Support NeoGAF

[Kinthalis]

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.

Oh don't be stupid. this could have gone ALL sorts of wrong, and it HAS done exaclty that in the past.

 

[entremet]

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.

I'm just saying that the world isn't sunshine (no pun intended) and rainbows.

I'd love for there to be no murders, rapes, robbery, etc. But that's not the world we live in.

I agree we have become less violent as a society in time and I hope that trend continues, but if there was a police officer present the man would most likely be dead as well.

 

[Who]

I don't like the mentality that we are not capable or deserving of protecting ourselves.

Putting all of our faith into law enforcement, no if's and's or but's, is a frightening prospect to me.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

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.

1,2,3 only works if the armed robber doesn't go armed robbing or people decide that the armed robber himself will choose #1. The fact that he's an *armed* robber is enough to tell us he plans on hurting innocent people if they don't comply. If not, why even be armed?

But my answer would be:

1) Armed robber doesn't rob. No one gets shot.
2) Armed robber robs. Armed robber gets shot.
3) Armed robber shoots innocent people.

It's kind of unfathomable that there are human beings that would prefer innocent people to be at the mercy of an armed robber rather than defending themselves.

I don't like the mentality that we are not capable or deserving of protecting ourselves.

Putting all of our faith into law enforcement is a frightening prospect to me.

Agreed completely. Shit if I called the cops after an act of self defense involving a firearms there's a 80/20 chance not in my favor that they'd assume I'm the criminal and light my ass up.

Self defense is a fundamental human right. Try living out in the country where cops are 40 minutes away.

 

[Volimar]

If not, why even be armed?

To give the implication that if people don't do as he asks that he'll hurt them, regardless of if he actually would.

It's the implication (Always Sunny reference).

I'd prefer if no one had shot anyone, but in the absence of that, I'm glad that only the robber was shot.

Still want to know what he was armed with.

 

[Metaphoreus]

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.

There's no question why, having cited Kleck's numbers, the NAS told us his name. The question is why they cited his numbers to begin with, if they were as discredited as you and Jonm1010 are saying? Maybe they should start reading NeoGAF to keep up with the latest advances in the social sciences?

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.

The aliens analogy was ridiculous. If you scaled up from the sample, you would conclude that 20 million Americans believe they've seen an alien spacecraft, not that they have. (As it turns out, that figure is in line with more recent surveys. So.)

Again, as a layperson, I want to know why the National Academy of Sciences cited Kleck's figures as possibly correct in a report to the federal government if they're as obviously incorrect as you claim. As between you and the NAS, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the NAS. That doesn't mean Kleck's numbers are right or that his methodology isn't suspect; it means I'm not going to write off his figures.

 

[TSM]

I don't like the mentality that we are not capable or deserving of protecting ourselves.

Putting all of our faith into law enforcement, no if's and's or but's, is a frightening prospect to me.

We have at least one person in this thread saying we should put our faith in the armed robber not to hurt anyone if we would just comply with their demands.

 

[HyperionX]

There's no question why, having cited Kleck's numbers, the NAS told us his name. The question is why they cited his numbers to begin with, if they were as discredited as you and Jonm1010 are saying?

It's usually a rule in science to cite the name of your source. They did not endorse Kleck's claims, only merely cited as a reference.

Maybe they should start reading NeoGAF to keep up with the latest advances in the social sciences?

No one here is making up numbers. We're cite real data, scientific sources, and sources that also directly cite from scientific papers. I'm sure there are more formal channels where this is being discussed.

Again, as a layperson, I want to know why the National Academy of Sciences cited Kleck's figures as possibly correct in a report to the federal government if they're as obviously incorrect as you claim. As between you and the NAS, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the NAS. That doesn't mean Kleck's numbers are right or that his methodology isn't suspect; it means I'm not going to write off his figures.

Because it was a result of a study, and therefore it can always be a possibly true result. Our sources show that Kleck's claim are literally mathematically impossible, and that the method of his study are capable of producing absurd numbers.

 

[Chumly]

A lot of people in this thread have never been held at gunpoint. You have no idea what the fuck the person with the gun is thinking when they point it at you. I'm sorry but in an active situation when the gun is actively being used to threaten someone (aka the gunman is not running away or putting anyone in immediate danger) the action of "taking down" the gunman is justified in my opinion.

Edit: My opinion may differ as I had a revolver pushed to my temple. People will have different opinions.

If I was being held at gunpoint and a random person decided to take things into their own hands it raises the risk of me being shot significantly. I would prefer to be robbed instead of having some dumbass start a shootout

 

[FyreWulff]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ots-at-fleeing-shoplifter-could-face-charges/

Firing on a fleeing vehicle in a crowded parking lot is super-reckless.

What an idiot. Shooting people over replaceable property is one of the most stupid things ever.

 

[Coffee Dog]

I don't like the mentality that we are not capable or deserving of protecting ourselves.

Putting all of our faith into law enforcement, no if's and's or but's, is a frightening prospect to me.

Can any of our european/australian posters chime in and tell us what it's like to live in such fear

 

[Darknight]

What happens if a citizen with a conceal carry permit kills a thief like this? Are they excluded from any repercussions?

 

[LProtag]

I guess some people feel that money is more valuable than life.

It's not like this person was saving lives by doing what they did. If anything, it endangered everyone.

 

[Stinkles]

There's no question why, having cited Kleck's numbers, the NAS told us his name. The question is why they cited his numbers to begin with, if they were as discredited as you and Jonm1010 are saying? Maybe they should start reading NeoGAF to keep up with the latest advances in the social sciences?



The aliens analogy was ridiculous. If you scaled up from the sample, you would conclude that 20 million Americans believe they've seen an alien spacecraft, not that they have. (As it turns out, that figure is in line with more recent surveys. So.)

Again, as a layperson, I want to know why the National Academy of Sciences cited Kleck's figures as possibly correct in a report to the federal government if they're as obviously incorrect as you claim. As between you and the NAS, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the NAS. That doesn't mean Kleck's numbers are right or that his methodology isn't suspect; it means I'm not going to write off his figures.

The NRA and congress are the primary reason we have faulty, imperfect, incomplete and occasionally deceptive data on gun deaths, accidents, crimes and suicides. We are an international embarrassment even with partial data.

 

[SapientWolf]

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



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?

I quoted the same exact section you did. The data seems to indicate that asshole robbers will still injure completely compliant victims, and that your chances are at least no worse if you use a firearm. Both surveys support that view. And it's not survival they're talking about. It's injury.

The "no gun America" is a pipe dream. The dichotomy right now is between carrying or not carrying on a personal level. Not between guns and no guns in America.

 

[Crud]

If I had a gun I would just let him go especially if he ain't shot nobody. What's the point of shooting him? Waffle House employees were not going to shoot him to defend their establishment why should I?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Am I supposed to feel good about this?

 

[Arkos]

Am I supposed to fell good about this?

No, don't be that guy

 

[Javaman]

Do we execute shoplifters now?

Who is saying that? I've been through the same state certified training that she had and under those circumstances she was absolutely not justified in shooting. She should be brought up on serious charges and permanently lose her rights to carry and own guns.

 

[Stinkles]

The dichotomy right now is between carrying or not carrying on a personal level. Not between guns and no guns in America.

Jesus.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Jesus.

Country is fucked in so many ways.

 

[jchap]

Thieving is a dangerous line of work.

 

[Christopher]

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.

Yes your heal the world mentality doesn't work in the real world - we actually don't trust people who try to rob us

 

[SapientWolf]

Jesus.

You think that's actually possible this generation? In a culture that loves guns? After we failed so hard with drugs and prohibition?

 

[Dead Man]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ots-at-fleeing-shoplifter-could-face-charges/

Firing on a fleeing vehicle in a crowded parking lot is super-reckless.

Fucking lunatic, hope she's charged.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

You think that's actually possible this generation? In a culture that loves guns? After we failed so hard with drugs and prohibition?

Prohibition is a failure, pretty much everywhere. Gun control isn't. And Open-Carry/Concealed Carry will always come across as absolute lunacy, especially in what is supposed to be a First World, civilized society.

 

[Javaman]

What happens if a citizen with a conceal carry permit kills a thief like this? Are they excluded from any repercussions?

It depends on state laws. In some if you aren't charged criminally you can't be civially. In other states you can and you could be up shit creek.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Fucking lunatic, hope she's charged.

Case in point. Absolute lunacy. I don't wanna know ANY of these people.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Can any of our european/australian posters chime in and tell us what it's like to live in such fear

I have crafted a shiv and carry it openly as I walk to get coffee to warn off would be attackers. When I can bring myself to brave the mean streets, that is. But mostly I just cower in fear in my apartment, feeling unsafe despite installing a score of deadbolts and wishing I could own half a dozen automatic rifles to make the world a better place.

 

[Kinthalis]

Who is saying that? I've been through the same state certified training that she had and under those circumstances she was absolutely not justified in shooting. She should be brought up on serious charges and permanently lose her rights to carry and own guns.

THAT's the problem.

Instead of law enforcement, you want every imbecile gun owner out there with something to prove, to take the law into their own hands. Sometimes they'll do the sensible thing, but often, they'll do the STUPID thing.

That's just how humans are, and it's a problem.

For all the shortcomings of law enforcement, at least we have mechanisms, as slow moving as they sometimes are, to do something about issues there, to seek some type of recourse, and demand and some level of competency.

I don't want the same ass-hat that cut me off in traffic, to start firing off shots though a mall parking lot at some random guy, 'cause someone is screaming shoplifter.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I have crafted a shiv and carry it openly as I walk to get coffee to warn off would be attackers. When I can bring myself to brave the mean streets, that is. But mostly I just cower in fear in my apartment, feeling unsafe despite installing a score of deadbolts and wishing I could own half a dozen automatic rifles.

Stay safe out there.

 

[BennyBlanco]

I have no problems with an armed robber getting shot.

Good work, citizen.

Yeah, agreed. I don't really like the idea of armed citizens playing judge, jury, and executioner but the implied threat of an armed robbery is enough to warrant shooting him IMO.

 

[Beefy]

So is it common for cops not to say what race a thieve who is killed is?

 

[cameron]

Oh don't be stupid. this could have gone ALL sorts of wrong, and it HAS done exaclty that in the past.

Two weeks ago in Houston, a "fearless" gas station customer accidentally shot a carjacking victim in the head.

Houston police responded to a shooting call around 11:15 p.m. Saturday at a Valero gas station on Jensen Drive at Reid Street in north Houston. Officials say two men jumped another man in the gas station parking lot and took the victim's Chevrolet pickup truck. Police say a witness then pulled out a gun and began shooting at the suspects, accidentally hitting the carjacking victim in the head.

The victim was transported to a nearby hospital where he remains in stable condition. Police say the witness who shot at the suspects picked up shell casings and left the scene.

http://www.khou.com/story/news/2015...-carjacking-shooting-at-gas-station/72923278/

 

[Who]

Can any of our european/australian posters chime in and tell us what it's like to live in such fear

Link me to all the stories of Australian and European police officers murdering unarmed and innocent citizens.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Yeah, agreed. I don't really like the idea of armed citizens playing judge, jury, and executioner but the implied threat of an armed robbery is enough to warrant shooting him IMO.

You seem pretty OK with it actually.

I for one, can't wait for more gung-ho accounts of true patriots doing their duty in the face of danger, like the gas station story posted above me.

 

[John Kowalski]

Can any of our european/australian posters chime in and tell us what it's like to live in such fear

this is why i'm a neet

 

[hey_monkey]

I am frankly appalled by all the people okay with someone being executed for a non-lethal armed robbery. Because that's what it comes down to. If you're okay for someone being shot (and dying) for this, and saying they got what they deserved, you're okay with the suspect being out to death for it. That's terrifying. That's not justice. That's not freedom. That's turning lethal power over to the scores of randos with guns in America, where often little to no training is required to be the shooter in this situation.

 

[BennyBlanco]

You seem pretty OK with it actually.

I for one, can't wait for more gung-ho accounts of true patriots doing their duty in the face of danger, like the gas station story posted above me.

Yeah, well it's very easy for situations like this to take a hard left turn. In this case it didn't so I don't see a problem with it.

If you're holding up a waffle house you are clearly very desperate and I have no doubt you would shoot a waitress for a couple hundred bucks.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Yeah, well it's very easy for situations like this to take a hard left turn. In this case it didn't so I don't see a problem with it.

If you're holding up a waffle house you are clearly very desperate and I have no doubt you would shoot a waitress for a couple hundred bucks.

I'm not taking any hard turns. I'm not in any way enthused about this, and think any kind of praise sets a very bad precedent for something that can and has gone very, very wrong before.

 

[Dan]

I don't like the mentality that we are not capable or deserving of protecting ourselves.

Putting all of our faith into law enforcement, no if's and's or but's, is a frightening prospect to me.

Can any of our european/australian posters chime in and tell us what it's like to live in such fear

Link me to all the stories of Australian and European police officers murdering unarmed and innocent citizens.

... are you suggesting Americans should carry guns for the purpose of defending themselves from police?

 

[BennyBlanco]

I'm not taking any hard turns. I'm not in any way enthused about this, and think any kind of praise sets a very bad precedent for something that can and has gone very, very wrong before.

Know what often goes very, very wrong? Armed robberies. If you're out there pulling out guns and demanding money from people trying to do their job you deserve whatever you get. Robber created the situation himself and paid the price for it. Glad no innocents got hurt.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

I don't like the mentality that we are not capable or deserving of protecting ourselves.

Putting all of our faith into law enforcement, no if's and's or but's, is a frightening prospect to me.

The biggest irony is that the progressives that seem to dislike the police the most are also the most supporting of gun control efforts. I don't get it.

 

[Christopher]

So is it common for cops not to say what race a thieve who is killed is?

Why are you so fixated on it?

 

[Metaphoreus]

I am frankly appalled by all the people okay with someone being executed for a non-lethal armed robbery. Because that's what it comes down to. If you're okay for someone being shot (and dying) for this, and saying they got what they deserved, you're okay with the suspect being out to death for it. That's terrifying. That's not justice. That's not freedom. That's turning lethal power over to the scores of randos with guns in America, where often little to no training is required to be the shooter in this situation.

That's not right. The principle of self-defense is independent of any theory of capital punishment. A person can support lethal self-defense while still opposing the death penalty as a punishment for any crime, because the considerations that go into supporting the two are different.

 

[Loki]

There is NOTHING wrong with someone defending themselves against an armed assailant, even when the ostensible motivation is merely robbery. There are COUNTLESS stories of robbery attempts where the perpetrators end up injuring/killing one or more victims, even with full compliance. People should not have to guess how things will play out before defending themselves. If they complied and then for shits and giggles the robber shot and killed someone, would GAF revive them? Pay their hospital bills if they lived? No.

This forum is full of bleeding hearts. When you bring lethal force to the table, no tears will be shed regardless of what happens. And as noted above, being okay with this does NOT mean one supports the death penalty for armed robbery, since one is a post-hoc judgment.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Know what often goes very, very wrong? Armed robberies. If you're out there pulling out guns and demanding money from people trying to do their job you deserve whatever you get. Robber created the situation himself and paid the price for it. Glad no innocents got hurt.

So again, you actually do like the idea of armed civilians(this alone is fucked) playing judge, jury and executioner.

I know I feel safer.

 

[Who]

... are you suggesting Americans should carry guns for the purpose of defending themselves from police?

I'm saying that police haven't proven themselves worthy of being the only legally armed citizens / only ones capable of protecting other people in the country.

Far from it.

 

[Christopher]

So again, you actually do like the idea of armed civilians(this alone is fucked) playing judge, jury and executioner.

I know I feel safer.

Why are you twisting what he's saying - being too liberal sometimes is the worse.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The biggest irony is that the progressives that seem to dislike the police the most are also the most supporting of gun control efforts. I don't get it.

Is this like Alanis Morrissette, black fly in your chardonnay irony? Disliking institutionalised racism in the police and resultant excessive use of force are not as simplistic as disliking the police. And moves to tighten access to deadly weapons would not be incongruous with either sentiment anyway.