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 93
    More: Hero, concealed firearm, bystanders, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, dollar stores, North Side, robbery  
•       •       •

20050 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2012 at 5:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-29 03:36:37 AM
7 votes:

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 12:52:22 AM
7 votes:

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


Fifty Cent?
2012-08-29 06:22:17 AM
4 votes:
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 06:06:08 AM
4 votes:
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 06:02:44 AM
4 votes:
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 05:58:07 AM
4 votes:

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 04:26:27 AM
4 votes:
img.photobucket.com
2012-08-29 02:18:56 AM
4 votes:
If he'd been at the Empire State Building, 9 people wouldn't have been shot by cops.
2012-08-29 08:33:03 AM
3 votes:
www.blackshards.com
2012-08-29 06:33:12 AM
3 votes:
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 06:23:22 AM
3 votes:

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 06:17:46 AM
3 votes:

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 06:17:20 AM
3 votes:
It could have easily gone the other way. just sayin
2012-08-29 12:48:46 AM
3 votes:
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 07:53:45 AM
2 votes:
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 07:06:29 AM
2 votes:

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 06:37:53 AM
2 votes:
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 06:19:41 AM
2 votes:
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 06:15:54 AM
2 votes:

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 06:10:40 AM
2 votes:
This totally means people with mental illnesses should have unlimited access to machine guns.
2012-08-29 05:56:09 AM
2 votes:
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 03:52:07 AM
2 votes:

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 03:32:25 AM
2 votes:

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 02:58:20 AM
2 votes:
Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.
2012-08-30 08:46:22 AM
1 votes:

Wrathskellar: You're apparently one of those who consider heroin as easy to access as a pack of smokes if it fits your religious beliefs.


Nope, I'm a social worker who eventually left the job because it started to follow me home. I've seen people who live in hovels and only eat what they can get with food stamps find a way to afford a very expensive meth habit. I had someone come into the office on December 23 one year and ask for presents for his kids for Christmas. He had a wrapper on his forearm of a new tattoo. Because it was my job to make his children's lives better and not just their Christmas, I told him to show them the tat and explain to them how Dad thought it was more important to get a new tat than get them something for Christmas. (I also knew the kids had presents waiting from other people, the kids weren't staying with Dad.) People will get what they want/value (like a new tat or drugs or a gun or new rims) and sacrifice what they don't (like presents for their kids, food, making the house payment). Simply put, society needs to stop holding inanimate objects responsible for peoples' actions and hold those people accountable.

/it may be possible to make the argument it's harder to get smokes than to get horse in some jurisdictions
//not true in our area
///it is easier for underage kids to get weed than to get cigs, though
2012-08-29 06:46:12 PM
1 votes:

Wrathskellar: Dimensio: Why engage in unnecessarily and unreasonable restriction of liberty?

Because you and I apparently disagree on what we consider unnecessary and unreasonable.


You had previously noted that a right to swing one's fist ends at another's nose. Would you then consider mandatory amputation of hands as a "reasonable" and "necessary" measure to prevent fist-nose contact? Such a preemptive measure is directly analogous to the measure that you propose.
2012-08-29 03:29:59 PM
1 votes:
A man got executed for robbing a store?
2012-08-29 01:05:13 PM
1 votes:
I hate how these threads are like 500 posts long by the time I notice them. So wth I'm just leaping right in without reading any of it. Totally not trolling ...

Repeal the 2nd amendment. It's obsolete. There were two reasons for it originally, and both of them are based on the assumption of having no standing army. First so citizens can form militias and provide for the common defense. There was no standing army at the time, so outside a declaration of war, the citizens were it. Second, to preserve the people's ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. That was perfectly reasonable in 1791 when the gap between a professional army and an armed citizenry was small. It's no longer a small gap, and it's no longer reasonable. Unless you advocate legalization of military hardware, access to small arms does nothing anymore to protect your right to resist tyranny.

Outlaw private ownership of semi-automatic weapons. Outlaw concealed carry. Eliminating high capacity and fast firing and easily concealed weapons immediately reduces the fatal potential of a given attack. Innocent lives are saved. More guns only cost more innocent lives, and restricts the freedoms of those around you.

The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for personal protection. More importantly, events like the one in TFA are exceedingly rare, and are vastly surpassed by murders committed by legal firearm owners.
2012-08-29 12:30:09 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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



That chart is so full of EPIC FAIL that it's hard to believe. According to this chart 19,161 people out of 100,000 people are killed annually

Are you REALLY claiming that 19.161% of the us population is killed every year?!?!?

I can only assume you do not know how to read charts OR qualify your data sources even a little bit.
2012-08-29 11:52:38 AM
1 votes:
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 11:13:46 AM
1 votes:

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 10:21:04 AM
1 votes:

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 09:39:03 AM
1 votes:

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 09:37:37 AM
1 votes:
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 09:36:41 AM
1 votes:

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 09:34:07 AM
1 votes:

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 09:27:12 AM
1 votes:
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 09:03:18 AM
1 votes:

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


People who annoy you.
2012-08-29 08:51:20 AM
1 votes:

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 08:36:38 AM
1 votes:

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 08:34:20 AM
1 votes:

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 08:34:14 AM
1 votes:

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 08:30:18 AM
1 votes:
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 08:28:44 AM
1 votes:

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 08:26:53 AM
1 votes:

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 08:19:05 AM
1 votes:

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 07:52:02 AM
1 votes:

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 07:42:52 AM
1 votes:

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 07:42:33 AM
1 votes:

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 07:41:08 AM
1 votes:
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 07:38:59 AM
1 votes:

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 07:37:43 AM
1 votes:
Lot of guys with really small genitalia in this thread.

Which one of you underendowed losers is really George ZImmerman?
2012-08-29 07:35:33 AM
1 votes:

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 07:31:57 AM
1 votes:

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 07:31:16 AM
1 votes:

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 07:30:12 AM
1 votes:
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 07:30:08 AM
1 votes:

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 07:27:20 AM
1 votes:
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 07:26:54 AM
1 votes:

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 07:17:38 AM
1 votes:

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 07:16:27 AM
1 votes:

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 07:11:43 AM
1 votes:
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 07:09:31 AM
1 votes:

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 07:09:07 AM
1 votes:

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 07:02:14 AM
1 votes:
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 06:59:36 AM
1 votes:

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 06:56:55 AM
1 votes:

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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_United_States
2012-08-29 06:52:44 AM
1 votes:

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 06:51:34 AM
1 votes:
JRoo: [i21.photobucket.com image 300x300]

West Germany?

1990 called. They want their Political Demarcations back.
2012-08-29 06:51:05 AM
1 votes:

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 06:49:27 AM
1 votes:
i21.photobucket.com
2012-08-29 06:47:52 AM
1 votes:
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 06:46:50 AM
1 votes:

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 06:37:03 AM
1 votes:

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 06:33:11 AM
1 votes:

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 06:27:31 AM
1 votes:

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 06:27:30 AM
1 votes:
How is this not homicide?
2012-08-29 06:27:29 AM
1 votes:

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 06:26:52 AM
1 votes:

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 06:26:30 AM
1 votes:

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 06:08:22 AM
1 votes:

Drasancas: Counterpoint: Trayvon Martin

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


1/10
2012-08-29 06:07:51 AM
1 votes:
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 06:07:49 AM
1 votes:
Counterpoint: Trayvon Martin

.. as long as we're picking particular instances.
2012-08-29 05:57:53 AM
1 votes:
You wait long enough, anything comes true.
2012-08-29 05:55:05 AM
1 votes:
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 05:55:00 AM
1 votes:

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 05:53:33 AM
1 votes:

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 05:10:50 AM
1 votes:

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 04:00:08 AM
1 votes:

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 03:43:45 AM
1 votes:

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 02:04:20 AM
1 votes:
This automatically means Charleton Heston is president and we're moving to the gold standard.
2012-08-29 01:56:24 AM
1 votes:

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 12:51:16 AM
1 votes:
Who robs a Dollar General!?!?
 
Displayed 93 of 93 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report