Strong Message to all teenage gangsta wanna-be's

[battery]

This is a good story showing some merits to rights to carry concealed weapons. A civilian saved himself from possible death with a licensed pistol.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...ooting/1144768

[Icculus]

Strong message to do what? Pack your own gun and make sure you shoot first?

The kid was running away when the guy shot at him not once, but 8 times. It would seem that he had been looking forward to the day when he could take advantage of that "stand your ground" law.

-Icculus

[Iggy]

Do you think the criminal would have stopped shooting with a single shot? Do you think he would have no fired a weapon if his victim turned and ran?

If you do, you're seriously out of touch with reality.

Think of it this way; this guy saved the taxpayers a bunch of money on a trial, incarceration, and probably years of supporting him on welfare.
(before anyone says it, I'm not saying that because the decedent was a minority.)

[Icculus]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Do you think the criminal would have stopped shooting with a single shot? Do you think he would have no fired a weapon if his victim turned and ran?

If you do, you're seriously out of touch with reality.

Think of it this way; this guy saved the taxpayers a bunch of money on a trial, incarceration, and probably years of supporting him on welfare.
(before anyone says it, I'm not saying that because the decedent was a minority.)

Well since the criminal in this case did not have a gun, the above scenario does not apply. There are many different types of criminals out there. Some would have shot a person running away, some would have not. Most would not shoot 8 times however. This guy was clearly itching to use that gun and release alot of pent up rage in the process.

Do you then believe that if everyone carried a gun we wouldn't have these types of issues anymore?

I think violence would escalate tremendously if everyone were armed. Instead of hold-ups, we'd have people shooting first and looting corpses instead of running the risk of getting shot at.

[FrenchToast]

A law that lets citizens kill each other based on their own opinion of their personal safety being compromised is tremendously scary.

[Ricey]

Originally Posted by Icculus

Well since the criminal in this case did not have a gun, the above scenario does not apply. There are many different types of criminals out there. Some would have shot a person running away, some would have not. Most would not shoot 8 times however. This guy was clearly itching to use that gun and release alot of pent up rage in the process.

Do you then believe that if everyone carried a gun we wouldn't have these types of issues anymore?

I think violence would escalate tremendously if everyone were armed. Instead of hold-ups, we'd have people shooting first and looting corpses instead of running the risk of getting shot at.

I use to go clubbing a lot in Downtown Orlando with a bunch of friends, usually 5-10 People. All the guys(Mostly military), including myself all carry pistols. Yes, it is a big group, and most likely will be left alone, but Orlando isn't the safest city in the US, what city is. Tampa Bay is just like Orlando in terms of safety.

We've had many drunk people try and start fights with us, but as soon as a pistol is shown they always back off. It should be used a deterrent, and if needed a shot fired away from people, as to scare them.

Now let's go to West Palm Beach, I can't tell you how many cops have been killed by gang members, it's a lot. You take away Gun Permits from everyday, people who follow the laws, they are defenseless. Last time I was in WPB, I had my pistol on me,as my friend told me a Cop was just killed.

Now, go live in those areas, and then come back to me.

I've lived in very safe areas, Cherry Hill,NJ had 1 Murder in 10 years. Camden,NJ... yea. Orlando,Tampa Bay, West Palm Beach, worse than Camden.

Only a few months ago a student was shot on Campus because he wouldn't give up his Macbook Pro. He tried to run, and got shot. Luckily he lived.

Month or so before that, cop had to shot/kill a subject.

Sometimes I walk to labs at 1am, I'll wear a vest, and bring my gun.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Icculus

Well since the criminal in this case did not have a gun, the above scenario does not apply. There are many different types of criminals out there. Some would have shot a person running away, some would have not. Most would not shoot 8 times however. This guy was clearly itching to use that gun and release alot of pent up rage in the process.

Do you then believe that if everyone carried a gun we wouldn't have these types of issues anymore?

I think violence would escalate tremendously if everyone were armed. Instead of hold-ups, we'd have people shooting first and looting corpses instead of running the risk of getting shot at.

No, they would shoot more, since many of them carry semi-automatics and can't aim worth a shit. Also, should he have asked the criminal if he was armed? I can see that now:

"Gimme yo wallet, motherfucker!"
"Excuse me, before I decide whether to succumb to your demand, may I ask if you are armed?"
"Yeah, I am." *bang*
Result: Crime victim dead.

I knew a guy back in Jr High and High school. After graduation, he got a job in DC. One night as he walked to his car, an assbag(who probably had a long criminal record) stuck a gun in his face, and demanded his wallet. He handed it over with no struggle or confrontation. The fucker shot and killed him anyway.

Criminals don't give a shit about the law. That's why they are criminals. Most of them are armed, which is why they have the balls to rob someone. Even the ones who aren't, might as well be. After all, how is the victim to know if they are or not? And really, who gives a shit? If someone tries to rob you, and you shoot them dead... too fucking bad. If they didn't try to rob you, they wouldn't be in any danger, now would they?

Does that mean guns should be handed out willy-nilly? Of course not. Proper training should be required before a "permit to carry" is issued to anyone. However, anyone who has a clean criminal record, and can prove they aren't mentally ill, should be allowed to carry a firearm to defend themselves.

[Icculus]

Originally Posted by Iggy

No, they would shoot more, since many of them carry semi-automatics and can't aim worth a shit. Also, should he have asked the criminal if he was armed? I can see that now:

"Gimme yo wallet, motherfucker!"
"Excuse me, before I decide whether to succumb to your demand, may I ask if you are armed?"
"Yeah, I am." *bang*
Result: Crime victim dead.

I knew a guy back in Jr High and High school. After graduation, he got a job in DC. One night as he walked to his car, an assbag(who probably had a long criminal record) stuck a gun in his face, and demanded his wallet. He handed it over with no struggle or confrontation. The fucker shot and killed him anyway.

Criminals don't give a shit about the law. That's why they are criminals. Most of them are armed, which is why they have the balls to rob someone. Even the ones who aren't, might as well be. After all, how is the victim to know if they are or not? And really, who gives a shit? If someone tries to rob you, and you shoot them dead... too fucking bad. If they didn't try to rob you, they wouldn't be in any danger, now would they?

Does that mean guns should be handed out willy-nilly? Of course not. Proper training should be required before a "permit to carry" is issued to anyone. However, anyone who has a clean criminal record, and can prove they aren't mentally ill, should be allowed to carry a firearm to defend themselves.

There are many people out there who can carry a firearm and be responsible with it. There are probably many more who, given such easy access to that much power, would act irresponsibly such as the guy in this story. He pulled his gun, the kid ran, and he shot him anyway. Eight times.

How many people out there with clean criminal records can prove that they are mentally stable enough to carry a gun? Plenty of them like this guy who just want an excuse to shoot someone.

If Ricey went to those clubs he mentioned and EVERYONE in there had a gun, the outcome of some of those altercations would have probably been very different.

Middle America has proven many times that they don't handle responsibility very well.

Arming everyone just sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[Ricey]

Originally Posted by Icculus

If Ricey went to those clubs he mentioned and EVERYONE in there had a gun, the outcome of some of those altercations would have probably been very different.

Most of them do carry, the whole point is, it's a deterrent, it's saying "You could fucking die right now, do you really want that?"

[Lost]

I can see your point Icc, that if no one, anywhere, carried guns, then there would be a lot less violence. It takes far more guts to knife someone than to shoot them. But like Iggy said, the criminals don't care if they have to get them illegally, they'll do it, and then no one will have the legal means to defend themselves.

I think if they strapped every fucker who kills someone while committing any other crime was strapped to a chair and fed 50,000 volts then we would have far safer streets. I specify it that way because the chances of getting killed by someone you don't know are pretty damned low, unless they're looking to steal your stuff.

[battery]

Originally Posted by Icculus

Strong message to do what? Pack your own gun and make sure you shoot first?

The kid was running away when the guy shot at him not once, but 8 times. It would seem that he had been looking forward to the day when he could take advantage of that "stand your ground" law.

-Icculus

I think we should judge the entire incident as a whole, rather than just see who shoots first or who runs away first.

Apparently, the armed man was facing two adversaries. A typical person cannot overcome two enemies in hand-to-hand combat. (Ever wonder why we never see 2 vs 1 boxing matches?) So the man was doomed if he did not have a gun.

Now, the armed man was also punched in the face. If you have not been punched in the face before, let me tell you how it feels: You feel a big shock and for a couple second, you think you are about to pass out. As a matter of fact, a punch in the face has a great potential to produce a knock-out.

From the jogger's perspective, the gangsters were trying to kill him. Losing consciousness is equvalent to death because...who knows what those teenagers were going to do to the body? Drown him in order to eliminate witness, maybe? Even more importantly, the jogger cannot tell if the teenagers were packing or not. Robbers usually carried weapons and there was no reason for the jogger to believe he was looking at exceptions. I believe the jogger reacted properly to a runner who might just suddenly turn around with a Magnum.

Once you have committed to kill a person, here is the correct way to finish the job: You shoot to kill, not to wound. Cops are trained to shoot in order to kill; LAPD training instructs cadets to pump 3 bullets into the target's chest whenever they fire the gun. No one in the right mind shoots to debilitate the target, okay? Suppose a criminal shoots somebody but fails to kill. In the court of law, he will be charged with attempted murder, not just assault and battery.

Shoot to kill. Don't point the gun at anything you don't intend to destory.

[Bridget]

He initiated aggression, and resultingly got dealt with. I see no problem here. I also think there's this illusion of excessiveness with the number of shots fired. Had this man been attacked, whipped out his pistol, and scored a single shot on his aggressor that killed him instantly, would you still be singing a sad song about how unfair it was? Probably not. It's not unfair to me. Unfairness suggests something outside of your control. He could have easily avoided this by avoiding aggression. So, really, whom is to blame?

[Lost]

Originally Posted by Bridget

So, really, whom is to blame?

Obama.

[BinaryLife]

Guns do not make people violent. I understand the stigma associated with a piece of equipment that is specifically designed to kill human beings. However, you need a person to pick up, load, cock, and fire that gun. The human being does more than the weapon.

In general I believe that weapons should be allowed to be carried. I also believe that if everyone over 18 had a firearm in this country, very little would change. Maybe people would be mugged less. At least that's what the statistics show. Correlation is not causation however. That is important for both sides of the argument.

As for the article. It is very confusing. It claims that a jogger was wont be charged. But the description is not of a jogger. If I walk to the corner store to get some food at night (which I often do) I am not a jogger. I am just walking to shop. The reason I bring this up, is because it's an odd discrepancy. Baker, does not say he is jogging the writer does. But, if that's true, if he was jogging and not shopping, then it is odd for him to carry 950 dollars in cash. If he was shopping then his story makes sense. I believe more information should have been in that article, and it shouldn't be used to prove a point for either side.

Assuming he was shopping late, and was attacked. Then I see no moral problem with defending yourself. I can't say that I would do that, but in my neighborhood this sort of thing is very rare. I can walk anywhere I want at any time of night and not need to worry about being mugged. Also, the police are close by and easily called. It makes no sense for me to own a firearm or I would.

But that said. If I lived in a home that was far away from police response, I would absolutely carry a gun. If my neighborhood was known for slow response times, again I would carry a gun. I trust the police to protect me, but I'd like to be alive when they get there.

[Bridget]

I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine last night, yet again. I love when dumbos blame a symptom of the problem as the problem. Look, Americans killing everybody. Look at the Canadians. They are pretty peaceful. It's because they have fewer guns, obviously! Guns are to blame! No. they're not. It's because their culture isn't as polluted as ours. It's because they're not America. Something else is causing us to use guns more in crimes, and it isn't simply because we have guns. That makes no fucking sense. Oh well, what can you expect for Michael Moore? He's a dumbo socialist.

[Hammock]

I pretty much agree with everything battery posted.

He was faced with 2 guys, no idea if they were armed, and who's to say the runner wasn't just going to run a distance away, then turn around and shoot him.

I know in Canada though, if you chased down and shot someone who robbed(or attempted to rob you) you at a store, you would be held liable, as you are no longer in danger once he starts running away since you could just lock the door and chances are he's most likely not coming back.

But this guy was alone outside at night, once he started running away it does not mean he's not going to turn back around on him.

@ricey - That would never fly in Canada that's for sure, almost any club that's even considered "half decent" has either metal detectors, and/or pats you down at the door. And there's almost always a cop car or 2 sitting outside near closing time (atleast in my experiences).

Bars are actually a little more scary just because they aren't as diligent with that sort of stuff, but every club I've been to here has an ID check as you enter, and you go through metal detectors/pat downs.

Even if you're legally allowed to carry a gun (as a military person would), you wouldn't be allowed in with it.

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by Hammock

I pretty much agree with everything battery posted.

He was faced with 2 guys, no idea if they were armed, and who's to say the runner wasn't just going to run a distance away, then turn around and shoot him.

Now it was two guys?

My opinion on guns isnt' going to change. I think we should have them. But I'm growing increasingly suspect of this article. I have read it twice and it refers to the guy as a jogger. Then someone who is shopping with his brother. Then a jogger again.

These details are growing important if we don't know the story .A jogger at night is fine. A shopper at night is also fine. But when the stories mesh like this it's usually the sign of a lier.

[stray kitten]

Now that everyone has had their say, I'll chime in. Shooting people who are running away is pretty fucking lame. It's not what right to carry is about. Cops won't even shoot people running away unless they like murdered someone. The guy who shot this dude would be in crazy fucker ward if he was a cop or in the military. Luckily for him he's not held to those standards being a civilian.

[Hammock]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

My opinion on guns isnt' going to change. I think we should have them.

Actually even though I agree with battery, (provided the story is true), I hate guns, espcially hand guns. It shouldn't be nescessary to own a gun for protection. If it weren't for the fact the US makes billions manufacturing and selling guns, or that people in "important places" are too easily corruptable to ship illegal guns into the country, or if a person doesn't feel their own government can protect them when they are being "persuaded" by bad people, there wouldn't be as big as a gun problem.

How would criminals have any guns if the government just stops allowing them?

This whole "I need a gun to feel safe cause criminals have guns" theory just blows my mind. But there's too much money involved in outfitting these criminals with guns, and the goverment isn't truly going to stop it, because they're part of it.

*Oh and someone asked why it doesn't seem to be as big a deal up here in Canada as it is down in the US. I believe the #1 reason it isn't is because our Canadian government doesn't make billions a year in gun trade. It's much easier to make a stand against guns when your pocket isn't being filled by the profit from them.

[FrenchToast]

This is from memory so it might not be totally accurate - In Switzerland or Sweden, I can never remember, every adult is technically part of the militia and is required to keep a rifle and 72 rounds of ammunition in their home. They also have one of the highest rates of gun crime per capita in the world. It baffles me that people think having guns everywhere doesn't increase the rate of gun crime.