Well, he fired several times and didn’t put either guy down. One had a superficial arm wound the other had a wound to the buttock.
He also fired at them from behind as they ran out of the store, in states other than Florida that would have been illegal…and is of questionable morality in any State.
I know. In contrast, that guy who put his hands up immediately was very moral.
These guys were robbers, not killing spree shooters. A homicidal maniac probably wouldn’t have run away because they’re usually figuring on killing themselves anyhow.
It looked like this other shooter couldn’t shoot worth a damn, and it’s lucky he didn’t gun down any bystanders.
He wounded both of them. And yes, gramps could benefit from better gun control.
So could any civilized country.
The guy who put his hands up was moral, but there are ways to be moral without putting your hands up. Grandpa had every right to start shooting, but shooting as a morally justifiably thing stopped the moment they turned tail and ran out the door.
These guys are better armed, better trained, more alert, and have half the number of foes and they can’t stop the shooter before he empties his gun.
[quote=“Terr, post:1, topic:645324”]
[/QUOTE]Grossly misleading title. There is absolutely no indication that the “armed senior citizen” stopped a massacre. If the two gunman had been intent on killing people they would simply have returned grandpa’s fire, and since he was outnumbered and outgunned would likely have put him down in short order. He stopped a robbery, and was only able to do that because the robbers were morons and allowed him to take them by surprise.
The first job is to arm them…then, to train them.
First things first.
I didn’t see the thugs surrendering their weapons. The threat remains and I think police officers would still be shooting in this situation. I could be wrong. any officers wish to weigh in?
The last shot that the old man took was probably unlawful.. at that immediate time the threat had vacated and was running away. I would add though that two armed men came into a business and committed (attempted) a violent assault. When they were fleeing they were still armed and posed a threat to whoever they were fleeing towards. As that being the case.. the Old Man’s last shot was merely questionable..
I appreciate the character and bravery the Old Man showed.. my only gripe with him was that when he first approached if he hadn’t turtled he would have taken that first guy out easy. Turtling (scrunching your head and neck) really effects the accuracy of your shooting. If we are going to be an armed society I only wish it was a armed TRAINED society..
That robbery wouldn’t have taken place but that the boys had a gun. The gun is the problem.
Shooting at people, who are fleeing and haven’t fired a shot, is not heroic or moral.
Quoted for truth.
The answer to armed robberies is not to arm the victims, but to get the arms away from the perpetrators in the first place.
You can start by removing the hard drugs that drive the criminal behavior. That shouldn’t be too hard. We can use that as a template.
No, but, stopping a robbery IS moral and heroic. Shooting at armed thieves, and stopping potential murder is heroic and moral.
Guns are not problems. They have done nothing. They do not put ideas into peoples heads. They go nowhere by themselves. They do NOTHING by themselves. Like knives. Like airliners. Like fire.
What likelyhood is one to survive a mass shooting when the shooter doesn’t have access to a gun?
That’s quite a hypothetical you have there. As Magiver suggests, it’s not really possible to ensure that no murderous person ever gains access to guns. So when it happens, the only way to rapidly bring a halt to the bloodshed is by intervention on the part of armed individuals in the immediate vicinity. The OP’s video was a robbery attempt (rather than a mass shooting), but it clearly showed that the response time of someone already on the scene beats the response time of 911 by a factor of about 72 (six minutes versus five seconds).
When the shooter doesn’t have access to the gun, the likelyhood of surviving a mass shooting is 100% because it’s not possible to commit a mass shooting. This is inarguable, mathematical fact.
Now, if you want to argue that it isn’t possible to guarantee mass shooters don’t have guns, you have a very valid argument considering there are some 300 million guns in the US. However, we have seen from other first world countries that in general, the harder to get a gun, the less gun violence. This is also fact. It’s my opinion that if we start now with complete gun control within 50-70 years we can have a tiny percentage of the gun violence we have now, if we made an effort like the UK does. I wouldn’t want to be in law enforcement’s shoes trying to confiscate guns from psycho righties, I think we have to have a grandfather clause of some kind for long arms, realistically.
I feel like the dialogue is completely broken. The vast majority of gun deaths are NOT mass shootings, they’re angry people who have an easy, dispasionate way to kill someone on hand before they cool down. The fact that there are tons of knives in Japan and the UK and almost zero guns, and yet knife killings don’t even come CLOSE to the amount of homicides by firearms in the USA makes a pretty clear case, that there are a ton of human beings who would kill someone if they only need to pull a trigger, but don’t have the balls to get their hands dirty.
When we keep looking at the gun violence issue as “WE MUST STOP MADMEN” instead of Gang members, angry cuckholded husbands, and drunks, we cloud the simple truth, that humans as a group shouldn’t be having handguns at home, or else they will see the handgun as a problem solver when they shouldn’t. It’s inevitable.
I also can’t stand the talk about “assault” weapons and other B.S., the vast majority of gun deaths are from concealed handguns. It’s an easy political ploy to ban a “scary” military looking gun with the same characteristics of a hunting rifle, so that Dems appease people they’re “tough on guns” so they can go back to ignoring all the black people dying in ghettos from cheap handguns.
The only reason the nation is having a dialogue is because the image of white children getting slaughtered in a school is horrific (it is), to me the fact that people die in the ghetto every day and no one cares is equally horrific.