Shopkeeper shoots 3 would-be robbers

I don't see the problem. Maybe I'm dense. Please help me out here.

When a scumbag puts a knife or gun (or other instrument of deadly force) in your face and says, "Gimme your stuff of value", isn't the threat of death/grave bodily injury rather implicit?? Their act say 'I'm wiling to kill/maim/hurt you a bunch for what ever it is you have that I want'. Doesn't this make them de facto 'fair game' as far as self defense goes. So exactly what's wrong with offing the mo'fo's?? Their action says they're willg to do it to you.

The nose-pickin' booger-eatin' anti's worry about whut coulda-whudda gone wrong, but that's an issue only for those who lack resolve to defend themselves. Help me some more here, but isn't that one of the very first questions we have all asked ourselves before we ever considered firearm ownership, that is: "would we use it?" Those who can't answer that question have no business with weapons. Period. However, may I be so brash as to presume that most of those who have chosen a firearm for self defense have probably made that great leap in logic and resolve.

I mean, like dood, it'sa shame (not) that scummie must pay, but choices have consequences, and bad choices, have bad consequenses. I still don't see a problem with bad guys getting whacked. Am I stoopid or whut? M2
 
Many years ago, Atlanta was having a problem with armed robberies in stores. They found a solution which drastically reduced the problem - keep an armed officer stationed behind one-way mirrors at convenience stores, gas stations, etc. The officers moved around, it was a pretty random thing. When an armed robber came in the store demanding money, he was shot. No warning, no "You're under arrest," no nothing.

Unfortunately, they had to drop it because of the bad PR. Of course, everyone who worked in one of those stores appreciated the results.

Now, the city of Atlanta is suing gun manufacturers. My, how things have changed.

Mike, good point. I wouldn't carry a weapon I wasn't willing to use, why can't I assume the same of the Bad Guys?
 
In any place - I don't see good reasons for robbers, holduppers and other criminals to exist in a peaceful society (they are not humans).

To anti-guns they want to eradicate gun-manufacturers, legitimate user of guns when they see some occassional gun related accidents.

But if there are innocent victims of guns perpetrated by law enforcer or some people in authority they say nothing.

Anti gun newspaper writers discussed unending articles against gun owners.

I was held up one time inside a bus - when the goons alighted from the bus, I also go down after 20 meters away. I saw a traffic cop and ask help, he told me it is not his Job for he was just assigned in the traffic. I walked another 10 meters away I saw a Patrol Car, I told the story and they responded immediately but the holduppers already disappear.

Since then, I worked for my firearms Permit to Carry Outside Residence and everytime I go out it is always with me. If the same thing will ever happen again, I don't hesitate to shoot any holduppers or robbers.

"IN TIME OF PEACE ALWAYS EXPECT DANGER"

Sonny



[This message has been edited by stdalire (edited September 18, 1999).]
 
Dennis, you're cracking me up. Cornered Rat and others: I believe all people are basically evil/primeval (sp?) and will do just about anything to advance their own personal interests if given the chance with no deterrent. This includes me and you. Only restraints and consequences imposed by laws/society/religion keep us from so acting. We are animals and intrinsically violent beings. We do indeed engage in a balancing of costs/benefits, as do all criminals, of course. That's what John Lott's research proves: Yes, more guns equals less crime, but the number one crime reducer is increased arrest rates, and number two is increased conviction rates, IIRC. Also high on the list is increased sentence lengths. It's pretty simple, folks. Raise the consequences - lower the crime rates (consequences including the possibility of being shot by an armed citizen).
 
Futo,
I agree; but I would add it is the assuredness, not the severity, of punishment which deters evil.

If speeding could be punished by the death penalty but was never used, we'd still speed.

But if speeding could be so controlled that we would be caught every time and have to spend a day in jail, we'd stop speeding.

Again, it is the assuredness of punishment rather than the possible severity which deters crime.

------
Then again, once used, the death penalty does seem to deter repeat offenses by that particular offender! ;)

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 20, 1999).]
 
Hey DC.....your post.."Tom Hayden, now a Calif State senator, founder of SDS and close pal with the Weathermen...a couple of those other boys have gained "respectability" as well...they weren't against guns or any other way of killing people when they were not "the government"...now they are and now they are against guns....hmmmmmm..smell fish here?"

my memory ain't what it used to be but.... didn't the SDS boys like bombs????
and....
they may have gained "respectibility" but a socialist is still a socialist....



------------------
Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow government. Patriots are counter-revolutionaries trying to prevent government from overthrowing the U.S. Constitution.
 
Most of our laws are made by do-gooders who wouldnt recognize violence or evil if it rose up and bit them in the a$$.
People who have dealt with either or both are generally more pragmatic.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
What really burns me is Bernstein's comment, "Sometimes it's better to give some money away than to give your life away." I think he missed one detail. A thug had a gun pointed at the store owner's wife's head! We aren't talking about $20.00 from the till. We are talking someone prepared to kill a man's wife. Shouldn't he be allowed to at least attempt to come to her aid? What kind of ogre is this Bernstein? Would he not come to the aid of his wife under the same circumstances?
 
Would he not come to the aid of his wife
under the same circumstances?

That's the test of a real man. Try asking an anti this question: "If your wife was about to be raped, wouldn't you use any means necessary to protect her?" If he says no, then, IMNSHO, he's just as bad as the rapist. If he looks uncomfortable, then we have a potential ally.

Make sure his wife is right there when you ask, too. I suspect I've caused a few broken marriages with this question, but if it gets more women to protect themselves instead of depending upon others (who aren't inclined to do so anyway), it's worth it.

------------------
"America needs additional gun laws like a giraffe needs snow tires."
--Rabbi Mermelstein, JPFO
 
I think Ed makes a very valid point regarding fighting and violence. Although it's easy enough to intellectualize against violence, you don't internalize its real meaning until you've been there and done that/had it done to you. There's a trite but true annecdote about liberals supporting RKBA after they've been mugged a time or two.

The other fallacy that a lot of those 'tolerant/appeasement-oriented' folks espouse is that it's better to lose your money than your life. True enough, but you spent part of your life making that money or paying for that stuff that was taken, so the scummies are, in effect, taking your life, just a little bit at a time instead of all at once. Where do you draw the line?

I don't have a good one=size-fits-all answer, but I pretty good idea of what I'd do under most circumstances. Take care, y'all. m2
 
Coinneach,

It was exactly that type of question that got me interested in the subject of guns in the first place. It was a minister who asked the question at a home schooling conference. You should have heard the response from the women when he told us that he has heard men answer, "well, I'd have to believe that it was the will of God for my wife to get raped." Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm buying a gun.

I related the story (and others) to my wife, who missed the conference, and we have been learning about guns ever since. We both applied for our concealed carry permits last week. Some time in the next week or two, we will be purchasing our first two guns. I'll be getting a 9mm for concealed carry, and my wife will be getting a 20 gauge shotgun for home defense.

Mike in VA,

I don't advocate the use of deadly force to protect property. In my state, and I'm sure in may others, that will land you in jail for murder. I also don't like the "give them whatever they ask for" approach. I thought that we were trying to teach those thugs that crime doesn't pay! So HCI and others tell this nation that the best thing to do when some thug asks for your money is to give him your money. If everyone follows that advice, there will be a lot of thugs asking for a lot of money and getting it. So much for making our cities safer!

[This message has been edited by sbryce (edited September 20, 1999).]
 
Danger Dave-
re: The Atlanta solution.

My Dad owned a liquor store in a rough area of New Haven thru my growing up (late sixteies thru seventies). We had a pretty good relationship with the neighborhood, and were several time warned of impending trouble.

Despite a gun under the counter, Pop was robbed several times at gunpoint. Never was there an opportunity to get to the gun and, luckily, never was he harmed. When I turned 18, so did the drinking age and i started helping out weekends.

One Christmas, we allowed two detectives in the back of the store. Customers were in the front. We were in the middle!. That was the last time we allowed a stakeout. By age 21 I was CCW'd and carrying.

Point: It's great to have someone "covering" your six, but not aiming from it! :)
Rich
 
Rich,
My dad was a banker. Your experience kinda matches what he always told me: If you're ever in a holdup and the police arrive, get low & stay still - you're more likely to be shot by the police by accident than by the robbers on purpose. Fortunately, neither he nor I have had to try out this advice - but quite a few of his friends have.

The idea in Atlanta was to never give the BG's a chance to be in a firefight. Just a plain old ambush.
 
On Friday, 2 weeks ago three young males
who had skipped high school class'es for
the day entered the Coin Castle-West which
is located in Bessemer, Ala; for the purpose
of robbing the propreitor of money and some
valuables. Upon entering, the 15 year old
perp announced "THIS IS A ROBBERY"; he then
stated "I AM GOING TO KILL ALL OF YOU". The
propreitor (who was on a step latter) fired
his legally owned and licensed handgun four
times; striking the 15 year old prep in his
side. The prep was able to exit the store
whereas his two accomplice's drove off in the
get-a-way car; leaving the 15 year old to be
pronounced DOS (Dead On The Scene). Concurrently, the district attorney is seeking the idenity of the other two youth's
in order to charge them with murder, for leaving their associate behind. No charges
are expected to be filed against the store
propreitor; as he had reason to "fear for
his life and the life of his loved one's).
(Excert from THE WESTERN STAR of Bessemer, AL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top