Concealed Carry Permit Holder Saves The Day

[WillowTree]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UgTlhY8Eqo]YouTube - Robber killed by clerk, robber's accomplice charged with it[/ame]




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQE8E9lGidU&feature=related[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk&feature=related[/ame]


Yay! for the good guys!

 

[editec]

Pub,

You seem to be under the misguided notion that my pointing out that the cost benefit ratio of that move was not a good one somehow means that I object to guns.

I object to idiots having guns and criminal having guns.

Because both idiots and criminals threaten me and mine.

The guns aren't the problem the idiots and the criminal having guns are the problem.

I see no solution to that which does NOT screw the NON idiots who have guns.

What a shame, huh?

If we did a psychological profile of the average gun QUEER, those people would NOT be legally armed.

And what is a gun QUEER according to editec?

It's somebody whose affection for guns verges on neurotic.

To them guns are not just tools, but empowerment for their pathetic egos.

Now I lived around gun owners who were NOTHING like that.

But you show me some freak who has an arsenal in their basement?

I doubt many of them have the mental stability they need to be armed.

Hey I may be wrong.

Some of them might not be nuts.

Some SMALL percentage of them.

 

[auditor0007]

It's a dishonest statement Marauder. First off, there are many accidental gun deaths every year.

That is dishonest. A PERSON had to load the gun, correct? Therefore the gun didn't kill anyone.

Secondly, many gun deaths would not happen if guns were not permitted. If you deny this, then you are denying facts or you believe we are just much more violent than those who live in countries with gun restrictions.

Where has this worked, elsewhere in the world?

Oh and, I never made the argument that the right to keep and bear arms was to save lives.

Either have I, and I am not arguing against our right to own and carry firearms. I'm just stating that denying an increased death rate due to guns is dishonest. You state that a gun never killed anyone. So are you suggesting that almost everyone killed by a gun would have been killed anyway if a gun wasn't available? I agree that in some cases, people might resort to killing with a knife or explosive or who knows what. But I have a hard time believing that having more guns is actually reducing deaths, which is basically what you are trying to convince us of.

 

[auditor0007]

It's a dishonest statement Marauder. First off, there are many accidental gun deaths every year.

That is dishonest. A PERSON had to load the gun, correct? Therefore the gun didn't kill anyone.

Secondly, many gun deaths would not happen if guns were not permitted. If you deny this, then you are denying facts or you believe we are just much more violent than those who live in countries with gun restrictions.

Where has this worked, elsewhere in the world?

Oh and, I never made the argument that the right to keep and bear arms was to save lives.

Japan and most of Europe is where it has worked. Unless you want to argue that those countries have a higher death rate due to violent crimes.

 

[Otter_Creek]

Go **** yourself idiot. Even the police spokesman said he may have saved lives.

You're as dumb as snot and less attractive. Go play with your Dorthy and Toto dolls and shut the **** up about our country.

Derogatory language like this only goes to prove that you have lost the argument...miserably.

Want to go tell my mommy I said some bad words too?

It's a political chat board, foul language is just one way of coping when you're talking to a complete ******* idiot.

It happens, get over it ... or go tell it to shogun, I don't care.

 

[auditor0007]

Lets see, WW2 lasted 6 years and over 70 MILLION people died. But lets assume you just mean Americans. The war lasted less than 4 years and you want to compare it to almost 50 years, ya good comparison there you dumb ass.

Again statistically firearms deaths are insignificant in the US.

The deaths of 1,00,000 Americans are "insignificant?"

Not to their loved ones....

I was waiting for this, remind us again, HOW MANY DIED IN CAR ACCIDENTS SINCE 1960? And why aren't you up in arms about the fact that EVERY year more people die in car accidents then are killed by firearms? Are they unimportant to you? Or is it just ACCEPTABLE that thousands more die every year in car accidents cause you like to drive?

Guns and cars are two completely different things. I didn't even bother responding the first time you brought it up, because it is an absolutely idiotic comparison.

 

[auditor0007]

From Miami PD:

"A good Samaritan inside the Burger King had a concealed weapons permit. He confronted the robbery suspect at which time shots were fired," said Miami police spokesman Jeff Giordano. "There were a lot of people inside the Burger King; he may have saved lives. It was a brave act."

Man Recovers From Shootout With Burger King Robber - cbs4.com

Reports have the two of them arguing, then firing their weapons. I'd like to read some eye witness reports before passing final judgment as to if he pulled his gun and told the guy to stop or...

Regardless, this man is a hero. He DID save lives.

On a side note, I'm waiting to see if the BG's family is going to sue him. I also wonder what would happen if he didn't pull his gun and the BG killed someone inside. I dare say there would be a lawsuit against him for NOT pulling his weapon.

He's an idiot, he endangered everyone in the place. I have to disagree with the view of the Miami PD.

If what was just stated is true, that an argument ensued and then shooting began, then yes, this guy was an idiot. That was my original point. If you are going to pull out a gun, it has to be for the purpose of using it immediately. You don't tell the robber to stop or you'll shoot; you kill him and get it over with before he has an opportunity to open fire. Had the results of the shooting been reversed, where the citizen with the gun was killed and the robber was only hurt, the robber may have then proceeded to take out a few more people. Luckily that was not the result.

I don't have a problem with someone trying to be a hero, but damnit, do it right if you're going to do it.

 

[Mr. President]

Guns and cars are two completely different things. I didn't even bother responding the first time you brought it up, because it is an absolutely idiotic comparison.

No it is not an idiotic comparison. Automobiles are in high usage. More people have access to vehicles than they do guns. Automobiles can be operated by idiots people without liscenses, drunks, people who are under the influence of drugs, can be driven in horrible weather and are subject to breaking down all of which can cause death. Condoning access to automobiles and yet saying we need stricter laws on gun control seems oxymoronic unless your against guns period.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pub,

You seem to be under the misguided notion that my pointing out that the cost benefit ratio of that move was not a good one somehow means that I object to guns.

No Ed... I am not so misguided... I see your reasoning which supports your argument as being fatally flawed and I recognize that such fatally flawed reasoning is used to undermine the means of individuals to exersice their right to own and use a firearm in defense of their rights.

I object to idiots having guns and criminal having guns.

Yeah I get that... but idiots have an unalienable right to defend themselves from criminals through the use of a firearm.

Because both idiots and criminals threaten me and mine.

I'd suggest you take measures to defend yourself from those threats... perhaps you should consider arming yourself.

The guns aren't the problem the idiots and the criminal having guns are the problem.

You don't see that you declared guns to not be the problem in your premise, then summarily declared guns to be the problem in your conclusion?

I see no solution to that which does NOT screw the NON idiots who have guns.

Where my RIGHT is your PROBLEM, that necessarily means that YOUR PROBLEM IS FOUNDED UPON AN INVALID BASIS.

Your rights and my rights are inclusive... I have no right to exercise my right to the detriment of your means to exercise your rights and vice versa.

What a shame, huh?

Not really, because you're not going to do anything which strips me of my rights... what is a shame is your obtuse rejection of sound reason, which rests upon immutable principle, all the while claiming the intellectual high ground.

If we did a psychological profile of the average gun QUEER, those people would NOT be legally armed.

Such is the nature and hazard to all free men, represented by the false science of psychology... it projects an authority which it does not possess. That a psychologist subjectively determines a given individual to be unfit to defend their rights through the use of a firearm, in no way renders him less rightfully justified to do so.

Where an individual misuses a firearm to the detriment of the rights of another, he forfeits his rights... and this without regard to his mental status at the time. Be they a cognitive deficient due to chemical imbalances or structural flaw in their brain or just their having lent credence to the fatally flawed reasoning of leftism, which paints them as a perpetual victim that is entitled to the property of others due to their percieved social status.

When and where that misguided individual shows up and advances such a violation, in this case the BK... he will face his certain demise where there are present those who well understand their responsibilities and have taken measures to bear them.

And what is a gun QUEER according to editec?

It's somebody whose affection for guns verges on neurotic.

To them guns are not just tools, but empowerment for their pathetic egos.

LOVELY... that was as entertaining as it was irrelevant! BRAVO!

Now I lived around gun owners who were NOTHING like that.

But you show me some freak who has an arsenal in their basement?

I doubt many of them have the mental stability they need to be armed.

Hey I may be wrong.

Lovely epilogue... and you maintained the irrelevance in perfection.

Some of them might not be nuts.

What? Some people that own numerous guns might not be NUTS? "Don't go wobbly on me now..."

Some SMALL percentage of them.

Oh Ok... just a fraction... well that's a lovely Centrist compromise... VERY CONSISTENT!

The right is founded in bed-rock principle and it's not negotiable... and it isn't effected in the slightest by another's inability to maintain their responsibilities...

Your argument is specious, your conclusion spurious and as always... HYSTERICAL!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

From Miami PD:

"A good Samaritan inside the Burger King had a concealed weapons permit. He confronted the robbery suspect at which time shots were fired," said Miami police spokesman Jeff Giordano. "There were a lot of people inside the Burger King; he may have saved lives. It was a brave act."

Man Recovers From Shootout With Burger King Robber - cbs4.com

Reports have the two of them arguing, then firing their weapons. I'd like to read some eye witness reports before passing final judgment as to if he pulled his gun and told the guy to stop or...

Regardless, this man is a hero. He DID save lives.

On a side note, I'm waiting to see if the BG's family is going to sue him. I also wonder what would happen if he didn't pull his gun and the BG killed someone inside. I dare say there would be a lawsuit against him for NOT pulling his weapon.

He's an idiot, he endangered everyone in the place. I have to disagree with the view of the Miami PD.

If what was just stated is true, that an argument ensued and then shooting began, then yes, this guy was an idiot. That was my original point. If you are going to pull out a gun, it has to be for the purpose of using it immediately. You don't tell the robber to stop or you'll shoot; you kill him and get it over with before he has an opportunity to open fire. Had the results of the shooting been reversed, where the citizen with the gun was killed and the robber was only hurt, the robber may have then proceeded to take out a few more people. Luckily that was not the result.

I don't have a problem with someone trying to be a hero, but damnit, do it right if you're going to do it.

Not true... you are morally obligated to advance the warning. As I stated earlier, there is no means to execute the warning in perfection; and the individual circumstances are always relevant.

But were it me... where I have pulled my piece and advanced the warning; where the perp is not found to be overtly complying with my COMMAND to drop his weapon... He is going to be struck with two rounds to his chest in about 1 second and very likely dead, shortly thereafter, due to a catastrophic drop in blood pressure resultant from blood loss sustained from those two 40 caliber rounds tearing his heart to shreds.

"DROP YOUR WEAPON" One thousand ONE... TAP TAP... This assumes that in that one second, the right violating individual has not made it clear that he intends to COMPLY WITH MY COMMAND.

What's more, if you do NOT attempt to advance the warning, it can be argued that you executed the individual... this is dependent upon the circumstances of course... but where there is reasonable time and circumstances provide for the reasonable belief that the individual is not on the threshold of killing someone in that instant, you are morally obligated to advance the warning that they are facing imminent death if they fail to comply.

Now what's more Aud, is that your reasoning with regard to the scenario wherein the perp kills the CCW, and conclude that this leaves the perp wounded, producing the potential that he might then shoot the joint up... I can't understand how you find this a noteworthy point of concern, when that was the potential from the second the dumbass started brandishing his weapon; without regard to the CCW, which is only relevant to the potential of KEEPING THE DUMBASS FROM SHOOTING THE JOINT UP.

This CCW clearly faced a difficult situation and applied more tolerance than was prudent, at least as seen in hind-sight; born out by the multiple bullet holes in his body... but we can't try to judge an imperect circumstance against an unattainable threashold of perfection; could it have been handled better? Of course... that doesn't mean that the CCW didn't do what was right and that his actions didn't rienforce the rights of everyone, including himself which was being offended in those moments by an incomprehensible asshole.

 

[LOki]

We lead the developed world in gun deaths per capita.

"Would you prefer it if they'd all been pushed out of windows?"

1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

But you can't name them--The likely reason is than NO Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

I believe people should have the right to own guns, . . .

Your beleif is irrelevent--people DO have the right to own guns.

. . . but more guns is not necessarily a good thing.

But infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessarily a BAD thing.

 

[LOki]

1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

No gun has ever killed anyone, anywhere in the world, ever.

PEOPLE have killed people.

It's a dishonest statement Marauder.

It is accurate, and honest.

First off, there are many accidental gun deaths every year.

None cause by the gun.

Secondly, many gun deaths would not happen if guns were not permitted.

But it doesn't follow that less "gun deaths" means less total death--why do you prefer "some other kind of" death to gun death?

If you deny this, then you are denying facts or you believe we are just much more violent than those who live in countries with gun restrictions.

This is baseless bullshit.

Again, despite these facts, I do not support any ban on guns.

Demonstrating you own intellectual dishonesty.

I just believe there are more valid arguments to our right to own and carry firearms than stating it is to save lives, because that is a farce.

A farce? How so?

 

[LOki]

Guns should not be banned, but they should be regulated just like cars are regulated.

There are plenty of gun regulations, but those that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms should be recinded, and those who promulgate and enforce regulation that infringe upon theright to keep and bear arms should be jailed.

Local background checks have been proven to be effective at reducing violence, . . .

No they haven't.

. . . and they don't interfer with people's right to own guns.

They are a direct infringment on the right to own guns, and a direct threat to that right.

 

[LOki]

I suggest you go talk to any emergency room surgeon about the threat that guns pose to America.

Guns pose no threat to America.

1,000,000 Americans killed since 1960.

By people.

More than in all of World War II.

So?

 

[LOki]

What is it about retired military people that they insult others when they themselves are wrong? No, LOCAL BACKGROUND CHECKS are not required in all states. FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECKS are required but are not nearly as effective as local ones.

Local Background Checks, Fewer Gun Deaths

Why do you prefer "[some other kind of] death" to "gun death"?

 

[LOki]

States that perform local-level background checks for firearms purchases are more effective in reducing firearm suicide and homicide rates than states that rely only on a federal-level background check, according to a new study by researchers at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

Local Background Checks, Fewer Gun Deaths

Why do you prefer "[some other kind of] death" to "gun death"?

 

[LOki]

It's a dishonest statement Marauder. First off, there are many accidental gun deaths every year.

That is dishonest. A PERSON had to load the gun, correct? Therefore the gun didn't kill anyone.

Secondly, many gun deaths would not happen if guns were not permitted. If you deny this, then you are denying facts or you believe we are just much more violent than those who live in countries with gun restrictions.

Where has this worked, elsewhere in the world?

Oh and, I never made the argument that the right to keep and bear arms was to save lives.

It works in my country. Now don't get bent out of shape. You asked a question. I supplied an answer. And I would make this point. In my country weapons of all type are regulated. Firearms related deaths (homicide, suicide, accidental discharge) are quite low here.

Why all this focus on how getting rid of guns reduces "gun deaths"? If bicycles were banned, there'd be less "bicycle deaths", but if total vehicular deaths increased after the ban would we consider the ban a success? Why can't anyone submit how the rate of total deaths was reduced with the regulation of guns? Why the obvious preference for "[some other kind of] death" over "gun death"?

 

[LOki]

Accidents are not the issue.

The issue is murders and suicides and how the easy access to guns makes it easier to kill ourselves and others.

Suicides have noting to do with guns, and everything to do with sincerety.

Muderers stand a much better chance at success when folks like you succeed in disarming their victims.

That is why we have the highest per capita gun death rate of any Western nation.

Why do you prefer "[some other kind of] death" to "gun death"?

 

[editec]

Pubie,

You're queer for guns aren't you?

Sorry, dude, didn't mean to step on your toes.

I'd originally assumed you were sane.

My mistake,

 

[Diuretic]

NOT in this country. And I doubt it is in yours either. Removing firearms from the general population of law abiding citizens endangers more people then any accidental discharge of murder rate. Why? Because criminals become more brazen, more dangerous and more sure they can not be stopped or harmed by their victims.

Your premise is ignorant and devoid of logic and facts.

See if you can stay with me on this.

I'm not making comparisons between the US and Australia.

I'll wait for you to catch up on that one.

Done? Okay.

I am not talking about removing firearms from law-abiding, responsible, competent people.

Got that as well?

I do advocate licensing of individuals (including basic firearms safety and competent use training) and registration of firearms.

Now, I continue to make the point that firearms control laws have nothing to do with criminals. Criminals don't want legitimate firearms therefore they disregard firearms control laws. Firearms control laws have to be severely adapted to deal with criminals who use firearms as part of their day to day business, the normal laws won't do it.

Is that clear now?