Support NeoGAF

[diehard]

Its cute that your link cites some of the very studies my link eviscerated. Heres a link to an NPR segment where they talk about the absurdity of the Kleck study.

But I always like ad hominem attacks, conspiracy theories and poor sources when I evaluate topics. Thats why I believe climate change is a global conspiracy by big science to steal our jobs and make us all live in hippie communes smoking drugs and eating vegetables.

Yes im sure your link where people come to this conclusion:

"For starters, it would seem to imply that the vast majority of people using guns in self-defense are irresponsible citizens who use their firearm to ward off an attempted crime, and then, perhaps uncertain about the legality of their action, are leery of interacting with the police. It would also imply that while these citizens ostensibly stopped a crime serious enough to justify brandishing a firearm, they aren’t at all concerned about informing the police about a criminal who remains on the street."

Is clearly going to "eviscerate" any actual studies.

 

[Somnid]

Some people deserve to be shot. I won't go as far as saying they 'should' be, but they deserve it. I don't see where 'robber gets rewarded with cash, and leaves to commit more crimes another day' is any more desirable than #2.

Unless your #1 means the robbery never occurs in the first place. Then yes, I'd prefer that.


.

Rewarded with cash? I'd imagine someone armed robbing a waffle house is a tremendously desperate person who feels left with no other options.

 

[davepoobond]

We found the solution to the police problem, get rid of police and arm everyone. Then police won't die and police won't kill people anymore. We will all just kill each other and enforce laws as we see fit

GG

 

[Stumpokapow]

Some people deserve to be shot. I won't go as far as saying they 'should' be, but they deserve it. I don't see where 'robber gets rewarded with cash, and leaves to commit more crimes another day' is any more desirable than #2.

Unless your #1 means the robbery never occurs in the first place. Then yes, I'd prefer that.

okay so to be clear it's 2-1-3 for you, you think it is better than "bad people" get shot then that no one gets shot.

3 isnt anywhere in the realm of 1 or 2. If 3 didn't happen, its a "good" ending.

okay so is it 1-2-3 or 2-1-3 for you

 

[dr3upmushroom]

Second one this week. A shooter fired at an escaping shoplifter at a Home Depot earlier this week.

We don't need damn cowboys firing guns in stores.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

please rank these outcomes from best to worst

1) no one gets shot
2) robber gets shot
3) innocent people get shot

it's kind of unfathomable that there are human beings that think 2-1-3 is the way to go.

I'm anti-gun but you won't get any sympathy from me if you walk into a place threatening people's lives and then get shot. I'm not a fan of a civilian doing it because of their lack of training, but I wouldn't feel sorry for the robber either.

 

[Metaphoreus]

please rank these outcomes from best to worst

1) no one gets shot
2) robber gets shot
3) innocent people get shot

it's kind of unfathomable that there are human beings that think 2-1-3 is the way to go.

The armed bystander isn't choosing between 1 and 2, though. The question for the bystander is between (a) letting the robber who is threatening (3) to decide between (1) and (3), or (b) shooting the robber.

We don't live in a best-outcome world. Sometimes you just have to settle for second-best.

 

[diehard]

okay so to be clear it's 2-1-3 for you, you think it is better than "bad people" get shot then that no one gets shot.



okay so is it 1-2-3 or 2-1-3 for you

Yes lets boil down complex situations to a comparison akin to a "Marry, fuck, kill" game.

 

[whytemyke]

Unless that guy can shoot cholesterol, he didn't so much save those customers as buy them more time.

 

[neoemonk]

Second one this week. A shooter fired at an escaping shoplifter at a Home Depot earlier this week.

Do we execute shoplifters now?

 

[Messypandas]

Now thats some great shooting. I can't see an article elucidating on what the robber was "armed" with. Anyway good no innocents are hurt sad to read the robbers in a critical condition.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Why in the hell would you try to rob a Waffle House?

This is (unsurprisingly) extremely common. Not sure what it is that attracts criminals to Waffle House. A lot of cops eat there too.

 

[Stet]

Now thats some great shooting. I can't see an article elucidating on what the robber was "armed" with. Anyway good no innocents are hurt sad to read the robbers in a critical condition.

Nope.

He died.

http://www.abcnews4.com/story/30230...house-robbery-thwarted-by-gun-toting-customer

 

[entremet]

Do we execute shoplifters now?

That wasn't police action.

It was an idiotic citizen.

If by "we" you're talking about the government, state, etc.

 

[Jonm1010]

Yes im sure your link where people come to this conclusion:

"For starters, it would seem to imply that the vast majority of people using guns in self-defense are irresponsible citizens who use their firearm to ward off an attempted crime, and then, perhaps uncertain about the legality of their action, are leery of interacting with the police. It would also imply that while these citizens ostensibly stopped a crime serious enough to justify brandishing a firearm, they aren’t at all concerned about informing the police about a criminal who remains on the street."

Is clearly going to "eviscerate" any actual studies.

Did you bother to read anything? Because that quote is actually using your own supposed source against itself. But nice try at taking something out of context. What exactly is he saying that is wrong there?

You gave me a link that amongst other cherry picking uses a discredited DGU study as a backbone for their supporting evidence. The Kleck study has been roundly criticized for numerous things. Amongst them the basic methodology they used which has been discredited both in terms of no evidence to support their high numbers and on the methodology they used to extrapolate these numbers that don't square with actual police and law enforcement data. Hell, even authors of many of these questionable surveys admit that anywhere from 34-64% of the stories told were probably illegal uses of their guns. Which if we took Klecks numbers at face value mean there are something like 1 million unreported illegal uses of guns by gun owners every year. Thankfully we know the extrapolation they used was faulty so those numbers aren't nearly that high but there is still the problem of the rampant borderline legality of a lot of these supposed instances of defensive gun use.

Even taking these studies at their face value makes gun owners championing self defense as a legitimate reason for lax gun laws have problems they can't square away. When we look at the totality of studies on the subject, in proper context, including studies about the higher rate of domestic abuse, suicide, homicide and gun violence with gun owners, defensive gun use is a dead end for those trying to claim lax gun laws make us safer.

 

[Suikoguy]

Do we execute shoplifters now?

Apparently. The local PD was not sure if they were pressing any charges.

 

[Messypandas]

Nope.

He died.

http://www.abcnews4.com/story/30230...house-robbery-thwarted-by-gun-toting-customer

Oh well. Gunshots at the exit, I wonder if was trying to escape and was gunned down.

 

[Bodacious]

okay so to be clear it's 2-1-3 for you, you think it is better than "bad people" get shot then that no one gets shot.

If the perpetrator of an armed robbery can be taken into custody with nobody being shot, including the piece of shit doing the crime, of course that would be preferable. But if you ask me to choose between 1) the criminal succeeding in robbing a business or person and getting away with it, free to commit more armed robberies in the future, or 2) the armed robbery can be stopped by shooting the person committing it, then shoot him.

And since you seem uncertain on the point, yes a person who commits armed robbery is a 'bad person.'

 

[Shining Sunshine]

wut....the criminal was armed and attempting robbery, the very definition of an act of violence. People's lives are in danger, that's the exact moment you can use your concealed firearm lol.

Seems like it was defused pretty darn quick to me. The reason a person carries a firearm when robbing a joint is to threaten the victim with their life, hence the point of "armed" robbery, and when you're allowed to use your gun to defend yourself or someone else' life. I'm not sure what other reason there would be to use it.

I don't agree with this. If you comply with the robber, no one gets hurt as the other poster said.

You shoot the robber, you killed someone. Taking someone's life is something that cannot be undone regardless if that person was bad or not. A bit of cash versus someone's life, there is no choice. You don't take a life.

 

[chekhonte]

Friendly reminder that potentially killing somebody for committing a non violent crime is not justice.

 

[timetokill]

I don't agree with this. If you comply with the robber, no one gets hurt as the other poster said.

You have no way of proving this.

 

[entremet]

Friendly reminder that potentially killing somebody for committing a non violent crime is not justice.

Robbery is violent by legal definition.

 

[chekhonte]

You have no way of proving this.

As you have no way to prove these peoples intent.

 

[diehard]

Did you bother to read anything?

You gave me a link that amongst other cherry picking uses a discredited DGU study as a backbone for their supporting evidence. The Kleck study has been roundly criticized for numerous things. Amongst them the basic methodology they used which has been discredited both in terms of no evidence to support their high numbers and on the methodology they used to extrapolate these numbers that don't square with actual numbers. Hell, even authors of many of these discredited surveys admit that anywhere from 34-64% of the stories told were probably illegal uses of their guns. Which if we took Klecks numbers at face value mean there are something like 1 million unreported illegal uses of guns by gun owners every year. Thankfully we know the extrapolation they used was faulty so those numbers aren't nearly that high but there is still the problem of the rampant borderline legality of a lot of these supposed instances of defensive gun use.

Even taking these studies at their face value makes gun owners championing self defense as a legitimate reason for lax gun laws have problems they can't square away.

I gave you link that cites 8 sources, not just the study from Kleck & Co. . Did you bother to read those? (Yes i read the article on "Armed with Reason".

 

[neoemonk]

That wasn't police action.

It was an idiotic citizen.

If by "we" you're talking about the government, state, etc.

I mean "we" as a society. I hope you're correct in that it was just an idiotic citizen, because my fear is that now whipping out a gun and opening fire on anyone committing a crime will become socially acceptable.

 

[syllogism]

If the perpetrator of an armed robbery can be taken into custody with nobody being shot, including the piece of shit doing the crime, of course that would be preferable. But if you ask me to choose between 1) the criminal succeeding in robbing a business or person and getting away with it, free to commit more armed robberies in the future, or 2) the armed robbery can be stopped by shooting the person committing it, then shoot him.

What would you consider proper punishment for such robbery?

 

[Beefy]

So do we know any history of the robber? It would be pretty messed up if the robber had never done anything like this before. But was simply down on their luck and didn't know were else to turn.

 

[reckless]

Friendly reminder that potentially killing somebody for committing a non violent crime is not justice.

Armed robbery is a non violent crime?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I imagine this story coming across the wire at Fox News and Megyn Kelly hitting a big red button, standing up and screaming "WE GOT ONE!!" like Janine Melnitz in Ghostbusters.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

dey dun take away our guns and dey dun take aware our waffle houses

 

[ponpo]

I mean "we" as a society. I hope you're correct in that it was just an idiotic citizen, because my fear is that now whipping out a gun and opening fire on anyone committing a crime will become socially acceptable.

Now?

Concealed carry people shoot people during robberies all the time. Look up CCTV footage on YouTube or something.

 

[chekhonte]

Armed robbery is a non violent crime?

Apparently I am wrong.

 

[LordAmused]

Why in the hell would you try to rob a Waffle House?

The guy watched the beginning of Pulp Fiction.

Spoiler

Not the ending as it seems.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't agree with this. If you comply with the robber, no one gets hurt as the other poster said.

You shoot the robber, you killed someone. Taking someone's life is something that cannot be undone regardless if that person was bad or not. A bit of cash versus someone's life, there is no choice. You don't take a life.

Friendly reminder that potentially killing somebody for committing a non violent crime is not justice.

Armed robbery is a violent crime. We're not talking about someone clandestinely swiping wallets. The balance here is not cash vs. life, but life vs. life.

 

[entremet]

Now?

Concealed carry people shoot people during robberies all the time. Look up CCTV footage on YouTube or something.

Robbery and shoplifting are very different, though. One has the potential of lethal force, the other does not.

 

[John Kowalski]

Why in the hell would you try to rob a Waffle House?

maybe he was a waffle addict

 

[Shining Sunshine]

You have no way of proving this.

They're robbers, not murderers. That is the simple psychology of robbery.
If they were out to kill, they would shoot first and take later.

And you have no proof that the defence wouldn't have resulted in more deaths.
If the customer was slow, maybe that person would have gotten shot first and put the robber in panick. Then maybe the robber would have silenced everyone in the restaurant.

 

[kewlmyc]

The robber was armed and threatening violence. It's fair game at that point in my opinion.

 

[Beefy]

Armed robbery is a violent crime. We're not talking about someone clandestinely swiping wallets. The balance here is not cash vs. life, but life vs. life.

But do we even know if the robber would have used the weapon?

 

[ponpo]

Robbery and shoplifting are very different, though. One has the potential of lethal force, the other does not.

I hope people don't start shooting others for simple theft but I think most of the video footage you'll find are armed robberies or other armed crimes.

 

[Stet]

But do we even know if the robber would have used the weapon?

We don't even know what the weapon was at this point. All we know is that the robber is now dead.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not convinced a theoretical possibility of escalation grants a random person permission to shoot someone. That kind of thinking leads to all kinds of craziness, as we see constantly with police jumping to conclusions.

I've been held up and robbed at gunpoint. I don't however believe that alone would have justified somehow preemptively shooting the guy.

Thank god a majority of people don't think like this shit.

If you draw your gun on someone unarmed and innocent you're going to get shot. You don't wait until someone shoots to then shoot them. It's not an eye for an eye. It's not preemptive it's proactive in that someone innocent isn't at risk of dieing for no reason.

 

[Messypandas]

We don't even know what the weapon was at this point. All we know is that the robber is now dead.

The fact that they're not revealing the weapon in multiple articles I've read on it is.... curious.

 

[Apt101]

I wouldn't call the person fearless considering they were carrying around a gun. But I get the point.

 

[Christopher]

But do we even know if the robber would have used the weapon?

What kind of logic is this? If he didn't intend to use it he wouldn't have brandished it - again someone innocent has to be shot for it to be ok?

 

[timetokill]

As you have no way to prove these peoples intent.

The difference is I'm not claiming to.

They're robbers, not murderers. That is the simple psychology of robbery.
If they were out to kill, they would shoot first and take later.

And you have no proof that the defence wouldn't have resulted in more deaths.
If the customer was slow, maybe that person would have gotten shot first and put the robber in panick. Then maybe the robber would have silenced everyone in the restaurant.

The point is, somebody is threatening death on someone else over some money. I think trying to ascribe "rational" behavior to such a person is a fool's errand. Why give them the benefit of the doubt? they've already broken the social contract.

I'm not offering proof. I'm just saying that you guys are making wild conjecture with no semblance of proof. you can't build a good argument oh such a shitty foundation.

 

[Bodacious]

What would you consider proper punishment for such robbery?

Armed robbery and he's lucky enough that nobody is hurt? Minimum 5 years in prison, more of course if there's a record for violent offenses. And I don't mean 5 years with parole eligibility in 1 year or something. I mean 5 years.

 

[weshes195]

I don't agree with this. If you comply with the robber, no one gets hurt as the other post ber said.

You shoot the robber, you killed someone. Taking someone's life is something that cannot be undone regardless if that person was bad or not. A bit of cash versus someone's life, there is no choice. You don't take a life.

Uh, so you are saying to give the guy who is willing to murder innocent people (if you are holding a gun, then you are willing to kill) money and let him escape rather than stop him? You can do that, but the idea of letting someone like that get away sickens me.

Scum like him deserve what happens to him. I don't know, I have been mugged and seen friends robbed at gun point where I could do nothing. So, seeing someone take action and give this idiot what he deserved? How am I supposed to feel pity on a person who is willing to use a weapon?

 

[DXLelouch153]

i can just picture some guy eating a waffle then some asshole interupts his meal
thats why he shot him
not because of thievery

 

[Volimar]

But do we even know if the robber would have used the weapon?

If you're using a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime you don't get the luxury of an instantaneous psych eval on whether you'd have used it or not. You're threatening lives. Dude probably didn't deserve to die, but I'm not going to second guess the actions of the citizen that shot someone brandishing a deadly weapon.