"Batman Massacre"

[Andara Bledin]

Switzerland, meanwhile, has one of the lowest in the world. Why? Because its a much nicer place to live than the US and one of the best places to live in the entire world. Its wealthier, healthier and has a vastly better social support system.

This is actually most of our argument.

Basically, guns do jack and shit to affect our crime rate. It's our social structure that's fucked up, and the more effort we waste on the security theater bullshit (micro or macro), the less we actually fix.

Yes, specifically his professor. Whom, you'd think, being a psychologist might have noticed something. >.>

Well, yeah, he might have. Or, he might have thought that the guy was having the same issue everybody in the program was having as regards the oral presentation to stay in the program, which a fellow student says made said fellow a complete basket case during the lead up to doing it.

As for the perpetrators, the gun they had wasn't loaded and wasn't operational. It could not fire even if they had bullets.

Was wondering if you'd go there. This point is utterly irrelevant to the case.

It looked like a gun and was being used like a gun, therefore, to anyone who didn't know it was a bluff (aka, everybody that wasn't one of the thugs), it was a gun.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

WTF? There are some firearms (Schofield revolver, for instance) which can be used AND RE-LOADED only using one hand. Admittedly, the Schofield required being stuck into the user's belt (on horseback - left hand busy with the reins) to hold it in place while re-loading, and it's an obsolescent (black powder) weapon. Others (such as auto-loaders) can be used by someone who has partial use of one hand (can grip relatively large objects, such as racking the slide or inserting a magazine, but don't have the fine motor control in that hand to pull the trigger). An ex-soldier who has a "claw" due to an IED (medically discharged due to the injury) could easily fit into this category.

It would be perfectly reasonable for someone with only one fully-functioning hand to choose a gun which fits their abilities, but this aspect of Nevada law prohibits anyone lacking TWO fully-functional hands from obtaining a permit for concealed carry. Discrimination on grounds of disability, anyone? It would be interesting to see what would happen if a disabled Marine who could put every shot in the "X" ring at 3, 5, and 7 (and 30, 50, and 70) yards using his good hand, but was physically unable to operate the pistol with his other (maimed) hand, applied for a concealed carry permit.

I'm assuming they'll make considerations for disabled people, but those that aren't have to fire with each hand

[crashhelmet]

WHOAH, HOSS. A CCW permit holder is a fucking LONG way from "someone without any training at all." What did I say about using strawman arguments?

Many CCW holders are better-trained than your average police officer, who typically only have to qualify once a year. Most hobbyist gun fans hate when the police officers come to the range, because they're more arrogant and less skilled than anyone else in the place, and frequently don't even follow standard safety procedures - things like sweeping the gallery with the muzzle of their gun, which is practically the biggest NO-NO there is.

And here's that thing you told me not to argue against because it wasn't in here. Yet, you're making it. Do you remember? I said:

I really wish people would quit making it out that people with CCWs are trained to handle any situation they're in.

Andara replied with:

No problem. I never said that.
Most CCW holders will panic with the rest of the crowd. I have no argument against that as most don't have that much training.
^-.-^

I apologized, causing you to say:

So argue against those people there, and don't drag arguments that aren't being presented here to argue against. That's strawmanning.

But not before you said:

Claiming that CCW holders are godly shooters is false, of course, but nobody's claiming that - it's a strawman. But by raising that strawman, you're implying that CCW carriers are more of a threat than an adequate defense, which is also false.

I'm sensing a whole lot of contradiction in your posts. The only constant is your accusations that everything I say is a "strawman"

But back on point...

I have already pointed out that the State of Colorado does NOT require any sort of skills test to acquire a CCW. All you need to do is pay a fee. Any legal gun owner can go down and buy a CCW in the State of Colorado. Many other States are the same way. So please tell me how this makes them "better-trained than your average police officer."

And I'll repeat myself

I really wish people would quit making it out that people with CCWs are trained to handle any situation they're in.

Now about your fallacy about the training of police officers and their actions on a range...
How much time do you spend on a gun range? Is this a "real" range or a tourist attraction that lets you come in and fire their machine guns? The truth of the matter is most police departments have their own private range where they work on their target practice. The Patrol officers I know hit their range at least once a week to make sure their sidearms are functioning properly and their sites are calibrated properly. Yes, some of them are arrogant jerks, but that doesn't mean they're poorly trained or experienced.

Of course you're hand-waving. You're taking any negative potential event, and spinning it out into a disaster. That's practically the fucking definition of hand-waving.

Yes, but critical thinking doesn't mean, "Worst case scenario is a disaster, so anything I do to mitigate that had just better not be done at all."

You don't get it. Get out of your fantasy world and step into the real world. These are analogies so fuck whatever strawman accusations you're going to throw at it.

If some little old lady or a kid fell in the middle of the street, you couldn't just charge out there and save them. Yes, it would be the noble and heroic thing to do, but you also have to watch for oncoming traffic. You could get hit yourself. The driver that swerves to miss you could hit the person you were trying to save or hit someone else. You have to find the best solution for that particular opportunity. It's called situational awareness.

Firefighters don't just charge into a building. They assess the fire and the possible risks associated with it or they risk their lives and the lives they're trying to save.

US Coast Guard Training Manual, Chapter 5 Situational Awareness
[quote]DEFINITION
Situational Awareness is the ability to identify, process,
and comprehend the critical elements of information about
what is happening to the team with regards to the mission.
More simply, it’s knowing what is going on around you.

Actually, you didn't debunk shit, but I do owe you an apology. The link I was referring to never got posted. Andara and I discussed it briefly, I thought she posted it, and I neglected to confirm. So, with that in mind, here it is.


Emphasis added. That's what I'm talking about when I say that you're throwing up any objection, no matter how minor, as "proof" that it's entirely disastrous.


Well, given that he WAS wearing a gas mask, which hinders vision a bit, and ESPECIALLY peripheral vision... I don't think PERFECT circumstances are called for.

The scenario plays out in many different ways. In reality, there were 12 dead and 58 wounded. The only reason that the numbers are so low is that the shooter inexplicably just stopped, turned, and left the theater.

If, by chance, there was a CCW person in the house (and there very well may have been, for all we know), AND he happened to have his gun on him, the majority probability is still the same events playing out in the same way, as the CCW holder decided that acting was too risky. Virtually any action he could have taken would have dramatically raised his own risk of dying, and in a crisis situation, most people will think of the safety of themselves and their families first and foremost. There's nothing wrong with this, and it's entirely rational to do so. But if, by chance, the hypothetical CCW holder decided to take action, probability favors his actions reducing the casualty count overall. Unlike the shooter, he'll know where his opposition is, and will be able to take the time to reduce risks like panicked people running between him and the shooter. There shooter quite deliberately positioned himself so that there wouldn't be anyone behind him, so the risk of hitting someone behind him is essentially nil.

And there's a good chance that even if a CCW Holder decided to take action in this case, he might not have had a suitable opportunity before the shooter just stopped and walked out.

Your analyst reiterated several of the points that I have made and you have contested.

Real training. Not punching holes in paper for bragging rights. Preparing yourself mentally and physically for a life-or-death struggle against a skilled, determined and demented attacker. You know you can do everything right in a gun fight and die. You’re ready to face evil. And you know you’ll never be ready enough.

and

This incident underlines the point that owning a gun is not enough,” the rabbi warned. “You need to know how to use it. To shoot from bad positions. To shoot from cover, left and right. To inoculate yourself to stress through force-on-force training.”

That requires training that most people don't have. Training that is not required for someone to buy a CCW in Colorado. For most people, guns are cool. They buy one and they go out to the range and punch holes in paper, wood, or garden growables.

We’ve also warned them to get away from us. That we are, truth be told, bullet magnets. If we reveal our firearm to the bad guy or guys, they will make us a target. If we fire they will return fire. At us. We’re ready to die for those we love but we do not want them to die because of us.

I have said repeatedly that firing a single shot would divert the attention of the shooter to their location.

The fact that he claims he would tell his family to get away from him is concept you find fictitious called "Situational Awareness"

The one topic he does not touch, which is somewhat expected, is the possibility of missing the shooter and hitting an innocent bystander.

This situation was chaos filled with panic.

[Gravekeeper]

This is actually most of our argument.

Basically, guns do jack and shit to affect our crime rate. It's our social structure that's fucked up, and the more effort we waste on the security theater bullshit (micro or macro), the less we actually fix.

I just made that exact point one page back and you DISAGREED.

Firearms do nothing to prevent crime. Crime rates tend to stay the same with or without firearms.

Indiscriminate ranting, indeed, considering that this statement is demonstrably false.

For Christ sakes. Make up your mind.

Was wondering if you'd go there. This point is utterly irrelevant to the case.

It looked like a gun and was being used like a gun, therefore, to anyone who didn't know it was a bluff (aka, everybody that wasn't one of the thugs), it was a gun.

Its completely relavent because this was a non-lethal situation that turned into a lethal situation with lives at risk because a CCW holder decided to take it upon himself to escalate the situation into a lethal scenario. A CCW holder who was incredibly reckless with his weapon, shot a fleeing suspect in the back, tried to shoot a fleeing suspect laying on the ground and fired rounds indiscriminately into a public space.

The vast majority of America would not trust a 71 year old man from Florida with a driver's license. Yet they cheer him on when he wildly opens fire in public. A random member of the public, clearly with no real training, is not only given but encouraged to use lethal force in a scenario where not even a police officer would be permitted to immediately use lethal force. How the fuck is that okay?

He didn't say freeze or put it down or even fire a warning shot to scare them off. He immediately went for the kill when the kid wasn't even looking and continued to go for the kill long past the point where any percieved threat was eliminated. All the while endangering bystanders.

[Nekojin]

Because we're never going to find any common ground here, I'm going to make this my last post with regard to the Gun Argument.

And here's that thing you told me not to argue against because it wasn't in here. Yet, you're making it. Do you remember? I said:

Andara replied with:

I apologized, causing you to say:

But not before you said:


I'm sensing a whole lot of contradiction in your posts. The only constant is your accusations that everything I say is a "strawman"

Because you frequently use actual, genuine strawman arguments. You put up arguments that people aren't making, misrepresent the arguments they are making, and twist their words to make it seem like we're making points we're not making.

I never said ALL CCW permit holders are better than blah blah blah. I said many.

The phrase that you said:

I really wish people would quit making it out that people with CCWs are trained to handle any situation they're in.

Note the lack of qualifier in that sentence? "...people with CCWs are trained to handle any situation that they're in." Not "many," not "most," not "some." By the lack of qualifier, you're implying, "all." Nobody has said that all CCWs are ANYTHING. That makes your argumentation against that point a FUCKING STRAWMAN.

But back on point...

I have already pointed out that the State of Colorado does NOT require any sort of skills test to acquire a CCW. All you need to do is pay a fee. Any legal gun owner can go down and buy a CCW in the State of Colorado. Many other States are the same way. So please tell me how this makes them "better-trained than your average police officer."

Some. Some. SOME. SOME. By leaving out context and qualifiers, you are, again, making a FUCKING STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

and I'll repeat myself

At no point did anyone other than you make the assertion you're trying to say we're making.

Now about your fallacy about the training of police officers and their actions on a range...
How much time do you spend on a gun range?

Irrelevant.

Is this a "real" range or a tourist attraction that lets you come in and fire their machine guns?

Irrelevant, hand-wavy, and comes close to being ad-hommish against ranges that offer such services.

The truth of the matter is most police departments have their own private range where they work on their target practice.

I'd argue some (or many), not most, but generally correct.

The Patrol officers I know hit their range at least once a week to make sure their sidearms are functioning properly and their sites are calibrated properly.

Bully for you. Your experiences aren't representative of the whole of reality. The fact is that many (most?) police departments don't require any more than yearly qualification with the weapons, and fairly low standards on such qualifications. None that I'm aware of require training on a hazard simulator or "danger zone."

Yes, some of them are arrogant jerks, but that doesn't mean they're poorly trained or experienced.

Doesn't mean that they are, either.

You don't get it. Get out of your fantasy world and step into the real world. These are analogies so fuck whatever strawman accusations you're going to throw at it.

One of us is living in a fantasy, but it's not me.

If some little old lady or a kid fell in the middle of the street, you couldn't just charge out there and save them. Yes, it would be the noble and heroic thing to do, but you also have to watch for oncoming traffic. You could get hit yourself. The driver that swerves to miss you could hit the person you were trying to save or hit someone else. You have to find the best solution for that particular opportunity. It's called situational awareness.

No shit, sherlock. All of your hand-wavy examples have involved throwing situational awareness out the window - you assume the worst, you don't actually develop situational scenarios. You just assume, from the start, that any retaliation toward the shooter will make the situation worse, not better, and work every "hypothesis" that you put forth relying on that axiom. In your "traffic" scenario, you'd say that you couldn't go rescue the woman, because it would be too dangerous. You don't say anything about assessing the scenario, positioning, or anything else that might be a factor - you just find one single stopping point, and stop.

I have said repeatedly that firing a single shot would divert the attention of the shooter to their location.

Bullshit. The one time it was brought up, you suggested that the shooter would just keep firing at the rest of the audience rather than focus on a possible new threat.

The fact that he claims he would tell his family to get away from him is concept you find fictitious called "Situational Awareness"

Sheer bullshit.

[crashhelmet]

Because we're never going to find any common ground here, I'm going to make this my last post with regard to the Gun Argument.


Because you frequently use actual, genuine strawman arguments. You put up arguments that people aren't making, misrepresent the arguments they are making, and twist their words to make it seem like we're making points we're not making.

I never said ALL CCW permit holders are better than blah blah blah. I said many.

The phrase that you said:

Note the lack of qualifier in that sentence? "...people with CCWs are trained to handle any situation that they're in." Not "many," not "most," not "some." By the lack of qualifier, you're implying, "all." Nobody has said that all CCWs are ANYTHING. That makes your argumentation against that point a FUCKING STRAWMAN.

Please provide empirical data that proves your claim that "Most" CCW holders are trained better than the police.

Some. Some. SOME. SOME. By leaving out context and qualifiers, you are, again, making a FUCKING STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

And your generic qualifiers are fallacious and unfounded statistics.

At no point did anyone other than you make the assertion you're trying to say we're making.

I brought it up, by mistake, and you ran with it continuing to say that "most" CCW holders were better trained than the police, again without any empirical data.

Bully for you. Your experiences aren't representative of the whole of reality. The fact is that many (most?) police departments don't require any more than yearly qualification with the weapons, and fairly low standards on such qualifications. None that I'm aware of require training on a hazard simulator or "danger zone."

And what qualifications are required for CCW holders in Florida, Utah, Georgia, Washington, Alabama, Virginia, and Colorado? Oh that's right. NONE. No te$t$, ju$t money.

Please explain to me the logic in how police officers with an annual requirement equals worse training than someone without any actual requirements. At all. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

No shit, sherlock. All of your hand-wavy examples have involved throwing situational awareness out the window - you assume the worst, you don't actually develop situational scenarios. You just assume, from the start, that any retaliation toward the shooter will make the situation worse, not better, and work every "hypothesis" that you put forth relying on that axiom. In your "traffic" scenario, you'd say that you couldn't go rescue the woman, because it would be too dangerous. You don't say anything about assessing the scenario, positioning, or anything else that might be a factor - you just find one single stopping point, and stop.

I didn't say I couldn't rescue the woman, I said I had to take other factors and variables into consideration before I attempted to. I said you need to find the perfect solution for the situation. If that means flailing your arms about and jumping up and down to get a driver's attention, than so be it. But you can't just rush out there without first looking to see if there is a car, or multiple cars, coming.

Bullshit. The one time it was brought up, you suggested that the shooter would just keep firing at the rest of the audience rather than focus on a possible new threat.

I did? Are you sure about that?

And that argument is false. Someone other than the shooter firing a single round could cause more panic among the audience members and result in people stampeding eachother to death. It could cause the shooter to panic himself and fire at a faster rate. Even if that single round was to the ceiling, as Andara suggested, it could direct the shooter's attention towards their direction and onto a new group of innocents that may have otherwise survived. Is one innocent person's survival worth the risk of another innocent's life?

[Andara Bledin]

I just made that exact point one page back and you DISAGREED.

For Christ sakes. Make up your mind.

Ok, my arguments are actually about slightly different facets, but I didn't state my position well at all.

My position isn't quite as contradictory as it appears on the surface.

It's worth noting that whether a crime is successful or not, it is still a crime (despite some of our finest trying to say it isn't so they don't have to do the paperwork and followup).

My statement this morning wasn't quite what I was trying to say, either, but I rushed it because I had to leave for work. I'll try to correct and expand on what I meant to say as opposed to what I ended up typing later this evening.

Its completely relavent because this was a non-lethal situation that turned into a lethal situation with lives at risk because a CCW holder decided to take it upon himself to escalate the situation into a lethal scenario.

No. The working status of the gun held by the criminals is not relevant.

The other issues regarding the incident are good fodder for debate, but that one isn't.

If you don't want people to think you might actually shoot them (which is what the thugs bluff was), then don't carry a gun and threaten them with it.

Are you seriously trying to argue that if a guy accosted you on the train and had what looked like a sharp knife and demanded that you give him your money with the implied threat that if you don't he'll stab you that you wouldn't fear for your life because, just maybe, what he had wasn't actually a real knife, it just looked like a real knife?

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

Holy crap, Crashhelmet, you're terrible at this whole "argumentation" thing (either that, or you're blatantly trolling). You don't even seem to be able to go a single post without making strawman arguments.

To whit:

Please provide empirical data that proves your claim that "Most" CCW holders are trained better than the police.

You're misrepresenting my position; I said, "many." The two words are not synonymous. Guess what that means? SURPRISE! You made another strawman!

But this is all getting incredibly off-topic, so if you want to continue, let's take it to another thread:
http://fratching.com/showthread.php?p=122094#post122094

[Hyena Dandy]

Uh, all the giant text is getting a little crazy. Maybe we can just calm down a little?

[BlaqueKatt]

Seeing as you have the highest rate of homicide in the western world

well either you don't count Honduras in south america, or Jamaica which have a murder rate of 82 per 100,000 and 52 per 100,000 to the US's 5.23, as the "western world"(which everyone else seems to)-I posted the top ten countries for homicide, and homicide rates by country and the US isn't even in the top 50%-where are you getting your information from? heck mexico had DOUBLE* the US murder rate, but I guess even though it's part of a western country it mysteriously isn't one.....I suppose the UN is wrong though.


*that data is from 2005, the 2010 data for mexico homicide rate is 20.9 per 100,000 while the US is still at 5.23 per 100,000 strange math you have there where 5 is larger than 20......

[Gravekeeper]

well either you don't count Honduras in south america, or Jamaica which have a murder rate of 82 per 100,000 and 52 per 100,000 to the US's 5.23, as the "western world"(which everyone else seems to)-I posted the top ten countries for homicide, and homicide rates by country and the US isn't even in the top 50%-where are you getting your information from?

Protip: Western world is not a geographical term. When someone says western world they're referring to developed western civilizations. AKA first world nations. Of which the US is the worst by every statistical measure relating to firearms. Most firearm related deaths per capita. Most usage of firearms in violent crime per capita. Highest rate of homicide and highest rate of homicide with firearms per capita.

Firearms do absolutely nothing to prevent, deter or lower crime. The only thing increased access to firearms does for crime is increase the rate at which they are used in crime and increase the rate of deaths that occur in the committing of crimes. Both when the perpetrator OR the victim has one.

Because, as I keep pointing out, the moment an active firearm is introduced the situation immediately becomes a lethal scenario and since Americans are so intent on whipping them out during non-lethal scenaros, you end up with a higher risk of death for everyone involved or within the vincinity of said scenario. Because everyone involved is immediately in fight or flight mode.

No. The working status of the gun held by the criminals is not relevant.

It is relevant because its perfectly demonstrating the problem with randomly opening fire without any consideration for the ramifications. This was not only a non-lethal scenario, it was a scenario that didn't even have the potential to be lethal which was escalated to a lethal scenario for everyone involved by one dipshit CCW holder. That is not okay in any way shape or form.

The idea that any random dumbass is allowed to possess and utilize a concealed firearm without any of the restrictions, training or procedure that a police officer in the same situation would have to abide by is completely ridiculous. The fact that said random dumbass is free to straight up pull a gun and shoot someone dead regardless of that person's intentions as long as a crime of some sort is being committed is morally appalling.

You think this fucknut wouldn't have fired if both kids had melee weapons? Bullshit, he'd have unloaded on them then too. Its not about self defence, its about vengeance as illustrated by the public reaction in the US whenever something like this happens. They're not cheering that he prevented a crime, they're cheering that he basically showed em who had the bigger penis and lamenting that he didn't kill them outright.

Its not about preventing crime, its about mortally punishing anyone who dares commit a crime to or within the vincinity of your person.

[Andara Bledin]

It is relevant because its perfectly demonstrating the problem with randomly opening fire without any consideration for the ramifications.

See, this sort of contortionist, post-facto justification bothers me.

Two thugs walked into an internet cafe carrying deadly weapons with intent to rob the place and who knows what else. One of those people they were there to rob and potentially kill had the means to stop them and make sure they didn't come back.

You keep making absolute statements about how the situation would have ended without the defending shooter's intervention, but the bald truth is that you have no idea whatsoever what would have happened if he hadn't been there. Nobody, not even the thugs themselves, can possibly predict with more than vague degree of certainty what would have happened.

It would have taken a psychic for anyone in the cafe itself to know what the thugs had planned. It's not like they walked in and waved the gun going, "Oh, hey, don't worry about this gun. It doesn't actually work. But we'll just all pretend it's a working gun so I can threaten you with it so you'll give me all your money and stuff." The whole point of a bluff is to make the people you're bluffing think it's not a bluff. The thug's entire message was that if the people didn't hand over the goods, he'd start shooting; otherwise, why the hell would you be carrying a gun at all?

And there is zero information that can suggest anything about how the rest of the patrons would have handled the situation. Perhaps someone else would have tried to play hero and attempted to wrest the gun away from the thug and while trying to actually use it get beaten to death by the guy with the bat. There are dozens of different ways that the whole thing could have gone down, and most of them are bad.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for the thugs. They painted huge targets on their backs the second they chose to rob a public place full of patrons and it baffles me that anyone thinks that their rights while in the commission of a crime with deadly weapons should trump the rights of those being threatened.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Two thugs walked into an internet cafe carrying deadly weapons with intent to rob the place and who knows what else.

Nothing else. They intended to rob the place. The kid with the gun displays no signs of wanting to kill anyone and is only directing people to move when crazy old man opens fire at him. Crazy old man opens fire on him while another person is clearly in the same vincinity endangering an innocent bystander. There is a older lady behind the front desk that the kid with the gun is in the process of ushering when Crazy old man opens fire. So thats one person endangered by being in the line of fire on the first shot.

The defending shooters invention endangered an innocent life on the first shot. Nevermind his reckless shots out into the street. Or his attempts to kill both perpetrators by continuing to fire while they were fleeing and while one was laying on the ground.

The man has no situational awareness as he obviously does not assess the situation in any way before firing. He clearly has no training whatsoever and is vengeance mode, not self defense mode. He is a reckless fucking idiot that should not own a gun nevermind a CCW license.

The only thing that would have happened otherwise is some cash would have been grabbed. Yet for some reason everybody wants someone to die over petty material wealth. I find that morally abhorrent and sincerely don't understand any human being that could claim otherwise.

You keep making absolute statements about how the situation would have ended without the defending shooter's intervention, but the bald truth is that you have no idea whatsoever what would have happened if he hadn't been there.

Neither do you, but at least I'm providing reasoning based on the video evidence.

It would have taken a psychic for anyone in the cafe itself to know what the thugs had planned. It's not like they walked in and waved the gun going, "Oh, hey, don't worry about this gun.

No, they came in and said "Hey, I've got a gun and I want money, everyone get down on the floor. Move over there away from the register".

That's why its called a robbery and not a shooting spree.

The thug's entire message was that if the people didn't hand over the goods, he'd start shooting; otherwise, why the hell would you be carrying a gun at all?

Because its the most effective way to get what they want: Money, and money is their only objective. Their objective is not to randomly murder people. People, victim and perpetrators alike, typically only die during a robbery if someone thinks they're John Wayne and pulls a gun. Immediately escalating the situation into a fight or flight scenario for everyone involved.

If someone with a gun is being shot at, they think they're going to die and will either run or shoot back. This goes just as much for the perpetrator as it does the victim. If you pull a gun on someone holding a gun, what do you think that person is going to do now that they think their life is in danger? They'll either run or they'll shoot back and now you've got a firefight, that you caused, over something not worth causing it over: Material wealth.

Its fucking stupid and its not worth risking your life over, let alone the lives of bystanders.

And there is zero information that can suggest anything about how the rest of the patrons would have handled the situation. Perhaps someone else would have tried to play hero and attempted to wrest the gun away from the thug and while trying to actually use it get beaten to death by the guy with the bat. There are dozens of different ways that the whole thing could have gone down, and most of them are bad.

Yet they all require someone to make a fucking stupid desicion and risk life and limb over material wealth.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for the thugs. They painted huge targets on their backs the second they chose to rob a public place full of patrons and it baffles me that anyone thinks that their rights while in the commission of a crime with deadly weapons should trump the rights of those being threatened.

No one said anything about their rights?

Yeah, they're stupid teenage thugs. But that doesn't mean they deserve to be executed while laying on the street. Suggesting they deserve to be shot like pigs and killed over this is ridiculous. Nevermind morally repugnant.

Do you seriously think that?

[Duelist925]

For the love of several fucks.

GK seriously? Wether or not the gun was working, or a prop, is a moot point--if they had pointed their non working gun at a cop, they would have been shot, because you don't ask someone if that thing their pointing at you is real or not. If it looks like a gun, you treat it like a gun, period, until proven otherwise. This is a basic rule of gun safety. If it looks like a gun you assume it IS, and that it's loaded, until proven otherwise.



Andara, the old dude was a fucking idiot. He was not a damn hero--he acted recklessly, and endangered peoples lives by escalating the situation. If the idiots had had a real gun, people could have died from any returned fire, and the old idiot was WAY out of line following them the way he did.


I hate gun control threads. -_- so polarizing, they turn two highly intelligent people to the point where they cannot see any merit in the others arguement.

[Andara Bledin]

Nothing else. They intended to rob the place.

This is where your argument fails. It doesn't matter one whit to the people they were threatening at the time they walked into the place that they had no intention of robbing the place. None at all.

They walked in carrying deadly weapons with the implication that if people didn't do what they want, they'd use them. That's the entire point of having them is to threaten their use.

You're trying to argue that if people had resisted in a manner that didn't include someone else with a deadly weapon and the will to use it that they would have just thrown up their hands and walked out fo there without hurting anyone (well, except for the shop owner, who'd already lost money in damaged equipment). We both know you're not that naive.

Nevermind his reckless shots out into the street. Or his attempts to kill both perpetrators by continuing to fire while they were fleeing and while one was laying on the ground.

Two things here.

He's firing at a downward angle, which I mentioned previously and is, in part, supported by the fact that one of those shots is while one thug is on the ground and the other has just scrambled up from a prone position and isn't yet upright. Standing in the doorway of my house, which is up several steps and far closer to the street than the door to most shops, it takes a drop of only about 5° before my shot is going to bury itself in the grass at the verge. Any noticeable downward angle is going to case the bullets to go into the ground before getting near the street. I can totally draw a diagram if it will help illustrate this point.

Neither do you, but at least I'm providing reasoning based on the video evidence.

So, you admit that you can't say with certainty what would have happened, but you continue to make absolute statements about the situation.

The man has no situational awareness as he obviously does not assess the situation in any way before firing.

The only thing that would have happened otherwise is some cash would have been grabbed.

No, they came in and said "Hey, I've got a gun and I want money, everyone get down on the floor. Move over there away from the register".

Because its the most effective way to get what they want: Money, and money is their only objective.

They'll either run or they'll shoot back and now you've got a firefight, that you caused, over something not worth causing it over: Material wealth.

Seriously, make up your mind. Either nobody knows what would have happened, or you have some magic pipeline to fate and have the inside scoop. Why does the addition of a gun to the scenario make rational debate go out the window.

Do you seriously think that?

They threatened a room full of people with weapons.

They are the ones that opened the dialogue of "death versus material wealth."

And since nobody can read minds (except for possibly you, it would seem), it is not out of line to assume that they are willing to follow through on their threats. I don't blame the old guy one bit for not trusting criminals to not lie.

Andara, the old dude was a fucking idiot. He was not a damn hero--he acted recklessly, and endangered peoples lives by escalating the situation.

I've never actually defended the old guy. On page 21, I agreed that it looks like the guy went too far.

However, not having been there, I cannot say with the certainty displayed by others how reckless he may or may not have been. It is not uncommon for people who take hostages (and make no mistake, that was a hostage situation) to injure or kill them; it's not their intent, but it's part of the "plan b" scenario. With hindsight, it's easy to say that isn't a particularly likely scenario in this instance, but in the thick of it, nobody but the people involved can know the tension in the room.

My argument has never been that the old guy was definitely in the right, because I can't know that. My entire debate on this specific subject is rebutting the idea that anyone else can know enough to make the broad and sweeping declarations that have been made.

^-.-^