV or the sneakers?


I remember when a Wendy's in was robbed at gunpoint after hours and five employees were taken to the freezer and executed one by one. Opening the register didn't work for these guys, why would you assume it would for you? I have a family an employer, and many people that rely on me daily. I have to assume that the robber means to harm me. That is the danger of his profession.
 
2012-08-29 09:17:21 AM  

fisker: You can kill people for robbing a store?


No, you can kill someone threatening you with a gun.
 
2012-08-29 09:17:46 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-29 09:18:05 AM  

jbabbler: No, you can kill someone threatening you, or others, with a gun.


Fixed.
 
2012-08-29 09:18:33 AM  

craigdamage: Loaded Six String I can't believe how many people are going to claim that the armed customer shot the armed robber in defense of the store's money. It actually boggles my mind.

Second.


INB4 the stupidity, and yet...

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


This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in a Fark thread.
 
2012-08-29 09:19:45 AM  

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

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


For what readily do you believe armed robbery to be acceptable behaviour?
 
2012-08-29 09:20:38 AM  

Whole Wheat: Loaded Six String: Whole Wheat: Loaded Six String: Su-Su-Sudo: Yeah, sorry, I didnt see the other link where it said they had guns. Who robs a dollar store, with guns?

Someone dumb, desperate, failed by society, or all three unfortunately.

For some reason, I think that if the starving waif, left behind by society as he was, had chosen to steal groceries from Kroger instead of getting all gangsta, people wouldn't have gotten all shooty. But let's blame society.

Society isn't to blame, his actions were his. The reasons driving him to this action however, can and should be determined to see if further crime can be reduced by addressing them. It is possible to study the reasons why someone does something without claiming they are an excuse for those actions.

Dammitsomuch. You just got greened. Don't get me wrong, I am pretty liberal in my thinking. I think that money is much better spent on education, prevention, and rehabilitation, than it is on incarceration and punishment. But at the moment someone is held at gunpoint, that really doesn't matter anymore.

And now for my herp-derp moment, I see that is what you were saying in the first place.


Thanks for the green :D
 
2012-08-29 09:21:10 AM  

cassanovascotian: USP .45: Begone buffoon, begone.

gosh, gun advocates are always raising the level of intellectual discourse ....

USP .45: so you're equating the prevalence of gangs and organized crime in the United States with that of Canada

per capita? yeah. why not?


Well that would show a complete lack of understanding of the situation and statistics so... oh I see.
 
2012-08-29 09:21:59 AM  

cassanovascotian: USP .45: Begone buffoon, begone.

gosh, gun advocates are always raising the level of intellectual discourse ....

USP .45: so you're equating the prevalence of gangs and organized crime in the United States with that of Canada

per capita? yeah. why not?


welcome to Fark.jpg

per capita Canada doesn't compare, and in total numbers Canada doesn't compare. you're embarrassing yourself.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-th re at-assessment
 
2012-08-29 09:22:24 AM  

Cinaed: Callous: Another one that doesn't know the difference between penalty and consequence.

Such as 5-10 in a prison? The life long stigma of being a felon?
You'll have to explain how shooting a man down is somehow more worthy a reaction.


No, you explain why it's a more worthy action to allow the innocent person to be murdered.
 
2012-08-29 09:22:44 AM  

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?
 
2012-08-29 09:22:56 AM  

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

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

The man wasn't killed for theft. He was shot because he was in the middle of committing a violent crime. Last year a man walked in to the Game Stop three blocks from my office and ordered everyone to the floor. He robbed the till then shot everyone in the store. When someone uses a gun to commit a crime then you have to assume they are prepared to use it.


Yeah, but they didn't know if he was going to commit a violent crime until he pulled the trigger. Up until that point, they did the right thing by complying with his demands.
 
2012-08-29 09:23:29 AM  

Cinaed: This was not the case of someone defending their family against those with explicit intent to harm. It was the farking Dollar Store with two guys looking to take money.armed perpetrators placing innocent individuals in imminent danger.


FTFY
 
2012-08-29 09:23:42 AM  

DingleberryMoose: This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in a Fark thread.


So it's okay to kill someone over property and money? Good to know.
 
2012-08-29 09:23:57 AM  

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


I doubt you're actually a christian. More likely you're trying to be clever. The commandment is 'Thou shalt not murder' in any case. The dead perp put people's lives at risk by pulling a weapon- that's what lead to him being room-temperature. The old man didn't shoot him for shoplifting.
 
2012-08-29 09:24:01 AM  

Loaded Six String: Whole Wheat: Loaded Six String: Whole Wheat: Loaded Six String: Su-Su-Sudo: Yeah, sorry, I didnt see the other link where it said they had guns. Who robs a dollar store, with guns?

Someone dumb, desperate, failed by society, or all three unfortunately.

For some reason, I think that if the starving waif, left behind by society as he was, had chosen to steal groceries from Kroger instead of getting all gangsta, people wouldn't have gotten all shooty. But let's blame society.

Society isn't to blame, his actions were his. The reasons driving him to this action however, can and should be determined to see if further crime can be reduced by addressing them. It is possible to study the reasons why someone does something without claiming they are an excuse for those actions.

Dammitsomuch. You just got greened. Don't get me wrong, I am pretty liberal in my thinking. I think that money is much better spent on education, prevention, and rehabilitation, than it is on incarceration and punishment. But at the moment someone is held at gunpoint, that really doesn't matter anymore.

And now for my herp-derp moment, I see that is what you were saying in the first place.

Thanks for the green :D


Aww, I didn't get a green :(
 
2012-08-29 09:24:10 AM  

jbabbler: Your point is valid, however, the numbers you show only reinforce why a regular Joe might want to carry a firearm in the first place. If this many people are being murdered I want to be prepared. I do a lot of running and when I run in the rural areas where I know there are a lot of dogs that are not in fenced yards or on leashes I carry an asp in case I am attacked. I have had to use it twice or have my legs chewed on by an angry canine.

If there were a magic button somewhere that would make all guns magically disappear then I would be ok with not having one myself. However, as long as the thugs have them I sure as hell want one too. I carry a gun because a police officer is just too damn heavy.


sigh.. and that's the vicious circle. On an individual level, what you said makes perfect sense -if everyone else is packing, then you need to carry too. I get that, and wouldn't criticize your personal decision to carry.

It is possible to get out of this loop though... it will take some time, but think of the rewards that would eventually come down the pipe a decade or two after banning handguns. 

I don't live in the States anymore, but if I did, I'd be willing to take the risk of being caught without heat and losing my wallet if I knew my kids could grow up in a place without those goddamn things around at all.
 
2012-08-29 09:24:31 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.


The gun laws are not that dis-similar between Canada and the US. But, I wonder what else it could be. Oh, I know. Drug laws.
 
2012-08-29 09:24:42 AM  
ITT: A lot of 'every life is precious' shiatheads who've never seen any of the few dozen security footage videos posted to LiveLeak and TheYNC of armed robbers killing employees/customers in cold blood over a few dollars or some trinkets.
 
2012-08-29 09:25:48 AM  

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?


Doesn't matter. guy has a gun and acts in a threatening manner, it's safe to assume he's going to use it, and if it's feasible to do so, you're right and justified in defending yourself. That's why the standard for self defense is *reasonable belief*.
 
2012-08-29 09:26:18 AM  

jbabbler: 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.

The cops aren't there to protect you. They show up after the crime has been committed and try and figure out what happened. In fact, the SCOTUS has plainly stated that the police have no obligation to protect anyone.


The SCOTUS cannot relieve me of that obligation, regardless of what they or you think.

As far as the original question it's a firm "depends". The vast number of armed robberies result with the suspects fleeing with little or no injuries to the victims. So basic math would lead you to believe to stay all fonzi and let them leave. You might never have the opportunity to safely draw and fire.

But let's say their backs are turned to you screaming that they are going to kill everyone in the store. You can effectively articulate that you were in fear for you life, had no ability to escape, and deadly force was the most reasonable action.
 
2012-08-29 09:27:05 AM  

cassanovascotian: jbabbler: Your point is valid, however, the numbers you show only reinforce why a regular Joe might want to carry a firearm in the first place. If this many people are being murdered I want to be prepared. I do a lot of running and when I run in the rural areas where I know there are a lot of dogs that are not in fenced yards or on leashes I carry an asp in case I am attacked. I have had to use it twice or have my legs chewed on by an angry canine.

If there were a magic button somewhere that would make all guns magically disappear then I would be ok with not having one myself. However, as long as the thugs have them I sure as hell want one too. I carry a gun because a police officer is just too damn heavy.

sigh.. and that's the vicious circle. On an individual level, what you said makes perfect sense -if everyone else is packing, then you need to carry too. I get that, and wouldn't criticize your personal decision to carry.

It is possible to get out of this loop though... it will take some time, but think of the rewards that would eventually come down the pipe a decade or two after banning handguns. 

I don't live in the States anymore, but if I did, I'd be willing to take the risk of being caught without heat and losing my wallet if I knew my kids could grow up in a place without those goddamn things around at all.


You do realize, of course, that handguns are legal (and legally possessed) in canada, right?
 
2012-08-29 09:27:12 AM  
themeaningoflifeisnot

Wow, a little anxious that someone might undermine your hero of the hour? Of course robbery is robbery, even without a gun. Where did I say it wasn't? But a guy shooting an unarmed suspect doesn't have quite the cachet as defending life and property from an armed criminal, does it?

Let's not pretend you hoplophobes don't dismiss cases where law abiding gun owners stop armed shooters. You aren't even sure these cowards weren't armed and you're trying your damnedest to smear this guy.
 
2012-08-29 09:27:39 AM  

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


You apparently didn't take into account the threat to the clerk's life by having a gun pointed at them, regardless of whether it was for the money or out of pure malice a threat is a threat.
 
2012-08-29 09:29:27 AM  

Cinaed: DingleberryMoose: This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in a Fark thread.

So it's okay to kill someone over property and money? Good to know.


In the state where I reside it's legal to do so, but that isn't the real issue. The issue here isn't property or money, it's the imminent threat of store personnel or bystanders being killed by the robbers. Are you deliberately missing the point or just really obtuse? I've been robbed at gunpoint twice, it isn't pleasant. In both instances, there was no way the robber could get more than $50 or so.
 
2012-08-29 09:29:38 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: jbabbler: 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.

The cops aren't there to protect you. They show up after the crime has been committed and try and figure out what happened. In fact, the SCOTUS has plainly stated that the police have no obligation to protect anyone.

The SCOTUS cannot relieve me of that obligation, regardless of what they or you think.

As far as the original question it's a firm "depends". The vast number of armed robberies result with the suspects fleeing with little or no injuries to the victims. So basic math would lead you to believe to stay all fonzi and let them leave. You might never have the opportunity to safely draw and fire.

But let's say their backs are turned to you screaming that they are going to kill everyone in the store. You can effectively articulate that you were in fear for you life, had no ability to escape, and deadly force was the most reasonable action.


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

I agree with the rest of your statement however.
 
2012-08-29 09:30:06 AM  

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?


They can't. That's the point. Am I being trolled? I am easily trollable. Maybe I just don't understand your point. What if the olds hadn't acted, and the robber killed everyone?
 
2012-08-29 09:31:22 AM  

Cinaed: DingleberryMoose: This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in a Fark thread.

So it's okay to kill someone over property and money? Good to know.


Well, yeah. In FLA you are justified in using deadly force in defense of a forcible robbery. Here, it was not only a forcible robbery, but also threatened application of deadly force against the store clerk (if the reported facts are true). As a legal matter, it appears that the civilian shooter was justified.

As an issue of morality? Well it can be debated til the end of time. Why don't you just state your religious or philosophical belief as to the shooter's actions and acknowledge the difference between your personal morality and the dictates of the law?
 
2012-08-29 09:31:41 AM  

Loaded Six String: 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.

You apparently didn't take into account the threat to the clerk's life by having a gun pointed at them, regardless of whether it was for the money or out of pure malice a threat is a threat.


he also failed to note that the "thou shalt not kill" rule is a mistranslation, and the actual rule here is "thou shalt not do murder", which is completely different...

/not christian, and even I know that.
//Ask anyone who is fluent in Hebrew to give you the translation from the original hebrew text.
 
2012-08-29 09:31:41 AM  
Even thought this is most often the result of this kind of thing. It is important that we twist the story to protect our freedom to be shot by criminals. You know, for safety.
 
2012-08-29 09:32:08 AM  

BostonEMT: fisker:

People are SO SMART walking around with hand guns because they are PLANNING AHEAD!



Like wearing a seatbelt? Buying car insurance? Getting an alarm system or smoke detector? Going to the doctor for a checkup? Vaccinations? etc...
 
2012-08-29 09:32:08 AM  

jbabbler: If there were a magic button somewhere that would make all guns magically disappear then I would be ok with not having one myself.


All the little old ladies who CCW (and there are quite a few) thank you. They'll be perfectly able to defend themselves against a 25 year old attacker while unarmed when all the guns magically go away.
 
2012-08-29 09:32:24 AM  

Kit Fister: Doesn't matter.


So... you can read minds to, yes? You can just 'tell' that he's going to shoot?
And if you're someone with traumatic experiences who might react in a non-rational, if not explicitly irrational fashion.... well gee, that might have some bad assumptions there.
 
2012-08-29 09:32:32 AM  

Whole Wheat: 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?

They can't. That's the point. Am I being trolled? I am easily trollable. Maybe I just don't understand your point. What if the olds hadn't acted, and the robber killed everyone?


yeah, he's either retarded or just trolling.
 
2012-08-29 09:32:38 AM  

david_gaithersburg: fisker: You can kill people for robbing a store?

.
.
Yes. It makes you think twice about your plans for this evening. Florida, where sanity and logic prevails, well, at least in the coastal areas, the coastal areas south of Tamp Bay.


Zee Germans?
 
2012-08-29 09:32:55 AM  

Kit Fister: Ask anyone who is fluent in Hebrew to give you the translation from the original hebrew text


NPR had a Jewish scholar (From Jewtopia) inform us that the 10 commandments were actually the 12(I think) suggestions.
 
2012-08-29 09:34:06 AM  

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

They can't. That's the point. Am I being trolled? I am easily trollable. Maybe I just don't understand your point. What if the olds hadn't acted, and the robber killed everyone?


My point is you're assuming a great deal about a potential criminal's intent and actions and are willing see people shot dead.
 
2012-08-29 09:34:07 AM  

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?


Why does someone who simply pets a skunk deserve a horrific wasting death?

At most they should simply be scolded for touching wild animals known to be vectors for rabies transmission.

Yet you have no problem sentencing these people, sometimes just children, to a death sentence just because they touched the wrong animal.

Also, why do you feel that rock climbers deserve to fall to their deaths?
 
2012-08-29 09:35:20 AM  

OnlyM3: themeaningoflifeisnot

Wow, a little anxious that someone might undermine your hero of the hour? Of course robbery is robbery, even without a gun. Where did I say it wasn't? But a guy shooting an unarmed suspect doesn't have quite the cachet as defending life and property from an armed criminal, does it?
Let's not pretend you hoplophobes don't dismiss cases where law abiding gun owners stop armed shooters. You aren't even sure these cowards weren't armed and you're trying your damnedest to smear this guy.


Read the thread, dipshiat, starting with the response of the TFer I was replying to wherein he acknowledged that he may have misinterpreted my query as to whether the robbers were armed because the original linked story did not contain that information.

Or are you too much of an asshole to be bothered with understanding the context of comments you leap to shiat on?
 
2012-08-29 09:35:56 AM  

Cinaed: Kit Fister: Doesn't matter.

So... you can read minds to, yes? You can just 'tell' that he's going to shoot?
And if you're someone with traumatic experiences who might react in a non-rational, if not explicitly irrational fashion.... well gee, that might have some bad assumptions there.


Again, doesn't matter. He's got a gun out, he's yelling about using it. Odds aren't that he's just being silly.

Reminds me of this quote:
"how did you know he intended to rape the woman?"
"Well, when you're naked, chasing a woman with a hardon and a butcher knife, it's unlikely he's just asking her for a cup of sugar..."

Anyway, done with you. I'm not going to bother hoping you'll contribute something worthwhile in another thread.
 
2012-08-29 09:36:41 AM  

cassanovascotian: jbabbler: Your point is valid, however, the numbers you show only reinforce why a regular Joe might want to carry a firearm in the first place. If this many people are being murdered I want to be prepared. I do a lot of running and when I run in the rural areas where I know there are a lot of dogs that are not in fenced yards or on leashes I carry an asp in case I am attacked. I have had to use it twice or have my legs chewed on by an angry canine.

If there were a magic button somewhere that would make all guns magically disappear then I would be ok with not having one myself. However, as long as the thugs have them I sure as hell want one too. I carry a gun because a police officer is just too damn heavy.

sigh.. and that's the vicious circle. On an individual level, what you said makes perfect sense -if everyone else is packing, then you need to carry too. I get that, and wouldn't criticize your personal decision to carry.

It is possible to get out of this loop though... it will take some time, but think of the rewards that would eventually come down the pipe a decade or two after banning handguns. 

I don't live in the States anymore, but if I did, I'd be willing to take the risk of being caught without heat and losing my wallet if I knew my kids could grow up in a place without those goddamn things around at all.


Removing all handguns everywhere would reduce gun crime to zero, but without addressing the root cause of the gun crime, it would then become violent crime perpetrated in another fashion. The amount of lives saved would be statistacally irrelevant. Crime needs to be addressed, not the methodology.
 
2012-08-29 09:36:58 AM  
So what I'm getting from this thread is basically thus, if someone comes up to me and sais "give me your money or im going to kick your ass", and I don't feel I'm strong enough physically to stop him without a weapon, then I have to just give him my money for being a pansy.

I was one of the people arguing against individuals using guns in a situation like the Aurora theater shooting. This is a completely different animal. The guy was not in a dark crowded smoke filled theater with no idea where his rounds might end up if he missed. This seems pretty legit to me. Most laws governing CCW say that you can only use the gun if you feel like you, or someone in your immediate vicinity's life is in danger, they say nothing about the other person being armed. If you don't think an unarmed person can kill you, let me introduce you to liveleak. I dont know about other states, but in Oklahoma you cant use the gun as a deterrent, brandishing is illegal even for a CCW holder.
 
2012-08-29 09:36:59 AM  

Cinaed: My point is you're assuming a great deal about a potential criminal's intent and actions and are willing see people shot dead.


That's a valid point. If I see someone (for example, a robber) threatening someone else (for example, a cashier) with a weapon, I assume the person with the weapon willing to use it. I don't mind a bit seeing the person with the weapon shot dead. YMMV.
 
2012-08-29 09:37:09 AM  

OnlyM3: you hoplophobes


seriously?... are you actually using that word that way? As if to imply that it is in any way analogous to homophobia or xenophobia etc?

It isn't.
Stop it.
 
2012-08-29 09:37:36 AM  

Cinaed: the average citizen will be able to make the distinction between robbery and robbery-with-intent-to-execute?


They can't, and they shouldn't have to.
I'll get some flack for saying this, but as the situation sits: When cops fail to get to the troublemakers before the militia does, bad things are likely to happen.

The death of a robber is a bad thing, but he instigated the situation by threatening harm to innocent people. He saw it fit to wager their lives against the contents of a cash register, someone else saw it fit to wager his life the same way.

Its unfortunate, but the robber threw his hat into Darwin's playground when he pretended to be an Apex predator.
Sometimes the cost of a hunt going wrong is death.
 
2012-08-29 09:37:37 AM  
quatchi: I'm pro gun, pro 2nd amendment and pro CC but I too would like to know what, if anything, these two robbers were armed with before qualifying this guy as any kind of hero.

No, you're not.

If you were, you'd be used to the fact that the msm does everything it can to leave out details. Details like the violent offenders were armed (as has been shown with other links to this story) and have a history of violent crime.
 
2012-08-29 09:37:54 AM  

tsferg: 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.

Well its gotta work out well once in a while. Law of averages! Sometimes you get the robber and are a hero and sometimes you get the innocent little kid bystander and, well, you tried. Its cool


Some Average:

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year and only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."


Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse

Sources:

Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991) byDr. Kleck, ( a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause.)

"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995)

Uniform Crime Reports, FBI, 2003
 
2012-08-29 09:39:03 AM  

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?


I would agree with you if the customer in the store saw the robbery and waited for it to end, then followed the bad guys home and executed them. This was not the case here. The armed citizen stopped an attack. It is no different then you fighting back if someone walked up and punched you in the face. You would not stand there and hope that the jury convicts him as he pummels your face. With your line of reasoning you would be guilty of assault and battery by defending yourself.
 
2012-08-29 09:39:13 AM  

tsferg

Well its gotta work out well once in a while. Law of averages! Sometimes you get the robber and are a hero and sometimes you get the innocent little kid bystander and, well, you tried. Its cool

You failed to provide examples to your made up "facts".
 
2012-08-29 09:40:44 AM  

kim jong-un: 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?

Why does someone who simply pets a skunk deserve a horrific wasting death?

At most they should simply be scolded for touching wild animals known to be vectors for rabies transmission.

Yet you have no problem sentencing these people, sometimes just children, to a death sentence just because they touched the wrong animal.

Also, why do you feel that rock climbers deserve to fall to their deaths?


Sorry, you lost me with the whole skunk thing
 
2012-08-29 09:41:05 AM  
It would seem that this election cycle has become a war of attrition.
 
2012-08-29 09:43:18 AM  

cassanovascotian: OnlyM3: you hoplophobes

seriously?... are you actually using that word that way? As if to imply that it is in any way analogous to homophobia or xenophobia etc?

It isn't.
Stop it.


Actually, it is.

No.
 
2012-08-29 09:43:51 AM  

kim jong-un: Why does someone who simply pets a skunk deserve a horrific wasting death?

At most they should simply be scolded for touching wild animals known to be vectors for rabies transmission.

Yet you have no problem sentencing these people, sometimes just children, to a death sentence just because they touched the wrong animal.

Also, why do you feel that rock climbers deserve to fall to their deaths?


Okay, let's look at false equivalency...
-A skunk is an animal. People should be educated not to wander up to pet wildlife like it was the family cat
-Petting wildlife is equivalent to murder?
-I wasn't aware that mountains and cliffs were packing heat. I have a new respect for rock-climbers.
 
2012-08-29 09:44:38 AM  

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

They can't. That's the point. Am I being trolled? I am easily trollable. Maybe I just don't understand your point. What if the olds hadn't acted, and the robber killed everyone?

My point is you're assuming a great deal about a potential criminal's intent and actions and are willing see people shot dead.


And you are assuming that another possible outcome, the death of someone not using violence and intimidation with the threat of death, is not actually a possible outcome. The defense of an innocent life is universally accepted as being preferable, even at the cost of the life of someone who is not innocent. And yes, the judicial system does consider everyone innocent until proven guilty, but the judicial system steps in after the outcome of a self defense situation, not while it is happening.
 
2012-08-29 09:45:50 AM  

Cinaed: Kit Fister: Doesn't matter.

So... you can read minds to, yes? You can just 'tell' that he's going to shoot?
And if you're someone with traumatic experiences who might react in a non-rational, if not explicitly irrational fashion.... well gee, that might have some bad assumptions there.


Someone approaches you and points a gun at you. They demand your wallet.

At this point you either believe they will shoot you, or not. If you don't believe they will shoot then you don't hand over your wallet. Lets assume you think they are serious and will shoot you if you don't comply.


So you now believe that this person has the means and will to kill you should you not submit to his demands.


Yet if for some reason you had the ability to stop him by shooting him, (let's say he wasn't paying attention.) You would instead TRUST this person, who you truly believe is willing and able to kill you, to consider your obligation fulfilled and go on his merry way?

You trust the person who threatened to kill you. I don't know what to say to that.
 
2012-08-29 09:45:52 AM  

jbabbler: kim jong-un: 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?

Why does someone who simply pets a skunk deserve a horrific wasting death?

At most they should simply be scolded for touching wild animals known to be vectors for rabies transmission.

Yet you have no problem sentencing these people, sometimes just children, to a death sentence just because they touched the wrong animal.

Also, why do you feel that rock climbers deserve to fall to their deaths?

Sorry, you lost me with the whole skunk thing


Skunks infected with rabies will often times not run away from humans as they would were they healthy, and kids who see skunks sometimes pet them and get bit, with the chance of contracting rabies which is a nasty, horrible way to die.
 
2012-08-29 09:46:48 AM  

kim jong-un: Cinaed: Kit Fister: Doesn't matter.

So... you can read minds to, yes? You can just 'tell' that he's going to shoot?
And if you're someone with traumatic experiences who might react in a non-rational, if not explicitly irrational fashion.... well gee, that might have some bad assumptions there.

Someone approaches you and points a gun at you. They demand your wallet.

At this point you either believe they will shoot you, or not. If you don't believe they will shoot then you don't hand over your wallet. Lets assume you think they are serious and will shoot you if you don't comply.


So you now believe that this person has the means and will to kill you should you not submit to his demands.


Yet if for some reason you had the ability to stop him by shooting him, (let's say he wasn't paying attention.) You would instead TRUST this person, who you truly believe is willing and able to kill you, to consider your obligation fulfilled and go on his merry way?

You trust the person who threatened to kill you. I don't know what to say to that.


Obvious troll is obvious. *shrug*
 
2012-08-29 09:47:56 AM  

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


That is correct. The OP stated that "that the police have no obligation to protect anyone" which is categorically incorrect. Let's say I am on-duty and happen to walk into the local Stop-n-Rob to this scenario. By his logic I can turn around and leave because I don't have an obligation to act when in fact I do.
 
2012-08-29 09:49:39 AM  
craigdamage

Great, So the dude saved a Dollar General. Too bad we never have armed citizens present at these random killing sprees. This is NO Dirty Harry "fantasy" as some limp-wrist types would assert. Just once I would like to hear about someone RETURNING FIRE. I wonder the outcome........

An intelligent man who has a question like yours researches it. You on the other hand are simply burying your head in the sand ignoring the multitude of examples.

In fact in several examples easily found (google is your friend) the mere presentation of a weapon halts the criminal activity with no need to "return fire". But keep ignoring the facts.
 
2012-08-29 09:50:50 AM  

cassanovascotian: OnlyM3: you hoplophobes

seriously?... are you actually using that word that way? As if to imply that it is in any way analogous to homophobia or xenophobia etc?

It isn't.
Stop it.


Actually, homophobia and xenophobia are currently associated with irrational hatred more than irrational fear. Hoplophobia when used in context to irrational fear of weapons is correct, homophobia and xenophobia being used to describe irrational hatred is a perversion of the meaning of those words. Someone with an irrational hatred of homosexuals isn't homophobic, they're a bigot.
 
2012-08-29 09:51:45 AM  

DingleberryMoose: jbabbler: If there were a magic button somewhere that would make all guns magically disappear then I would be ok with not having one myself.

All the little old ladies who CCW (and there are quite a few) thank you. They'll be perfectly able to defend themselves against a 25 year old attacker while unarmed when all the guns magically go away.


Point taken but I would like to point out that I stated " I would be ok with not having one myself." I cannot speak for the little old ladies. The truth is, without guns, people will use knives, mace, wasp spray, bats, tickle-me-Elmos, etc... to commit crimes.
 
2012-08-29 09:52:26 AM  

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

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


Right. The SCOTUS ruling simply means that the police don't have an obligation to follow around every person and act as bodyguards. They do have an obligation to intercede when they witness and are present for the act, as you state.

Anyway, yeah, we agree. :)
 
2012-08-29 09:52:59 AM  

Loaded Six String: And you are assuming that another possible outcome.


There are a great number of potential outcomes. Assuming the worst and acting with deadly force, without the appropriate training and experience.
 
2012-08-29 09:53:09 AM  

Father_Jack: BronyMedic: Father_Jack: damn someone got all butt hurty.

furhermore, no, i dont think its "the culture", at least not how i define the word. Thats such a general term as to be meaningless in this sense. Why are more americans killed with guns in the US than in Switzerland? "The Culture"? Thats, yknow, kinda derpy.

Considering guns are universally available as legal purchases in Switzerland, approaching the same level - if not exceeding - of ownership as the per person gun ownership of the United States - culture is definitely a factor.

But you're trying to say the exact same culture as the United States exists in Switzerland.

Where am i saying that? I don't mean to give the impression that im saying that at all.

Im trying to argue that I believe the difference in crime is due to the strength of swiss institutions and the society they've built which keeps people from become the sort of desperate people who seem to commit a good portion of the gun crime in the US. Admittedly, we could be arguing semantics; perhaps you'd define Swiss employment/healthcare/social service institutions as part of their "culture". I don't; to me culture is more intangible.


But your citizenry's willingness to pay for those programs without going epileptic at the mere suggestion of them is cultural... Or could be defined as such.

You are pointing to the programs/safety net as a reason your crime is lower. The US doesnt have those same things due to the cultural views.
 
2012-08-29 09:53:40 AM  

jbabbler: kim jong-un: 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?

Why does someone who simply pets a skunk deserve a horrific wasting death?

At most they should simply be scolded for touching wild animals known to be vectors for rabies transmission.

Yet you have no problem sentencing these people, sometimes just children, to a death sentence just because they touched the wrong animal.

Also, why do you feel that rock climbers deserve to fall to their deaths?

Sorry, you lost me with the whole skunk thing


A high percentage of skunks carry rabies. The consequence of petting a wild skunk could be contracting rabies. Its not a punishment.


The consequence of armed robbery is risking the victims resisting. Not a penalty.

The person who contracted rabies didn't receive it as a punishment. Just like dying in an armed robbery isn't a punishment
 
2012-08-29 09:53:51 AM  

kim jong-un: Someone approaches you...


That's quite a novella there. Are there any other particulars you'd like to throw in for good measure?
Pretend narratives are fun.
 
2012-08-29 09:56:04 AM  

BostonEMT: NBC link with more info on the story:
Armed robbery is Armed robbery

per the article, The perps WERE armed. At that point, i don't care if you're armed with a box cutter or a sharp pencil. If you use it to threaten to kill/hurt/maim someone in order to rob them, then you deserve to be shot.

/yes, that includes milk crates.


Basically youre saying that the person, the man who was killed, was worth less than the money in the cash register. No one automatically deserves to die for pulling a gun. Society says so, as we do not award the death penalty for armed assault.

Two other thoughts: its clearly not about the money. Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken stole billions. More recently the financial sector stole trillions by first selling toxic mortgages, then bundling and reselling them as low risk (AAA) assets. How many of those people were shot for their larceny?

When one has a hammer, all the world appears as a nail. Why should the only options in 2012 be either get robbed or shoot to kill a fellow human being?
 
2012-08-29 09:57:39 AM  

jbabbler: DingleberryMoose: jbabbler: If there were a magic button somewhere that would make all guns magically disappear then I would be ok with not having one myself.

All the little old ladies who CCW (and there are quite a few) thank you. They'll be perfectly able to defend themselves against a 25 year old attacker while unarmed when all the guns magically go away.

Point taken but I would like to point out that I stated " I would be ok with not having one myself." I cannot speak for the little old ladies. The truth is, without guns, people will use knives, mace, wasp spray, bats, tickle-me-Elmos, etc... to commit crimes.


That's the way people are, unfortunately. We've been killing each other since before we had anything more complicated than the leg bone of a large animal for a weapon.
 
2012-08-29 09:57:59 AM  

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

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


Unless you would be found culpable in the results of the robbery, be it the death of the clerk or not, would determine whether you have a legal obligation to do so. The Supreme Court has already determined that you do not, so any attempt to prosecute you for that outcome would be tough to stick. You have no legal obligation to protect a citizen anymore, but your personal choice to retain that obligation is commendable. Thank you for that.
 
2012-08-29 09:58:41 AM  

Kit Fister: Whole Wheat: 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?

They can't. That's the point. Am I being trolled? I am easily trollable. Maybe I just don't understand your point. What if the olds hadn't acted, and the robber killed everyone?

yeah, he's either retarded or just trolling.


And now you show up green ;)
 
2012-08-29 10:00:00 AM  

bonobo73: BostonEMT: NBC link with more info on the story:
Armed robbery is Armed robbery

per the article, The perps WERE armed. At that point, i don't care if you're armed with a box cutter or a sharp pencil. If you use it to threaten to kill/hurt/maim someone in order to rob them, then you deserve to be shot.

/yes, that includes milk crates.

Basically youre saying that the person, the man who was killed, was worth less than the money in the cash register. No one automatically deserves to die for pulling a gun. Society says so, as we do not award the death penalty for armed assault.

Two other thoughts: its clearly not about the money. Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken stole billions. More recently the financial sector stole trillions by first selling toxic mortgages, then bundling and reselling them as low risk (AAA) assets. How many of those people were shot for their larceny?

When one has a hammer, all the world appears as a nail. Why should the only options in 2012 be either get robbed or shoot to kill a fellow human being?


Because alternatives to getting robbed or shoot to kill are generally off the table when one is faced with an armed perpetrator who is doing the threatening. Try to escape? Call the cops? Do you honestly think that the perp is rational and calm enough to realize that this is not an escalation of the situation?

Perps don't want to be caught. They want the money, and to get away with it. Even if you're cooperative and complacent, you're at the mercy of the mental stability and calm of the person doing the robbing, and the chance that an outside stimulus will set the guy off.
 
2012-08-29 10:00:20 AM  

bonobo73: Basically youre saying that the person, the man who was killed, was worth less than the money in the cash register.


Nope, he's saying a consequence of threatening someone with a weapon is the possibility encountering a fatal amount of armed resistance.
 
2012-08-29 10:00:27 AM  

themeaningoflifeisnot: 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.

Wow, a little anxious that someone might undermine your hero of the hour? Of course robbery is robbery, even without a gun. Where did I say it wasn't? But a guy shooting an unarmed suspect doesn't have quite the cachet as defending life and property from an armed criminal, does it?


Does this one make you happy?

stlbluez: quatchi: I'm pro gun, pro 2nd amendment and pro CC but I too would like to know what, if anything, these two robbers were armed with before qualifying this guy as any kind of hero.

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


An index finger stuck in a coat pocket is more than sufficient. Don't wanna get shot, don't go around robbing.
 
2012-08-29 10:00:42 AM  

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


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

I hope that someday, you poor, downtrodden gunowners can overcome the discrimination that you face.
 
2012-08-29 10:01:06 AM  

Cinaed: kim jong-un: Someone approaches you...

That's quite a novella there. Are there any other particulars you'd like to throw in for good measure?
Pretend narratives are fun.


So you agree.
 
2012-08-29 10:01:22 AM  

Whole Wheat: Kit Fister: Whole Wheat: 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?

They can't. That's the point. Am I being trolled? I am easily trollable. Maybe I just don't understand your point. What if the olds hadn't acted, and the robber killed everyone?

yeah, he's either retarded or just trolling.

And now you show up green ;)


Woohoo!
 
2012-08-29 10:01:45 AM  

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


I'm all for the death penalty and punishing those that do wrong, but the way you look at it is part of the problem. the real end to recidivism is better rehabilitation programs, not prisons.
 
2012-08-29 10:02:37 AM  

AngryDragon: Accolade: How is this not homicide?

Let me help you with that


It is homicide. Apparently, justifiable homicide.
 
2012-08-29 10:04:24 AM  

Cinaed: Loaded Six String: And you are assuming that another possible outcome.

There are a great number of potential outcomes. Assuming the worst and acting with deadly force, without the appropriate training and experience.


I appreciate your advocacy for state mandated and funded tactical training for all concealed carry licensees, but as of yet that system is not in place, so we have to rely on crime statistics to determine how many civilian uses of firearms in the prevention or cessation of violent crime are deemed legally justified or not as well as how many shots hit unintended targets. The overwhelming majority of them are shown to be justified while hitting fewer unintended targets than police firearm uses, but I appreciate your willingness to increase that number further.
 
2012-08-29 10:04:34 AM  

Kit Fister: Even if you're cooperative and complacent, you're at the mercy of the mental stability and calm of the person doing the robbing, and the chance that an outside stimulus will set the guy off.


So kill a man instead. Because of wonderful anecdotes.
 
2012-08-29 10:04:35 AM  

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


What about prorecting someone else's life?

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?
 
2012-08-29 10:06:28 AM  

Cinaed: Kit Fister: Even if you're cooperative and complacent, you're at the mercy of the mental stability and calm of the person doing the robbing, and the chance that an outside stimulus will set the guy off.

So kill a man instead. Because of wonderful anecdotes.


Or, you know, being witness to actual situations where this has happened, and also personal experience with people that commit these kinds of crimes. But, you know. Whatever.

Dammit, i responded to the troll again.
 
2012-08-29 10:07:05 AM  

bonobo73:
Basically youre saying that the person, the man who was killed, was worth less than the money in the cash register. No one automatically deserves to die for pulling a gun. Society says so, as we do not award the death penalty for armed assault.

Two other thoughts: its clearly not about the money. Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken stole billions. More recently the financial sector stole trillions by first selling toxic mortgages, then bundling and reselling them as low risk (AAA) assets. How many of those people were shot for their larceny?

When one has a hammer, all the world appears as a nail. Why should the only options in 2012 be either get robbed or shoot to kill a fellow human being?


The problem with this argument is that you assume that robbery is a civilized transaction. When Madoff stole hundreds of millions of dollars from people there was no immediate threat of death or bodily harm. Armed robbery is violent. It is the very essence of violence. If someone threatens you with a gun then you can legally and morally assume that they intend to use it. If you are comfortable with risking death by complying and hoping that the armed felon is an honest man that will keep his word then, by all means, proceed accordingly. However, if someone pulls a gun on me or my family I will kill them. As a man, husband and father I am morally bound to protect those placed under my care from acts of violence committed against them.
 
2012-08-29 10:07:15 AM  

cassanovascotian: I don't live in the States anymore, but if I did, I'd be willing to take the risk of being caught without heat and losing my wallet if I knew my kids could grow up in a place without those goddamn things around at all.


Given your demonstrated complete ignorance of firearms, I recommend that you never touch one in your life.
 
2012-08-29 10:07:28 AM  
Well! The blind hog finally found an acorn.
 
2012-08-29 10:07:31 AM  

puffy999: Most robbers, even those who present weapons, don't use them, even when denied the goods for which they asked.


Most revolver chambers in a game of Russian Roulette, even those under the hammer, don't contain rounds, even when the trigger is pulled.
 
2012-08-29 10:07:40 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-29 10:07:45 AM  

JustGetItRight: themeaningoflifeisnot: 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.

Wow, a little anxious that someone might undermine your hero of the hour? Of course robbery is robbery, even without a gun. Where did I say it wasn't? But a guy shooting an unarmed suspect doesn't have quite the cachet as defending life and property from an armed criminal, does it?

Does this one make you happy?

stlbluez: quatchi: I'm pro gun, pro 2nd amendment and pro CC but I too would like to know what, if anything, these two robbers were armed with before qualifying this guy as any kind of hero.

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

An index finger stuck in a coat pocket is more than sufficient. Don't wanna get shot, don't go around robbing.


Read all of my posts and then ask yourself if there's any need to waste time asking a question which I've answered clearly already.

I just love people who come in at the end of a long thread and start into comments from right at the beginning of the thread, as if nothing happened in the many hours since then.
 
2012-08-29 10:09:31 AM  

craigdamage: fisker You can kill people for robbing a store?

A smart person would ask:

"If I try to rob a store with a weapon,can I get my ass killed?"

....this is THE question every single criminal is NOW asking in the neighborhood of that Dollar General.


Thanks JRoo for that utterly tired,overused and misleading piece of "statistical" BS
The USA has the largest population of those nations listed and over 60% of the "gun-killings" are suicide.

....also,after having seen the FREAKONOMICS documentary,I seriously question the number of "reported killings" in Japan.


...or said potential criminal may be asking themselves, "do I have to shoot everyone in the store because they may be a potential threat?".
It'll be interesting to see how this incident impacts the rate of armed robberies is in this area, as well as the rate of armed robberies ending in shootings of proprietors and bystanders.
 
2012-08-29 10:09:45 AM  

Cinaed: kim jong-un: Someone approaches you...

That's quite a novella there. Are there any other particulars you'd like to throw in for good measure?
Pretend narratives are fun.


Here is the article I referenced earlier: Wendy's freezer massacre (not a pretend narrative) If only the employees had gotten to the root of the robbers issues and discussed their problems......
 
2012-08-29 10:09:59 AM  

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."
 
2012-08-29 10:10:44 AM  

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


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

I feel you're approaching this with a kill-or-be-killed mentality, and that just ends up with one, or more, bodies on the floor.
 
2012-08-29 10:12:11 AM  

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

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

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



Make sure you mention to your future wife that, if attacked, you will not help her nor support the actions of any armed citizens that step in to assist. Maybe you could show her your clever quips on Fark.
 
2012-08-29 10:13:26 AM  

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Our state code on the responsibility of the police:

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

So, I do have the obligation to protect.

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

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

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


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

Whole Wheat: Here is the article I referenced earlier


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Cinaed: kim jong-un: So you agree.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Our state code on the responsibility of the police:

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

So, I do have the obligation to protect.

/and thank you for the thank you


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

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

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

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


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

Cinaed: kim jong-un: So you agree.

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


Are you really that BLAZINGLY stupid?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

I'll wait while you compose your answer.

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

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

Comedy doesn't work that way


(yeah yeah, Welcome to Fark).


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

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

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

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

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

Our state code on the responsibility of the police:

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

So, I do have the obligation to protect.

/and thank you for the thank you


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

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

Whole Wheat: No, I really don't.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Don't get me started....


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

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

Loaded Six String: because of their choice


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Those statistics are good enough for me.


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

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


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

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

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

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


Snerk

Yes I am on a cell. So what?

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

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

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

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


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

cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String: because of their choice

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

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

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

See, that's the difference right there.


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

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

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

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

Snerk

Yes I am on a cell. So what?

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

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

/preemptive deflection deflection.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


cajunns

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


Mija

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I agree sir dgby's last sentence.

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

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

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

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

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


Don't go injecting common sense in a gun thread now!
 
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