No. You are wrong. Are you one of those gun grabbers who try to tell the REAL gun folks what to do? It was legal for him to do what he did. Are you trying to put government regulations in place for how to transport your guns? Regulation. Next comes registration. Then they grab your guns. You’d like that wouldn’t you?
You are pretty thick if you can’t see that the solution is more guns.
You’re right, I’m sold.
No, you’re not. Unless your point is “I’m a pathetically stupid dipshit.”
No my point is that law abiding, gun owning citizens defend their lives against criminals with such frequency that it’s actually being caught on film now. Another point is that the cops really are not there in time to save you even if you call them. And of course that it’s often weaker people who are using their guns to defend against stronger attackers. Like this lady:
The fact that something is caught on film is evidence for its frequency? You really are not very bright at all.
That’s another instance of a very positive outcome. A successful defense with a firearm that is not in any risk of being banned.
Sure it does. The more often something happens the more likely it will be caught on film. There are plenty of statistics indicating that guns are used to thwart crime with a relative high frequency, but it seems gun-grabbers just refuse to believe any of it. So I figure a video of it happening in real life is good for you would be gun-grabbers to see.
I’m glad you liked it, but if the gun-grabbers have their way, I think they will ban handguns. Some have already admitted it. They are just going for the low hanging fruit now, and once they get it they will say “see it’s legal to ban some guns, so it must be legal to ban some more.” I’ve already seen that argument used.
Relative to what?
Bananas.
What about pointed sticks?
See now, this type of thinking is the product of a limited intellect. There’s a famous America’s Funniest Videos video clip of a bike race in which a hat blows off the head of one rider and lands perfectly on the head of a rider behind him. Does the fact that this was on film mean that this event happens frequently?
The increase in filming things is the product of video recording technology becoming simpler, cheaper and more generally available. The more that things in general are filmed, the more that rare events will be filmed. It does not mean anything about the frequency of those events. Imagine for instance that people posted videos in which nothing happened. How much effort would it take you to locate the videos you are showing us?
As Fear Itself points out, you cannot use the term “relative” in a vacuum. And in fact, people have studied the use of privately owned firearms for thwarting crimes relative to the use of these firearms for shooting family members or shooting oneself, showing that the rate of the former is dwarfed by the rate of the latter.
What happens is that you display ignorance about statistics, handwave away stats that you don’t like, and find that people are subsequently not convinced by you. Posting a video of such an event happening would be useful for refuting the assertion that successful defensive gun uses never happen. I don’t think anyone is making that claim.
This is because you do not approach the issue logically and intelligently, but from the standpoint of pants-filling paranoid hysteria.
Well, I think this video (and others you’ve posted) highlights the problem with defensive gun use statistics. In this video, the armed robber had ample time to shoot anybody he wanted, especially since they were actively resisting his efforts to rob the place. Furthermore, even after the shot was fired, the armed robber didn’t use his weapon; he simply ran away. That, to me, says that he wasn’t interested in killing anyone that day, since at that point he still had the upper hand.
Statistics say that if the store owners had simply opened the door, complied with the robber’s demands and given him the money, he would have left without harming anyone. So was this a case of DGU to protect life and limb? Or property? I would vote property, but we’ll never know. It could be that the armed robber planned on clearing out the register and then executing everyone in the store. I suppose shit like that does happen, although it’s exceedingly rare.
Now, armed robbery is a violent crime, and even though nobody was physically harmed, I don’t want to discount the mental effects. I also don’t want to begrudge the way these employees reacted. However, there’s a reason that banks don’t train employees to barricade the door and then pull a small handgun out of their pockets if faced with deadly force – because statistically, it’s the wrong thing to do.
No, but if it was caught on film a number of times, it would would mean it was more frequent then you might think. Wouldn’t it?
The low ball estimate of crimes being thwarted with guns is I think 100,000 times a year. That’s a lot more than the number of deaths per year attributed to gun violence.
I know you are, but what am I.
Maybe you are right, maybe should have just been a victim. Maybe let the guy rape her too while he was at it. Then he could do it again the next week.
Hey Kable
i guess you’re not a gun grabber after all. My apologies.
Nice focus on the fear there. Yes, they are raping our women. We must fight back with everything we have. They are everywhere - rapists, robbers, muggers, home invasions. I watch TV, so I know this.
I suggest the solution is more guns. When you’re afraid every moment of the waking day… not just a little afraid, but freakin’ terrified - gut-wrenching, pants-filling, knee trembling afraid…
Then having a gun (or better, guns) on your person is a great way to eliminate that fear.
What do you think of a federal law that requires every person to be armed at all times? Except for criminals, because they do all the crimes.
Dude, stop. It was only mildly amusing at first and now it’s lame.
It’s still a little funny.
Oh, we’re talking about your case now? I thought we were talking about all the videos you were posting.
I’ll say two things even though I probably shouldn’t. One, it’s great that you were able to protect yourself and your wife, but that doesn’t mean that every idiot who hears a bump in the night and runs downstairs with a sidearm can claim that he used his gun to prevent his wife from getting raped.
Two, if you had to relive that scenario again, would you rather stick with your sidearm, or would you want to upgrade to the home fortress that I described in another thread?
(John Cleese voice) SHUT UP! 
Can you link to your post?
Yeesh, it was in direct responseto your question.