Support NeoGAF

[CrunchyFrog]

I'm all for regulations and curbing of gun violence but if someone is clearly threatening with a deadly weapon you definitely have a right to incapacitate. If someone willfully and purposefully threatens innocent people's lives then they forfeit their own. If they're prepared to dish it out then they should be prepared to receive in kind when lives are in danger.

And as much as I normally agree with you Stump, your 1/2/3 list seems rather disingenuous. Of course any rational person would prefer noone dies, but it's naive to believe that the optimal scenario is the most common one much less the way any given scenario will play out. The fact is people can be and do get injured or killed by assailants in armed robberies and other such altercations. In the moment there's no reasonable way to know for certain that a person with a deadly weapon will or will not use said weapon depending on one's own or others' actions. This person may very well intend to shoot people, they may suffer from some kind of mental illness that prevents them from restraining impulses (it at least got them as far as brandishing the weapon in the first place), or as others have posited it could very well be an empty threat, human beings are not mind readers. But if they have a deadly weapon, and, regardless of if they intend to use it or not, if they brandish it as such, then people are in fact in REAL danger, not theoretical, for the same reasons that firing ranges treat every weapon as loaded and no one is allowed near the muzzle or line of fire of a weapon until the safety is on and/or an all clear is given. If held in direct line of fire then yeah your best chance personally is compliance of course, but if you or a bystander has a reasonable chance to take the assailant down then I believe that person is well within their rights to curb any potential damage that might occur under the same protections as granted by other good Samaritan laws. That being said, if the assailant is already leaving or fleeing the scene as in the above parking lot incident wherein they are no longer directly threatening people then no I don't think that firing upon them is a good or justifiable idea. I also think gun ownership should come with some form of mandatory gun proficiency/safety course.

 

[Who]

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.

Let me try.

Ok so what you're saying you do like the idea of criminals killing innocents unchallenged.

That was fun. Twisting the context of opposing opinions to better support my world view.

Don't be that guy, man.

 

[BennyBlanco]

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.

Spare me, man. I don't like the idea. It turned out okay here, and I'm okay with it. If you're not okay with it, that's fine too.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

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

Twisting? I mean, he says he's not into it, and then supports actions that go against that. I'm so far from alright with armed civilians, openly or not, so therefore i'm not excited about the idea of the gung-ho firing off rounds, in a situation we have no idea would've escalated any further.(and thankfully, it didn't get real fucked up, which was no the case in the gas station story posted above). I don't need to make any hard turns here. Keep your damn guns at home, locked away from the rest of the world.

Besides, aren't you the same poster that said he wanted guns gone? Hypocrisy really is running wild.

 

[Beefy]

Why are you so fixated on it?

Why not be? When USA is as screwed up as it is, isn't it right to ask questions instead of just blindly accepting it and carrying on?

 

[UnluckyKate]

That's why we have police, so people don't handle law in their own hands. It's called vigilante. It's not a good thing.

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

shoplifting : get shot. Murica.

 

[Brofist]

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.

What do the police have to do with this?

 

[Who]

What do the police have to do with this?

goddamn

 

[Dan]

Why not be? When USA is as screwed up as it is, isn't it right to ask questions instead of just blindly accepting it and carrying on?

The local ABC station's report isn't very comprehensive, but it says the suspect was black.

I'd really like to see further information about what this man was armed with and what exactly precipitated the customer taking action.

 

[timetokill]

What do the police have to do with this?

Beat me to it

 

[nukedawg]

That's why we have police, so people don't handle law in their own hands. It's called vigilante. It's not a good thing.



shoplifting : get shot. Murica.

Dont do the crime. Dont risk getting killed.

 

[Somnid]

What do the police have to do with this?

Indeed. Even trained individuals do a lot of harm with guns, we need to de-escalate.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

That's why we have police, so people don't handle law in their own hands. It's called vigilante. It's not a good thing.

I'm all for more police and leaving as much law enforcement to them as possible, but it's unrealistic to expect in even the most well-equipped cities that cops will be present and able to react at the scene of every potentially/violent crime.

 

[Vicetrailia]

If it was an armed robbery then i'm fine with the outcome. Armed meaning the robber had everyone at gun point, and the concealed carry citizen got an opportunity to react with his own gun, eliminating the threat. At that point a robber holding down the store with a gun in his hand is fair game to be shot. But really, I fucking hate guns.

 

[Huff]

The concealed carry citizen probably spends more time at a gun range than an average cop anyway.

 

[SapientWolf]

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.

I'd say it is a failure in many places. The core problem is the demand for firearms, and the desire to use them, and that has a cultural element that legislation can't fix. They keep passing new gun laws in Chicago and people keep getting shot up every year. Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws on the continent and people keep getting shot up every year. They need to change more than the guns laws to keep people safe. And that assumes that gun control is even going to happen any time soon in the US on a federal, national level, which I really doubt. The political backlash if there was even a whisper of that would be instant and massive.

Ultimately, gun control will fail in the places where the demand to shoot people is high, and the availability of black/grey market guns is also high. I don't think legislation alone is going to create a gunless paradise, and I don't think arming everyone is going to stop all crime either. There are idealists on both sides of the debate suggesting that and I think they're both wrong.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

Just to be clear, I don't doubt that the United States would be generally safer with a total gun control/ban provision; I just don't think enacting it is currently possible. There's no way to take all those guns away. The United States is too large. There's too much space for things to go wrong.

 

[Volimar]

GAF's faith in police is restored!

Just to be clear, I don't doubt that the United States would be generally safer with a total gun control/ban provision; I just don't think enacting it is currently possible. There's no way to take all those guns away. The United States is too large. There's too much space for things to go wrong.

Most people wouldn't stand for a ban on guns anyway. There would be violent confrontations all over the place, and that's if you pretend it'd ever be enacted in the first place, or fail to be overturned in the courts. Common sense gun reforms is the way to go here.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I'd say it is a failure in many places. The core problem is the demand for firearms, and the desire to use them, and that has a cultural element that legislation can't fix. They keep passing new gun laws in Chicago and people keep getting shot up every year. Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws on the continent and people keep getting shot up every year. They need to change more than the guns laws to keep people safe. And that assumes that gun control is even going to happen any time soon in the US on a federal, national level, which I really doubt. The political backlash if there was even a whisper of that would be instant and massive.

Ultimately, gun control will fail in the places where the demand to shoot people is high, and the availability of black/grey market guns is also high. I don't think legislation alone is going to create a gunless paradise, and I don't think arming everyone is going to stop all crime either. There are idealists on both sides of the debate suggesting that and I think they're both wrong.

Where do you think these drug cartels are getting a ridiculous amount of their weapons from? Also, comparing The United States to Mexico is a bit of a stretch but in doing so, you're not invalidating gun control, you're bringing up the issue of drugs, and how the drug trade fuels violence, and especially gun violence.

So, basically, we have a gun and drug problem, and doing practically nothing, sticking to the status quo, isn't doing our country or theirs any favors.

 

[hey_monkey]

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.

The principles are different. People saying, however, that this person deserved to die for an attempted robbery -- which is not necessarily self-defense on behalf of the shooter; we don't have those details -- is the same, in my mind, as saying those who commit robbery should be killed. If they deserve it, per these statements, what else could it mean?

Funnily, I'm not against capital punishment; I'm against our particular system, which is terribly biased and corrupt, but in theory, I'm okay with the notion for certain crimes. I'm just not okay with some person arbitrarily being able to choose to carry out an execution essentially because they feel like it. I don't care what the actual circumstances here; that person with a gun did what many are doing here: looked around and said, welp, that guy deserves to be shot.

I don't know the details of the situation. Maybe the guy was threatening to shoot people and waving a gun around and was particularly terrifying. Doesn't seem that way yet from what's been released. If that was the case, I can see self defense. I can't see celebrating and saying the person deserved it. They deserved a better goddamned system, while we're talking about what people deserve, but whatever. I guess I'm just a bleeding heart.

 

[timetokill]

The principles are different. People saying, however, that this person deserved to die for an attempted robbery -- which is not necessarily self-defense on behalf of the shooter; we don't have those details -- is the same, in my mind, as saying those who commit robbery should be killed. If they deserve it, per these statements, what else could it mean?

For some reason you guys keep glossing over a key fact. It's not a robbery. It's an armed robbery.

How people feel is not that "robbers should be killed."

it's that "If you point a gun at someone and threaten their life, nobody is going to feel bad for you if you get shot."

 

[Stet]

For some reason you guys keep glossing over a key fact. It's not a robbery. It's an armed robbery.

How people feel is not that "robbers should be killed."

it's that "If you point a gun at someone and threaten their life, nobody is going to feel bad for you if you get shot."

So we've confirmed he had a gun?

 

[hey_monkey]

For some reason you guys keep glossing over a key fact. It's not a robbery. It's an armed robbery.

How people feel is not that "robbers should be killed."

it's that "If you point a gun at someone and threaten their life, nobody is going to feel bad for you if you get shot."

Incredibly, I do feel bad for the guy and whatever drove him to such extremes, extremes that resulted in his death. Perhaps you shouldn't generalize about empathy and who can exercise it and when? But regardless, there is an actual difference in "not feeling bad" and saying someone "deserved" it. Because we all weigh crimes differently, I gotta say I didn't feel terribly bad when, say, Jeffrey Dahmer was killed, but I won't say he deserved that, particularly. I don't believe in the eye-for-an-eye adage. I'd rather see systemic overhauls that result in justice being meted out.

eta: Stet, I have not seen that confirmed. I haven't seen anything new post the update that the suspect had died.

 

[timetokill]

So we've confirmed he had a gun?

That's the assumption everybody is operating under. Even if it's a knife it doesn't make the guy look much better. But it's rare that armed robbery isn't by gun.

 

[FiggyCal]

That's the assumption everybody is operating under. Even if it's a knife it doesn't make the guy look much better. But it's rare that armed robbery isn't by gun.

Is that actually true?

Edit: I'm gonna go and say that it's probably not true that knives are rarely used in armed robberies. I would imagine that they're more used considering that it's easier to get access to one.

 

[Jonm1010]

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.

You are just trying so hard to cling to a discredited surveys findings aren't you? This really is like arguing a climate change denier. When you really, really don't want something to be true, people really will do anything to keep believing what they want to believe.

Again. Answer me a simple question. How do you square that Kleck claimed that 50% of his respondents reported their DGU to authorities yet we come up 99% short on actual reported numbers of DGU to any and all credible authorities? His numbers scaled up say there are 2.5 million DGU incidents per year. At a 50% response rate that means we should have 1.25 MILLION accounts of record. Yet we have barely 1,600 in 2014. A 99.94% discrepancy. The National Science Academy can reference whatever the fuck they want, those numbers are mathematically impossible.

 

[Jonm1010]

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.

The data goes deeper then that if you bothered to actually read my link. And it ultimately isnt much in the favor of DGU. When you put DGU data into the larger context of how lax gun laws have negatively affected gun violence numbers, well, the overall argument falls apart. As a whole, lax gun laws are making us less safe, not more safe. And if you have a gun you are better off running and hiding. And that is before we take into account that our laxer gun laws are increasing the incidents of gun violence and gun crime and therefore the probability of being in a situation like that is increased. So you have negligible difference of being safer with a gun if someone tries to rob, assault, threaten or attack you with a gun, but having a gun increases the risk of suicide, accident, homicide or assault in the home and laxer gun laws raise gun crime and gun death overall in a society. So you are at a net loss.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The principles are different. People saying, however, that this person deserved to die for an attempted robbery -- which is not necessarily self-defense on behalf of the shooter; we don't have those details -- is the same, in my mind, as saying those who commit robbery should be killed. If they deserve it, per these statements, what else could it mean?

Lethal force in defense of third parties is generally justified under the same circumstances as lethal force in defense of self. From the fact that this was an armed robbery, we can infer that a threat--at least an implicit threat--was made on the life or lives of someone(s). That's the sort of situation in which we'd expect lethal force to be justified.

I'll leave it for others to clarify what they meant by saying the robber deserved to be killed.

You are just trying so hard to cling to a discredited surveys findings aren't you?

Again. Answer me a simple question. How do you square that Kleck claimed that 50% of his respondents reported their DGU to authorities yet we come up 99% short on actual reported numbers of DGU to any and all credible authorities?

Answer me that ONE question.

I don't even attempt to square it, but apparently the NAS doesn't view it as some credibility-busting problem. Why should I trust your judgment on that point over theirs?

 

[yogloo]

It is not worth having one gun hero in exchange for every 10 people that gets killed in gun violence.

 

[Jonm1010]

Lethal force in defense of third parties is generally justified under the same circumstances as lethal force in defense of self. From the fact that this was an armed robbery, we can infer that a threat--at least an implicit threat--was made on the life or lives of someone(s). That's the sort of situation in which we'd expect lethal force to be justified.

I'll leave it for others to clarify what they meant by saying the robber deserved to be killed.



I don't even attempt to square it, but apparently the NAS doesn't view it as some credibility-busting problem. Why should I trust your judgment on that point over theirs?

Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy.

I tried to be nice and walk you through the actual problem with Kleck's methodology but you continue to hide behind this fallacious point in a sad attempt to cling to the hope of..... I don't even know what your goal is here?

Now either you find me these missing numbers or you are literally choosing to believe something that has been proven to be mathematically impossible.

EDIT: Furthermore what you are citing, after a little more digging, is not the bastion of objectivity and credible authority you seem to think it is. Nor does its conclusions quite square with what you seem to think they do. All the more reason Appeals to authority shouldn't be your go to argument. Especially in place of actually understanding what you are trying to use to support your pre-conceived notions. The ultimate conclusion of your own research is we have a huge problem and we need more targeted research. Something Republicans are trying very hard to prevent from happening.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Live by the gun, die by the gun. Its like a rule of the universe. You can't go around pointing guns in innocent peoples faces and not expect to get shot. Its sad that the guy died, who knows why he was so desperate. But that's a risk you take when you want to start going that route.

 

[FiggyCal]

Live by the gun, die by the gun. Its like a rule of the universe. You can't go around pointing guns in innocent peoples faces and not expect to get shot. Its sad that the guy died, who knows why he was so desperate. But that's a risk you take when you want to start going that route.

We don't know if that's what happened. I still haven't seen an article clearly state if the man was even armed with a gun.

 

[King Tubby]

No sympathy for an armed robber getting shot in commission of the crime.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy.

I tried to be nice and walk you through the actual problem with Kleck's methodology but you continue to hide behind this fallacious point in a sad attempt to cling to the hope of..... I don't even know what your goal is here?

Now either you find me these missing numbers or you are literally choosing to believe something that has been proven to be mathematically impossible.

EDIT: Furthermore what you are citing, after a little more digging, is not the bastion of objectivity and credible authority you seem to think it is. Nor does its conclusions quite square with what you seem to think they do. All the more reason Appeals to authority shouldn't be your go to argument. Especially in place of actually understanding what you are trying to use to support your pre-conceived notions. The ultimate conclusion of your own research is we have a huge problem and we need more targeted research. Something Republicans are trying very hard to prevent from happening.

So, what? Kleck snuck in his results under cover of night? I'm not saying Kleck is right. I'm not even saying his survey is reliable. I'm just wondering why, with such obvious flaws as you allege, his work was nevertheless cited by the NAS. What you're giving me is entirely one-sided, and I'd like to see the other side before concluding you're right.

And I agree with the conclusion that more research is needed in this field, so I certainly don't differ from the NAS on that point.

 

[Jonm1010]

So, what? Kleck snuck in his results under cover of night? I'm not saying Kleck is right. I'm not even saying his survey is reliable. I'm just wondering why, with such obvious flaws as you allege, his work was nevertheless cited by the NAS. What you're giving me is entirely one-sided, and I'd like to see the other side before concluding you're right.

And I agree with the conclusion that more research is needed in this field, so I certainly don't differ from the NAS on that point.

You actually did start off defending Kleck through sourcing Kleck and then your continual defending of it.

Did you bother to read any of my links? The authors of that report are not some all knowing deities of the unbiased science realm. It was largely a team put together though executive order thats goal was to create a research agenda, amongst the participants, Kleck himself. The guy responsible for the largely discredited studies within the community. The committee looked at U.S. data that has been hamstrung for decades now thanks to Republicans and the NRA pressure they exert putting locks on research with the CDC going back as far as 1996. So the findings were largely inconclusive in terms of recommendations. It also agreed with the largely held consensus that gun owners have a higher probability of suicide, homicide and overall gun death. To which they say it may override any proposed DGU that they themselves question the legitimacy of.

To conclude though, more then U.S. data exists. We have case studies from throughout the world of gun control and its effects. When Switzerland had a suicide problem they put new gun control laws in place and the suicide rate dropped. Australia is the most common cited example and I can point to plenty of success stories out of there. Same with England. Where gun deaths saw a small increase after the implementation in the lat 90s but since has reached all time low levels and never came close to pre-control levels.

An overwhelming amount of evidence we do have though seems to point in the direction of needing increased gun control...Too bad the legislators that are supposed to support this country are doing their best to block further research.

 

[SolarMystic]

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.

This is why gun laws in the US are such a joke. We not only have "bad people" to watch out for, but idiots as well, and there are a lot of idiots.

 

[thesuperfunk]

Gun wielding customer Vs. Armed robber

What a fine line ...

 

[LookAtMeGo]

We don't know if that's what happened. I still haven't seen an article clearly state if the man was even armed with a gun.

True. I jumped the gun a bit there with my assumptions. I hear armed robbery, I automatically think gun in face.

 

[muleyman13]

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.

Complying does not always equal safety. I get your point but this is a generalization.

 

[muleyman13]

Cool. So that's one mark in the "hero saves the day with his gun" column, and thousands in the "innocent person gets killed by a gun" column.

There are many more examples of this, it just isn't going to generate as much controversy as the other stories do. I totally see what your point is but it isn't that simple.

 

[Dan]

Some noteworthy updates. The suspect was 19 year old Joshua Jermaine Davis, and he did have a gun. The shooting occurred when he was leaving the restaurant.

Live 5 News:

A responding officer said he was flagged down by six individuals in the parking lot of the restaurant, one of them being the man who shot the suspect and the others being employees, when he arrived on scene. As he approached, he noticed the man later identified as Davis lying on his back with a hooded sweatshirt over his head and cinched down around his face.

The restaurant's cash drawer was lying on the ground next to him.

Employees said Davis entered the restaurant with his hooded sweatshirt on, went up to the bar area and asked how much a drink would cost.

When several of the employees went into the back storage area of the restaurant, the suspect left the booth and walked behind the counter, brandishing a silver semiautomatic pistol. He then demanded money from the cash register.

When a clerk said she didn't have access to the register, the suspect started ordering employees into the back room. That's when several of the employees fled through of the front door.

The man who shot Davis was sitting in his vehicle as the event unfolded. He eventually left his vehicle, walked across the parking lot and sought cover behind another parked car.

The customer said he took out his gun as the suspect was leaving the restaurant, and ordered him to drop his gun. The suspect raised the weapon, and the customer engaged him in fire. The customer's brother was on the phone with him when it happened. They disconnected and his brother called 911.

Post and Courier:

A man held up the Waffle House at 6907 Dorchester Road around 4:30 a.m. Saturday, according to an incident report released Monday. He was fatally shot while leaving the restaurant holding the cash drawer, according to the report.

He was identified as Joshua Jermaine Davis, 19, of Gordon Street in Charleston.

So yeah... the incident was over when this man chose to confront the robber.

 

[HyperionX]

Some noteworthy updates. The suspect was 19 year old Joshua Jermaine Davis, and he did have a gun. The shooting occurred when he was leaving the restaurant.

Live 5 News:


Post and Courier:


So yeah... the incident was over when this man chose to confront the robber.

So two things: This will be recorded as an official "Defense Gun Use" incident, and that it was also unlikely that anyone's life was actually in danger.

Seeing how there are only 931 defensive incidents so far this year, and that a deeper dive tend to show that a lot of these cases were never life threatening situations, you begin the realize how unbelievable unlikely genuine self-defense situations actually happen. The whole concept of needing a gun with you at all times for self-defense, is again being shown to be driven by paranoia, not reality.

 

[Jeremy]

Now I'm going to wait for everyone to come back and give us those second opinions.

 

[Veritigo_X]

So confrontation was already over and the customer didn't actually save anyone by shooting the robber. I'm sure he feels good about killing a guy over saving Waffle House the $200 in the register.

 

[Red Mage]

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

Better than trying to rob a gun store.

 

[Jonm1010]

So two things: This will be recorded as an official "Defense Gun Use" incident, and that it was also unlikely that anyone's life was actually in danger.

Seeing how there are only 931 defensive incidents so far this year, and that a deeper dive tend to show that a lot of these cases were never life threatening situations, you begin the realize how unbelievable unlikely genuine self-defense situations actually happen. The whole concept of needing a gun with you at all times for self-defense, is again being shown to be driven by paranoia, not reality.

Couldn't of said it any better.

 

[Beefy]

So the guy had a gun but didn't want to shoot anyone and was leaving? Yet got shot and killed when he left. To me that isn't protecting any one.

 

[entremet]

Some noteworthy updates. The suspect was 19 year old Joshua Jermaine Davis, and he did have a gun. The shooting occurred when he was leaving the restaurant.

Live 5 News:


Post and Courier:


So yeah... the incident was over when this man chose to confront the robber.

Thanks for the update, Dan.

That was pretty reckless of the CC owner.

That's my biggest beef with CC. People wanna go wild Wild West.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

So, yeah, an armed gung-ho citizen that escalated the situation with his licence to carry. I'm shocked. (and I hope he gets charged)

 

[Game-Biz]

Can't say I feel too bad for the robber other than the fact that he made some terrible life choices. Depressing, but I'm not going to shed tears for one less scumbag out there threatening the lives of innocents.