Not necessarily -
A life vs losing the money in the till to a fuckwit thief?
Between the two I know which I would choose - even if it was my personal money
Four arrested after home invasion, fatal shooting in Pembroke Pines
4 people planned a home invasion and ends with all suspects apprehended or dead and no other injuries. Sounds pretty positive to me.
The problem is that handing over the money to the robber in no way guarantees your safety. He may well kill you to eliminate witnesses or just out of spite.
You also don’t want to know why the New Jersey law was enacted. You’re content to call it asinine just because it’s a restriction on guns, period.
You don’t get to post a propagandized story from a partisan website and not expect to be called out on it, not on this board. If you’re having trouble explaining how power outages are a disaster, try contacting the writer at ConcealedNation.com. A responsible, objective journalist such as he should welcome a chance to justify his choice of words.
Would you shoot to kill in order to protect life from an armed robber?
If I’m “protecting life” it’s not an armed robber but a murderer. In that situation yes.
Between killing someone and the $200 or $300 in the till (or my wallet), no I wouldn’t shoot to kill.
Well I certainly consider those deaths to be tragic, and I wouldn’t include them in a thread called Positive Car News of the Day.
Come to think of it, I am strongly opposed to drunk driving, and have posted it about it numerous times on this board, mostly to cite the positive statistics about the massive decline in drunk driving deaths in the U.S. since 1980. So while you can’t live life being depressed by every death that happens, I do care about those deaths in the aggregate, and I do take time to be saddened for a moment by tragic incidents such as the one that took place in Oklahoma on Saturday.
Okay, so let’s say a guy breaks into your home or walks into your place of business, points a gun at you, and says “Give me all your money.”
After you’ve given him all your money one of two things will happen. He will leave you in peace or he will kill you, either to make sure there’s no witness or because he’s overcome by holding the power of life and death in his hands, and, being the loser he undoubtedly is, decides to exercise a little power for once in his life and shoots you to death, just because.
Now at just what point did he switch from being a robber to being a murderer? And since you’re now dead because you valued his life more than your money and thought he was only a robber, how to you propose to then overcome your reluctance and decide to kill him because he’s suddenly turned from being a robber into being a murderer and it therefore became necessary for you to ‘protect life’ and kill him?
Yes, but that’s a distinction without a difference, as someone mentioned earlier there’s no way to tell beforehand what someone’s intentions are. By definition an armed robber is already threatening your life, you think? “Give me your money, or I’ll kill you.” They are willing to murder at one level, at least in principle. If not, they are certainly willing to convey that image. One of the more aggravating weasel phrases one will hear in the press goes something like “A robbery gone bad”, as if there is some kind of official protocol to these things and if nobody gets hurt it’s just another day that ends in Y.
This is why not very many are going to get too spooled up about it, if the perpetrator is harmed or killed, so much the better to this line of thought.
The robber in the Waffle House story was leaving and was shot in the doorway by a guy in the parking lot who had been out there watching the whole thing. The real positive news is that this guy shot into a restaurant full of people and only hit the bad guy.
Florence resident shoots intruder, police say
It’s a good thing the homeowner brought a gun to a knife fight.
Well he was probably a decent enough shot compared with say, the cops in NYC. Plenty of horror stories there, “spray and pray” and hitting everyone BUT the intended target.
One thing that is apparent the willingness for these individuals to threaten and rob the public is considerably dampened by the possibility that their intended victims will shoot back. Yes, the whole thing stinks but that ship sailed long ago and it’s going to get worse before it gets worse. While I don’t have a concealed carry permit there is some benefit to me because I live in a “shall issue” state - a criminal will have to gamble, that I may not be carrying - that he feels lucky. Most people at worst just don’t care if an armed robber gets plugged. Why should they? It’s way down the list of “Shit I Need To Worry About”.
Positive news, for weird values of ‘positive,’ I suppose.
Sounds like positive martial arts news to me, since that’s how the homeowner defended himself. By your account, there was nothing positive about the presence of a gun in this encounter.
And you know what? We folks on the left side of the spectrum have been working to reduce automobile deaths and increase safety for 50+ years. Mandatory seat belts, shoulder harnesses, ‘click it or ticket,’ air bags, child booster seats, standards for absorbing the shock of a crash - we lefties have supported them all, and often faced stiff opposition from the right.
Not to mention, we’d like to see more public transit available in more places, which would save a hell of a lot more lives, but there, also, the right thinks that’s communism or something.
So I get kinda tired of this “well, what about car crashes?” from gun lovers. We’ve made things way safer there. We’ve gone from 54,589 automobile deaths in 1972 to 32,719 in 2013, from 1 of every 3845 people getting killed by cars each year, to 1 of every 9667 people per year.
So yeah, we’ve been bummed by needless automobile deaths for a long, long time, and we’ve acted on that. Successfully.
Took 42 posts, but finally some positive gun news.
Sounds like a locked door would have been equally effective.
Maybe so, but you don’t SHOW it, in the same way that you react to deaths from guns. Murders from guns are only about 1/3 the number of traffic deaths–yet you scream bloody murder, as if that were the national tragedy to end all tragedies. You stomp your feet, and wail, and generally carry on as if you personally knew every single person who was murdered with a gun.
Just in the same way we hear the twin cries, “Think of the children!” and “If it saves one life, it’s worth it!” whenever a child is accidentally killed with a gun – and yet when it comes to the subject of backyard swimming pools, (which kill far more children than guns do), the silence is deafening.
Frankfort gas station clerk pulls gun on armed robber
No shots fired and no dead robbers so it would not be captured in any statistic available - still a DGU.
It is not Think of the Children, but last I checked pools are rarely use to commit armed robbery. If the NRA would meet most of America part way the gun owners would not be reviled collectively. We need nationwide waiting periods, registration, limitations on automatic weapons and non-ferrous guns. We need gun safety training to be mandatory. Things like this would have me on the gun owners side, instead I see the crap the NRA does on behalf of gun owners and it makes the gun supporters look very unreasonable. Cars have to be registered, so why not guns?
As noted before, because car registration isn’t motivated by a desire to reduce car ownership, punish car owners, or confiscate cars. We have years and years of the gun control lot making their agenda and goals clear, yet it is a mystery why we don’t trust you?