By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - BREAKING NEWS: “Game Over” For Game Stop Gunmen

BMaker11 on 30 May 2014
Machiavellian said:
BMaker11 said:
huiii said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Its pretty sad to see people defending thives and armed robbers. Is this really what america has become?


So you say if i see someone hitt someone i should just whipe out my gun (if i had one) and shoot them dead, cause if i didn't i'd be deffending battery?

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 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.

Liability is a cost for freedom. You're right, you can conceal carry and then escalate a situation. But at the same time, there's people like this

where concealed carry helped. Had he not had that, the robbery would have continued and people could have been killed. If he open carried, the robber would have went after him first.



Around the Network
BMaker11 on 30 May 2014
BasiltheBatLord said:

My morals are absolute, if somebody decides to make an attempt on my life I will defend myself by non-lethal means, I will NOT however, EVER, take a life. If I did so I would be no better than the person attempting to take my own.

 

do you believe that every war in history is immoral?

"Look out! Sniper!"

"Quick, fire back with pillows!"



DD_Bwest on 30 May 2014
BMaker11 said:
DD_Bwest said:
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.

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


As silly as that sounds. Some people here seem to thinkso lol



I am Torgo, I take care of the place while the master is away.

"Hes the clown that makes the dark side fun.. Torgo!"

Ha.. i won my bet, but i wasnt around to gloat because im on a better forum!  See ya guys on Viz

Machiavellian on 30 May 2014
BMaker11 said:
Machiavellian said:
BMaker11 said:
huiii said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Its pretty sad to see people defending thives and armed robbers. Is this really what america has become?


So you say if i see someone hitt someone i should just whipe out my gun (if i had one) and shoot them dead, cause if i didn't i'd be deffending battery?

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 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.

Liability is a cost for freedom. You're right, you can conceal carry and then escalate a situation. But at the same time, there's people like this

here concealed carry helped. Had he not had that, the robbery would have continued and people could have been killed. If he open carried, the robber would have went after him first.

 

Actually i see that situation different.  The person robbing the store is looking for his money then go.  The situation turned deadly when the concealed carry guy decided to become the Hero.  Because of such carry concealed laws, a thief with a gun is more likly to kill for the slightest incident that could appear where someone is carrying then not.  The landscape for the robbery totally changes and if such people leave to steal again, now they are more aggressive.  Thiefs watching on TV are now more aggressive.  People with guns that are concealed become more agressive and look for any provacation.

If the person had the gun unconcealed then the robber has 2 options.  Either go and find an easier target or get into a deadly gun battle.  The thing is most people that rob is not looking to actually use their gun.  Its like the bully in school.  They bully people who do not defend themselves because its easy.  This is no different from a thief, they are looking for a quick get in and out money grab not a shootout for their lives.



kirby007 on 30 May 2014

karma is a bitch



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network
Mmmfishtacos on 30 May 2014
Machiavellian said:
BMaker11 said:
Machiavellian said:
BMaker11 said:
huiii said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Its pretty sad to see people defending thives and armed robbers. Is this really what america has become?


So you say if i see someone hitt someone i should just whipe out my gun (if i had one) and shoot them dead, cause if i didn't i'd be deffending battery?

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 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.

Liability is a cost for freedom. You're right, you can conceal carry and then escalate a situation. But at the same time, there's people like this

here concealed carry helped. Had he not had that, the robbery would have continued and people could have been killed. If he open carried, the robber would have went after him first.

 

Actually i see that situation different.  The person robbing the store is looking for his money then go.  The situation turned deadly when the concealed carry guy decided to become the Hero.  Because of such carry concealed laws, a thief with a gun is more likly to kill for the slightest incident that could appear where someone is carrying then not.  The landscape for the robbery totally changes and if such people leave to steal again, now they are more aggressive.  Thiefs watching on TV are now more aggressive.  People with guns that are concealed become more agressive and look for any provacation.

If the person had the gun unconcealed then the robber has 2 options.  Either go and find an easier target or get into a deadly gun battle.  The thing is most people that rob is not looking to actually use their gun.  Its like the bully in school.  They bully people who do not defend themselves because its easy.  This is no different from a thief, they are looking for a quick get in and out money grab not a shootout for their lives.

Sorry the situation be came deadly when the robber pulled the gun. You can't spin that. 



Mmmfishtacos on 30 May 2014

Sorry, on a phone it wont let me cut the tree.



2Ultra on 30 May 2014

I"m not entirely sure what there is to debate in this situation when the crooks were definitely up to no good.



Red4ADevil on 30 May 2014

Not to strongly disagree to those who suggest "tacklinge the gunman, but that's got to be the most STUPIDEST move you can do to someone holding a gun. 

Why?, There's a chance you might not be able to successfully subdue the person and they might open fire right at you to get you off of them. Then what, he could start shooting at everybody else who might try to do the same. If you're going to subdue a gunman you better know what your doing. Because a gunman (esp. a nutty one) can be unpredictable. Which brings me to my suggestion.

If you're going to physicaly take down someone, it's best to do it as a team with 1 (or even better) or more people. Or give him/her a good blow to the head/neck.

Don't be an idiot like this broad who could have endangered everyone (including herself). Think! FF to the 1:00 mark to see

 

Well theres my two cents......Theres got to be more to the story about this inccident. I've seen too many pro-gun and anti-gun people constantly barking at each other like a bunch of chihuahuas on issues like these.  


cantaim on 30 May 2014
Burek said:
spurgeonryan said:
Xenostar said:


How about not screaming, quielty walking back into quiznos and calling the police, while taking the license plate number through the window. 

 

You can defend taking a life over video games all you want tho. You will never convince me its right. Suppose we should just be tankfully the histerical gun owner is a good shot and he didnt shoot an innocent person in the shopping area.


When they escape and kill someone else. That blood is on your hands.

They never intended to kill anyone, I'm pretty sure of that. As I'm sure that they would have been caught within 5 minutes had that moron just called the police using his phone. To kill somebody over an XBox is so horrible and inhuman, and so wrong on many levels. No person deserves to die a violent death, especially not over Kinect Sports Rivals...


than why did the robbers bring a gun?  why didnt they just bring pepper spray, they can shoot up too 25 feet and take down any pursuers in a non-lethal way.