Fearless Waffle House Customer Shoots Thief During Attempted Robbery

Status
Not open for further replies.
But do we even know if the robber would have used the weapon?

Since we can't read minds, who should receive the benefit of the doubt in these situations? The person who is threatening to kill others, or the bystander who believes the threat?

(For what it's worth, American law currently gives the benefit of the doubt to the bystander. Lethal force is typically permitted when a person believes such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury (even to third parties), and that belief is reasonable.)
 
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.

Thank you I love this idea - hate hate hate guns
 
The suspect was rushed to Medical University Hospital, where he later died, police spokeswoman Angela Johnson said. Ongoing efforts by the Charleston County Coroner’s Office and the North Charleston Police Department to identify the suspect have been unsuccessful, Johnson said described as a young male with dark hair, about 5 feet 9 inches tall and 105 pounds. Johnson said the man’s race, though known to investigators, was being withheld.

"At this time, we are unsure how others would identify the suspect,” Johnson said. “We don’t want to provide information that may discourage potential tips.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151010/PC16/151019902

So the suspect was black right?
 
But do we even know if the robber would have used the weapon?


ynl7BsO.gif


Armed thieves don't get the benefit of a doubt that they're really nice guys if you get to know them. The reason they are armed is to communicate and instill fear of death at their hands if they don't get their way. If they are willing to steal from people under the force of that threat, they deserve the same in kind.
 
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.
A lot of robberies involve assault because robbers also tend to be assholes (big surprise). According to this somewhat dated study, armed resistance will typically reduce your injury rate, or at worst, keep your odds of injury about the same.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...in_robbery/links/5410724c0cf2f2b29a410ba9.pdf

Pg 75 has the big talking point:

More surprisingly, even when confronting robbers armed with guns, victims who used guns were substantially less likely to be injured than other victims in general, and no more likely to be injured than victims who did not resist at all.

Now keeping in mind, these were the 90s, back when the US was an ultra violent cesspool.
 
Do we execute shoplifters now?

Local police here don't even consider shoplifting a priority incident (priority 4), and certainly will not execute the perpetrator and will allow them to flee if they think pursuit will endanger the public. They'll go if nothing else is happening, but a violence-free shoplifting can hold. Armed robberies do not hold, and are the highest priority possible (priority 1) because the threat to life is significant. I don't consider it appropriate to shoot a shoplifter, but I absolutely consider it appropriate to shoot somebody who is pointing a gun at another person, even if it is for a petty amount of cash.
 
Armed thieves don't get the benefit of a doubt that they're really nice guys if you get to know them. The reason they are armed is to communicate and instill fear of death at their hands if they don't get their way. If they are willing to steal from people under the force of that threat, they deserve the same in kind.

Still uneasy at a person getting killed for holding up a Waffle House.
 
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".

You source starts off with conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks and then sources discredited studies, many studies that are decades old. Not to mention several using a roundly discredited author who the piece largely leans on.


At this point your "source" is not to be trusted. The author clearly isnt trustworthy or credible and this exercise of you continually clinging to a poor source as it gets hacked away exposes the futility of this conversation. Much like the futility of arguing Climate Change deniers. When you are standing behind a piece that basically frames gun control researchers as essentially the dishonest product of a shadowy gun control conspiracy of academics trying to take peoples guns away, you are arguing with someone so far gone that its pointless to continue going forward.
 
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.

Why give them the benefit of the doubt? Because we're all fucking human beings.

This isn't the wild west anymore. We're not animals who kill each other out of self preservation.

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?

I would let him get away than take his life. Definitely.
Heck, I would even tell him that I'd hope he change his life so he wouldn't need to rob.

Of course, you would call the police and hope they can catch him without killing them, but your Murica police seem to be in the shoot first mood all the time.
 
The suspect was rushed to Medical University Hospital, where he later died, police spokeswoman Angela Johnson said. Ongoing efforts by the Charleston County Coroner’s Office and the North Charleston Police Department to identify the suspect have been unsuccessful, Johnson said described as a young male with dark hair, about 5 feet 9 inches tall and 105 pounds. Johnson said the man’s race, though known to investigators, was being withheld.

"At this time, we are unsure how others would identify the suspect,” Johnson said. “We don’t want to provide information that may discourage potential tips.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151010/PC16/151019902

So the suspect was black right?
Well that description is either really wrong or the thief was really desperate. Unfortunately I only have slightly more sympathy for him when he could just sell his gun and buy food with it instead of threatening people's lives.

I've actually wondered why more starving people don't just fish for their food at places where they're able to. Give me ~$10 and I can catch a week's worth of fish in a day (of course this is dependent upon where you're fishing at, but most stocked ponds have enough bream to do this easily) and the equipment needed to cook them. ~$1-2 for fishing line, ~$3-4 for nightcrawlers, ~$1-2 for a sturdy bottle (drink + using it as a "rod"), ~$1-2 for some lighters, and whatever else more you need (metal rod for cooking?) can be bought with the leftover change.
 
I don't agree with this. If you comply with the robber, no one gets hurt as the other poster said.

Armed robbery only works because the robber convinces someone of the fact that he's willing to harm or kill whoever is necessary to get what he's after. Complying with the act may be your only hope of coming out of the situation unharmed, but it is by no means a guarantee of doing so.
 
Why give them the benefit of the doubt? Because we're all fucking human beings.
We're not all human beings who are willing to shoot someone for money, though.


I would let him get away than take his life. Definitely.
Heck, I would even tell him that I'd hope he change his life so he wouldn't need to rob.
I'm sure you'd sleep well at night of the guy blew the employee's brains out, knowing you could've done something to save him.

And telling a robber something like that it's a great way to get shot or at least pistol-whipped.
 
As someone who has been the victim of armed robbery, I will give my PERSONAL experiences.

When I was younger, I worked as a gas station clerk in a smaller town. For a while things were fine. I had a routine down and everything was good.

Our office was directly behind the counter. One night the phone rang and I took a couple steps back to answer it. It was just three seconds, but in that time someone ran in and got behind the counter. The store didnt have newer tech, like the chimes, just a bell which had just went off so I left the phone and went back out to the counter (all of three steps each way) and got a gun shoved in the back of my neck. I didn't fight. I gave him what he wanted, and managed to grab the alarm bill and give him it too. Took the cops about 5 minutes to show up. Guy was long gone.

Owner of the store decided that event was a perfect reason to upgrade the store. He had an order for a new door chime put in, and bullet resistant glass with a door since we still have to leave the counter to clean the hot dog machine, put stuff on the shelves, etc. This was going to take time though.

Before the new security was in place, I got robbed again. This time, it was two guys, and they waited until I was in the middle of cleaning the hot dog machine one night. They ran in and one ran and grabbed me and tossed me down and put his knee and my back and his gun against my head and told me to give him the code to open the register. I complied. The other guy took the cash in the register and ran out. This guy then hit me and knocked me out. I found out after a customer found me and woke me up and called the cops that they hit the other store the guy who owned mine owned and another as well.

I took time off and came back a couple weeks later. They had the frame for the new 'protective cage' in place. The chime was in place. That very night, I got robbed a third time. This time I was behind the counter and a guy ran in with his gun out. I gave him the money, and he ran off. Cops never caught any of them while I worked there. After that, I decided I couldnt handle anymore and quit. I got investigated as working with the robbers because they only robbed that store when I was there.

A couple months later, they tried again. They caught one of them this time. Found out that the only reason they robbed the store when I was there was because the other clerks were armed and they didnt want to risk being shot trying to rob the store. Since I was young and didnt carry, I was an easy target for them.

TLDR: Because I didn't carry a gun and other clerks did, they only robbed the store when I was there.
 
As someone who has been the victim of armed robbery, I will give my PERSONAL experiences.

When I was younger, I worked as a gas station clerk in a smaller town. For a while things were fine. I had a routine down and everything was good.

Our office was directly behind the counter. One night the phone rang and I took a couple steps back to answer it. It was just three seconds, but in that time someone ran in and got behind the counter. The store didnt have newer tech, like the chimes, just a bell which had just went off so I left the phone and went back out to the counter (all of three steps each way) and got a gun shoved in the back of my neck. I didn't fight. I gave him what he wanted, and managed to grab the alarm bill and give him it too. Took the cops about 5 minutes to show up. Guy was long gone.

Owner of the store decided that event was a perfect reason to upgrade the store. He had an order for a new door chime put in, and bullet resistant glass with a door since we still have to leave the counter to clean the hot dog machine, put stuff on the shelves, etc. This was going to take time though.

Before the new security was in place, I got robbed again. This time, it was two guys, and they waited until I was in the middle of cleaning the hot dog machine one night. They ran in and one ran and grabbed me and tossed me down and put his knee and my back and his gun against my head and told me to give him the code to open the register. I complied. The other guy took the cash in the register and ran out. This guy then hit me and knocked me out. I found out after a customer found me and woke me up and called the cops that they hit the other store the guy who owned mine owned and another as well.

I took time off and came back a couple weeks later. They had the frame for the new 'protective cage' in place. The chime was in place. That very night, I got robbed a third time. This time I was behind the counter and a guy ran in with his gun out. I gave him the money, and he ran off. Cops never caught any of them while I worked there. After that, I decided I couldnt handle anymore and quit. I got investigated as working with the robbers because they only robbed that store when I was there.

A couple months later, they tried again. They caught one of them this time. Found out that the only reason they robbed the store when I was there was because the other clerks were armed and they didnt want to risk being shot trying to rob the store. Since I was young and didnt carry, I was an easy target for them.

TLDR: Because I didn't carry a gun and other clerks did, they only robbed the store when I was there.

You should have told him that he could have the cash but first you knew you had to ask what made him want to live that kind of life, then take the gun while he answered.
 
As someone who has been the victim of armed robbery, I will give my PERSONAL experiences.

When I was younger, I worked as a gas station clerk in a smaller town. For a while things were fine. I had a routine down and everything was good.

Our office was directly behind the counter. One night the phone rang and I took a couple steps back to answer it. It was just three seconds, but in that time someone ran in and got behind the counter. The store didnt have newer tech, like the chimes, just a bell which had just went off so I left the phone and went back out to the counter (all of three steps each way) and got a gun shoved in the back of my neck. I didn't fight. I gave him what he wanted, and managed to grab the alarm bill and give him it too. Took the cops about 5 minutes to show up. Guy was long gone.

Owner of the store decided that event was a perfect reason to upgrade the store. He had an order for a new door chime put in, and bullet resistant glass with a door since we still have to leave the counter to clean the hot dog machine, put stuff on the shelves, etc. This was going to take time though.

Before the new security was in place, I got robbed again. This time, it was two guys, and they waited until I was in the middle of cleaning the hot dog machine one night. They ran in and one ran and grabbed me and tossed me down and put his knee and my back and his gun against my head and told me to give him the code to open the register. I complied. The other guy took the cash in the register and ran out. This guy then hit me and knocked me out. I found out after a customer found me and woke me up and called the cops that they hit the other store the guy who owned mine owned and another as well.

I took time off and came back a couple weeks later. They had the frame for the new 'protective cage' in place. The chime was in place. That very night, I got robbed a third time. This time I was behind the counter and a guy ran in with his gun out. I gave him the money, and he ran off. Cops never caught any of them while I worked there. After that, I decided I couldnt handle anymore and quit. I got investigated as working with the robbers because they only robbed that store when I was there.

A couple months later, they tried again. They caught one of them this time. Found out that the only reason they robbed the store when I was there was because the other clerks were armed and they didnt want to risk being shot trying to rob the store. Since I was young and didnt carry, I was an easy target for them.

TLDR: Because I didn't carry a gun and other clerks did, they only robbed the store when I was there.

Damn dude, that sucks that you had to go through that. That sounds terrifying, and then being suspected of working with those assholes is just awful.

You should've told the guys that you hoped he turned their lives around though so they wouldn't have to rob you. I bet it would've made them really think shit through.
 
A lot of robberies involve assault because robbers also tend to be assholes (big surprise). According to this somewhat dated study, armed resistance will typically reduce your injury rate, or at worst, keep your odds of injury about the same.

http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-conte...ce-and-Offender-Weapon-Effects-in-Robbery.pdf

Pg 75 has the big talking point:

Now keeping in mind, these were the 90s, back when the US was an ultra violent cesspool.

Does it say how many deaths was a result of resisting a robbery as opposed to not resisting?

That PDF is a bit much to read.

Armed robbery only works because the robber convinces someone of the fact that he's willing to harm or kill whoever is necessary to get what he's after. Complying with the act may be your only hope of coming out of the situation unharmed, but it is by no means a guarantee of doing so.

Kill or be killed is not in my thoughts. I can understand that gun-fun Murica doesn't share this idea.

I would rather chance both parties living than one of us dying.
 
A lot of robberies involve assault because robbers also tend to be assholes (big surprise). According to this somewhat dated study, armed resistance will typically reduce your injury rate, or at worst, keep your odds of injury about the same.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...in_robbery/links/5410724c0cf2f2b29a410ba9.pdf

Pg 75 has the big talking point:



Now keeping in mind, these were the 90s, back when the US was an ultra violent cesspool.


http://www.armedwithreason.com/more...-new-study-finds-dgu-is-ineffective-and-rare/


http://www.armedwithreason.com/defensive-gun-use-gary-kleck-misfires-again/

http://www.armedwithreason.com/npr-segment-the-myth-of-defensive-gun-use/

Here are the facts Kleck missed: According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck’s supposed DGUs hiding?


DEFILIPPIS: Well, this number comes from a study in 1992 conducted by professors at Florida State University, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. What happened was that these researchers called a random sub-sample of 5,000 Americans. 66 of them reported that they had used a gun in self-defense, so that’s a little bit more than 1 percent. And then from that number, the researchers simply scale it up to the entire American population to get around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year.



BOB: Now it can be legitimate to take a sample of data and project it based on larger populations, but there are statistical protocols for doing that. Was the sample size too small?



DEFILIPPIS: Well the real problem wasn’t so much the sample size as much as it was the fact that defensive gun uses is an inherently rare phenomenon. And the real concern is that there just needs to be a small handful of people that are making defensive gun use claims when there isn’t, and it completely biases this entire statistic.



BOB: You cite an example of another dubious survey…I’m speaking of course of alien abductions.



DEFILIPPIS: That’s right. This is actually one of my favorite demonstrations of how absurd it is to scale up rare events in the way that Kleck and Gertz did. And this example comes from a paper done by David Hemingway at the Harvard School of Public Health. He mentions an ABC poll that was conducted in 1994 that surveyed 1500 adults. Well the survey asked whether respondents had ever seen an alien spacecraft and 150 people reported that they had in fact seen an alien spacecraft. Now if we were to use precisely the same methodology employed by Kleck and Gertz, we would be forced to conclude that something like 20 million americans have seen a spacecraft



BOB: And some of them are in Congress



DEFILIPPIS: [Laughs] I mean this is why respected social scientists aren’t using this poll as definitive evidence of the existence of aliens, because they recognize that some people are simply confused about what it is that they’re observing. And if you examine responses from surveys that inquire into defensive gun uses, for example, you have a situation where someone hears some sort of spooky sound outside. They fire a warning shot into the air, and then they report that as an effective defensive gun use. There’s one respondent who claimed that there was a group of kids surrounding his car and he brandished his weapon and they scattered. And he reported he had deterred some sort of potential crime. So we have all of these potential issues of simply misinterpretation.



BOB: Beyond the statistical risk, this subject of questioning in a telephone survey, you say will inevitably yield false positives — why?



DEFILIPPIS: There was this article written by Dr. David Hemenway where he mentions that there’s a host of potential biases. One of them is known as the social desirability bias. People will either lie or more probably embellish stories in order to appear better in front of an interviewer. Gun owners often feel that they need to justify ownership through the use of these defensive gun use examples, real or not. And another large problem is known as telescoping: a respondent may be reporting a legitimate self defense use that is outside the timeframe of the question asked in the survey. We know that this is an enormous problem because the National Crime Victimization survey which is considered the gold standard in criminal victimization surveys, they find that between 30-40% of defensive gun use incidents are simply an artifact of this telescoping bias.



BOB: So there’s misremembering there’s telescoping, and there’s another not insignificant fact that the defensive gun uses reported by the survey takers are often, you know, crimes themselves.



DEFILIPPIS: That’s right, and this is the part of the story that gun advocates actually don’t like to talk about. Because even Gary Clerk admits that between 36-64% of defensive gun uses in his own survey were likely illegal. And Hemenway attempted to substantiate this claim. He did 2 random digit dial surveys in 1996 and 1999 where he asked open ended questions about defensive gun use incidents to respondents. He then took their detailed responses and gave them to 5 criminal court judges. And the judges determined that the majority of defensive gun uses were illegal, and dangerous to society. If this 2.5 million number has any credibility at all it would show an epidemic of massive proportions.


The Kleck study is bullshit.
 
You should have told that he could have the cash but first you knew you had to ask what made him want to live that kind of life, then take the gun while he answered.

I knew exactly why. I got out of that town when I could. Not a lot of options beyond minimum wage and being your own business owner if you had the ability to do so. Once they caught the two, it come out that they were two guys who basically found any excuse possible to not work and they'd rather take from others than actually work.
 
You source starts off with conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks and then sources discredited studies, many studies that are decades old. Not to mention several using a roundly discredited author

At this point your "source" is not to be trusted. The author clearly isnt trustworthy or credible and this exercise of you continually clinging to a poor source as it gets hacked away exposes the futility of this conversation. Much like the futility of arguing Climate Change deniers. When you are standing behind a piece that basically frames gun control researchers as essentially the dishonest product of a shadowy gun control conspiracy of academics trying to take peoples guns away, you are arguing with someone so far gone that its pointless to continue going forward.

Here's a synopsis prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council in response to a request from the CDC (itself in response to a request from President Obama):

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

Note that the "context" you provided earlier is subject to the same criticism directed at the 108,000 figure above.
 
We're not all human beings who are willing to shoot someone for money, though.

I'm sure you'd sleep well at night of the guy blew the employee's brains out, knowing you could've done something to save him.

And telling a robber something like that it's a great way to get shot or at least pistol-whipped.

Sounds like you have some delusional hero complex or something. Save someone? If you had a gun and you kill him. You killed someone.

As someone who has been the victim of armed robbery, I will give my PERSONAL experiences.

When I was younger, I worked as a gas station clerk in a smaller town. For a while things were fine. I had a routine down and everything was good.

Our office was directly behind the counter. One night the phone rang and I took a couple steps back to answer it. It was just three seconds, but in that time someone ran in and got behind the counter. The store didnt have newer tech, like the chimes, just a bell which had just went off so I left the phone and went back out to the counter (all of three steps each way) and got a gun shoved in the back of my neck. I didn't fight. I gave him what he wanted, and managed to grab the alarm bill and give him it too. Took the cops about 5 minutes to show up. Guy was long gone.

Owner of the store decided that event was a perfect reason to upgrade the store. He had an order for a new door chime put in, and bullet resistant glass with a door since we still have to leave the counter to clean the hot dog machine, put stuff on the shelves, etc. This was going to take time though.

Before the new security was in place, I got robbed again. This time, it was two guys, and they waited until I was in the middle of cleaning the hot dog machine one night. They ran in and one ran and grabbed me and tossed me down and put his knee and my back and his gun against my head and told me to give him the code to open the register. I complied. The other guy took the cash in the register and ran out. This guy then hit me and knocked me out. I found out after a customer found me and woke me up and called the cops that they hit the other store the guy who owned mine owned and another as well.

I took time off and came back a couple weeks later. They had the frame for the new 'protective cage' in place. The chime was in place. That very night, I got robbed a third time. This time I was behind the counter and a guy ran in with his gun out. I gave him the money, and he ran off. Cops never caught any of them while I worked there. After that, I decided I couldnt handle anymore and quit. I got investigated as working with the robbers because they only robbed that store when I was there.

A couple months later, they tried again. They caught one of them this time. Found out that the only reason they robbed the store when I was there was because the other clerks were armed and they didnt want to risk being shot trying to rob the store. Since I was young and didnt carry, I was an easy target for them.

TLDR: Because I didn't carry a gun and other clerks did, they only robbed the store when I was there.

Sorry for your experience, but I have to question the security even after the upgrades. Didn't you lock your door?

I worked at a gas station and had two failed attempted robberies because I locked the door. It was store policy to always lock the door, and later on, we no longer even let people in after dark and served through a window with those mailbox things.
 
shoot him in the leg or the balls(no robber would ever rob again)
no need for a kill shot

Assuming for a moment that he had a gun, it would be kind of counterproductive if you're trying to prevent innocent lives from being lost if you don't shoot to completely incapacitate.
 
Here's a synopsis prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council in response to a request from the CDC (itself in response to a request from President Obama):



Note that the "context" you provided earlier is subject to the same criticism directed at the 108,000 figure above.

Kleck is not reliable. He and his research is roundly discredited

The criticism is also predicated on the problem of extrapolating rare events from small sample sizes that aren't fully reliable. Thats a distinction from other types of extrapolating.
 
Kill or be killed is not in my thoughts. I can understand that gun-fun Murica doesn't share this idea.

I would rather chance both parties living than one of us dying.

You are preaching some idealistic rhetoric that doesn't line up with reality. Read what Ganhyun said:

Before the new security was in place, I got robbed again. This time, it was two guys, and they waited until I was in the middle of cleaning the hot dog machine one night. They ran in and one ran and grabbed me and tossed me down and put his knee and my back and his gun against my head and told me to give him the code to open the register. I complied. The other guy took the cash in the register and ran out. This guy then hit me and knocked me out. I found out after a customer found me and woke me up and called the cops that they hit the other store the guy who owned mine owned and another as well.

This blow could have either killed him or left him with problems for the rest of his life. Unlike the movies, getting hit in the head hard enough to knock you out isn't some merciful way to incapacitate someone so you can conduct your illegal business.
 
Sounds like you have some delusional hero complex or something. Save someone? If you had a gun and you kill him. You killed someone.



Sorry for your experience, but I have to question the security even after the upgrades. Didn't you lock your door?

I worked at a gas station and had two failed attempted robberies because I locked the door. It was store policy to always lock the door, and later on, we no longer even let people in after dark and served through a window with those mailbox things.

What's wrong with self defense? Last I checked killing in self defense is protected.

This is not murder. There's a legal distinction there.
 
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.

I agree, I'm a bit saddened to see so many people in favor of this type of action. We have a police force for a reason.

Now?

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

There's a large difference between "anyone committing a crime" and CC people shooting their guns during robberies. What's next, "Fearless motorist shoots hit and run driver as they attempt to flee scene"? The wild west is long gone, why can this country not get past that?
 
Sounds like you have some delusional hero complex or something. Save someone? If you had a gun and you kill him. You killed someone.
Try reading it again. Note the hypothetical situation directly preceding that.



Sorry for your experience, but I have to question the security even after the upgrades. Didn't you lock your door?

I worked at a gas station and had two failed attempted robberies because I locked the door. It was store policy to always lock the door, and later on, we no longer even let people in after dark and served through a window with those mailbox things.

Wow. you went right into victim blaming. yikes.

You might as well ask a rape victim if she was wearing a skirt.
 
The more recent study uses National Crime Victimization Survey from 2007-2011. The summary seems similar:

In terms of the likelihood of receiving an injury AT ANY TIME during the incident, using a gun in self-defense was associated with a lower likelihood of injury compared to other self-protective actions, but the likelihood of injury when there was a self-defense gun use (10.9%) was basically identical to the likelihood of injury when the victim took no action at all (11.0%).

The difference is, people aren't getting injured at such a ridiculously high rate.
 
Sorry for your experience, but I have to question the security even after the upgrades. Didn't you lock your door?

I worked at a gas station and had two failed attempted robberies because I locked the door. It was store policy to always lock the door, and later on, we no longer even let people in after dark and served through a window with those mailbox things.

It was a small town gas station. The idea of no service after dark is unheard of in that town if a business wants to actually be able to stay open. I did lock the door once and turned off the gas pumps and got my ass chewed because someone who knew the owner showed up and had to wait for me to know he was there. I didn't mention it previously but I also had two more attempted where guys rammed the locked door after hours while I was stocking and doing paperwork in that time frame.


You are preaching some idealistic rhetoric that doesn't line up with reality. Read what Ganhyun said:



This blow could have either killed him or left him with problems for the rest of his life. Unlike the movies, getting hit in the head hard enough to knock you out isn't some merciful way to incapacitate someone so you can conduct your illegal business.

I have no idea if it did anything other than basically give me a permanent lump on my head.

Wow. you went right into victim blaming. yikes.

You might as well ask a rape victim if she was wearing a skirt.

I honestly didn't take it as victim blaming, but I can see how it comes off that way.
 
What's wrong with self defense? Last I checked killing in self defense is protected.

This is not murder. There's a legal distinction there.

Well of course it's not murder, but you still killed someone.

Seriously, I don't care what you guys think. If you guys want to kill people, go ahead. Everyone's already made up their minds in this shitty world where no one can trust each other.

I'm done.
 
shoot him in the leg or the balls(no robber would ever rob again)
no need for a kill shot

Sure, cuz everyone's an expert at shooting handguns in panic mode.

Actually even trained police can't do what you suggest with any likelihood of accomplishing the goal of using force, which is to stop the threat to innocent lives. The only reliable point of aim for stopping/incapacitating a person is center mass. And even then it might take multiple rounds. I was involved with a case once where a 120lb woman was shot in the exact middle of her chest once with a 45acp, at arms'-length range. It deflected off her sternum and went out the back at an angle, ruining one of her lungs and a rib as it went through (but, missed the spine). She walked about 1/2 mile to a convenience store and called 911. When the ambulance got there she was still standing and telling people what a bastard her boyfriend was.
 
Ok, well based on what we know about kleck it hurts your source pretty deeply does it not? At least insofar with what you have produced.

Well, no. On the one hand I have Internet commenter Jonm1010 saying Kleck isn't even worth citing, and on the other, I have the National Academy of Sciences working on behalf of the CDC citing Kleck. I'm in no position to say who's right, but I'd be more inclined to say that you're wrong about Kleck being completely useless.
 
The more recent study uses National Crime Victimization Survey from 2007-2011. The summary seems similar:



The difference is, people aren't get injured at such a ridiculously high rate.

My link quoted that study......Guess that says you didn't read it?

The study found that in incidents where a victim used a gun in self-defense, the likelihood of suffering an injury was 10.9 percent. Had the victim taken no action at all, the risk of injury was virtually identical: 11 percent. Having a gun also didn’t reduce the likelihood of losing property: 38.5 percent of those who used a gun in self-defense had property taken from them, compared to 34.9 percent of victims who used another type of weapon, such as a knife or baseball bat.

What’s more, the study found that while the likelihood of injury afterbrandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent), and was still greater than if the person had run away or hid (2.4 percent) or called the police (2.2 percent). These results were similar to previous research on older NCVS data which showed that, while using a firearm in self-defense did lower a person’s risk of subsequent injury, it was less effective than using any weapon other than a gun.

As Hemenway notes, however, the one time having a gun does significantly lower injury rates is before the individual takes a defensive action. This seemingly bizarre result can be explained in one of two ways: People carrying a gun could be more vigilant and aware of their surroundings, and therefore better able to avoid an initial attack. Alternatively, it could mean that the types of crime stopped by a defensive gun use are substantively different from the types of crime stopped when some other protective action is taken. Rather than circumstances where a victim is attacked by surprise, and thus more likely to be injured before taking protective action, incidents where a gun is used in self-defense could mainly involve mutually hostile confrontations that end in verbal or physical aggression.

So I am statistically .1% more likely to survive an attack with a gun then doing nothing?

.....So why are we clinging to gun laws that we know have produced more gun deaths on the individual, state and national level? Because clearly DGU isnt a good reason given the evidence you just presented. A .1% increase over doing nothing when the cost is a sky high gun death rate, higher suicide rate, more deaths in the home with a gun owner and a a decent chance for that gun being used illegally?
 
Well, no. On the one hand I have Internet commenter Jonm1010 saying Kleck isn't even worth citing, and on the other, I have the National Academy of Sciences working on behalf of the CDC citing Kleck. I'm in no position to say who's right, but I'd be more inclined to say that you're wrong about Kleck being completely useless.

They cited Kleck purely as the source of that number, and explained that there is controversy there.

Kleck is discredited from other sources. In particular, the part where his numbers have been pointed out to be mathematically impossible.
 
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.
My answer is definitely 1-2-3. However, it seems in this case the robber was threatening #3 so I'm not against #2 if it prevents #3.

Overall, I'm definitely not keen on random folks shooting up the place. Seems like it ends worse for all parties more often than situations like this one.
 
Well, no. On the one hand I have Internet commenter Jonm1010 saying Kleck isn't even worth citing, and on the other, I have the National Academy of Sciences working on behalf of the CDC citing Kleck. I'm in no position to say who's right, but I'd be more inclined to say that you're wrong about Kleck being completely useless.

So you think it is professionally apt to scale up rare events in a sample of 5000 noting there is an admitted honesty problem in the survey from the author himself. That corroborating data in NO WAY backs up that scaling. In fact it is off by a magnitude of millions compared to the data we have on actual reported DGU.

Which also is contrary to the authors claim that 50% of those surveyed REPORTED their DGU to police. Meaning we should have DGU data that points to over ONE MILLION incidents a year. Yet we have only a little over a thousand. This alone makes the survey off by over 99%. His numbers and now claims are impossible to square and corroborate.

But like my post said, I guess aliens are probably real if we are to believe Klecks methodology is sound considering if we scale up a similar study 20,000,000 in America have definitively seen an alien spaceship.
 
WHy would we label him fearless? does carrying a gun make someone fearless? Is he fearless because he shot someone? fearless because he ate at waffle house?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom