Criminals will get their hands on guns regardless of government laws, the US is a big country where many areas are still farmlands with 1-2 sheriffs only with miles to cover, the people living in those areas would have noway to defend themselves unless you think pitch forks and tractors can repel bullets. I'm originally from a country that also banned guns for civilian use, and I still heard gun shots at night growing up since I lived in one of the major cities. Just because something is less accessible, it doesn't mean crooks won't get their hands on them, because they ALWAYS DO, no matter where you are in the world.

http://abc13.com/news/veteran-kills-robbery-suspect-at-game-stop/84088/


and it seems alot of people here forget what can happen during an armed robbery. not really sure where to find the statistic, but i am willing to bet there are thousands of people in US prisons, serving time for KILLING SOMEONE WHILE COMMITING AN ARMED ROBBERY. its like people here think the robbers gun is just a scare tactic. its a loaded weapon that can kill just as easily as the defenders weapon.

I should also point out, that the "good citizen" in this case is also a marine veteran.

lets bring in another article shall we

http://www.click2houston.com/news/3-schools-on-lockdown-as-police-search-for-robbery-suspects/26230464

"At that point, the robber raised his pistol and aimed it at the 28-year-old male," Gilliland said. "Fearing for his life, he exchanged gunfire with the robber. After several rounds were fired the robber attempted to leave in the vehicle. He was struck and killed as he was sitting inside the vehicle."

the term "exchanged" is used. this means that our hero wasn't the only one shooting. If you bring a gun to a robbery, and point that gun at someone, you should expect to get shot. especially if you fire shots as well.

Actually yes, the person who died deserved to lose his life.  When a person who is going to commit a crime has in their posession something that can be lethal like a gun or knife, then they are setting themselves up for such an outcome.  People should be putting the blame first and formost on the person doing the crime.  By using lethal force to do the crime basically they are setting into motion where all responses will be met with equal force.  The firing or using of lethal force means that the direction for all other actions will be lethal.

People are quick to look for blame but always seem to put it in the wrong place.  The blame first and formost will always be the person doing the crime.  Using lethal force to do the crime results in such crimes having the outcome of being lethal.  Could the Hero responded different, of course but just like any reaction we do not think it through in the moment of crisis.

Hell, if the Hero would have died instead of the thief, I would also say that the Hero is responsible and deserve what he got.  The Hero used lethal force thus the outcome was pushed in the direction deadly force would happen and someone could be killed.  The Hero started everything along those lines by pulling out his gun.  The real problem is the right to bear arms concealed.  I have always had a problem with this law because when you allow average people to have something lethal like a gun on their person, then most situations will usually go down that route.  

Do you know what the "armed" in "armed robbery" means? I swear, you guys' analogies are piss poor. "Oh...guess if I see someone get punched, I should whip out my gun." "Oh, if I see someone jaywalk, I should whip out my gun".

Do you guys not understand that ARMED ROBBERY is USING A WEAPON to COMMIT A CRIME?! Pointing a gun in someone's face and screaming "give me everything you've got or I'll shoot" is very different from hitting someone or parking illegaly. Lives are in serious danger in the former, not the latter

I don't see how anyone could defend the armed robber. If you shoot a gun out in public, let alone aim it at someone, you are putting innocent people at risk. Just one stray bullet could end someone's life, someone you may know, someone who may have a bright future, someone who could have cured cancer, someone who could have made a difference in the world. A person does not need to die before action can be taken. Action needs to be taken as soon as the risk becomes too great.

If you pull out a weapon and endanger others you are accepting the risk of death yourself. I'm not saying you can't feel sad for the guy. I am saying that what was done was completely warranted.

and if it was a gun free zone, nothing would have been done.

oh no. That is unacceptable. Someone using lethal force should be met with non-lethal force 100% of the time. Even if you're being shot at, you should grab some mace or something. That'll totally prevent the robber from pulling the trigger again. If the only way to subdue him so he doesn't fire anymore was to either incapacitate him or tackle him, you tackle that armed man so he doesn't get hurt. Don't fire any guns, use any knives, any bats, any weapon period. He may die from an injury from those, and even though he just tried to kill you, that doesn't matter. You put yourself in an even more dangerous position and tackle him to make sure he doesn't fire again

I will say that because of concealed gun rights, even mild brawls can end up lethal because on person has a gun.  Giving common people the ability to carry and use a gun prompt a lot of situations like Zimmerman where the person can proclaim they are being harmed, pull out a gun and kill someone.  Noticed I am only talking about concealed.  Carrying a gun or owning a gun I have no problems but people having them concealed means that situations that would normally not happen because the other person knows you are armed never happens.

I'm glad I live in Canada since I take my kids to the game store.

Also glad when I was robbed by kids with a gun in Amsterdam, nobody decided to interfere and escalate the situation. No reason to risk bullets flying around over a damn wallet, plus they were well known by the police anyway. They picked em up at home later.

do you believe that every war in history is immoral?