Armed OC Citizen Shoots Robber in the Act

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Clearly lost on you Natty. Once again.

[Danno 1,228]

My highly unlikely scenario is no more silly than your or shooters idiotic feeling the only way to protect yourself is with a gun. Put yourself in the position of one of the motorists in the video. Get your gun, shoot one or two, then have it turned on you or have one of the nice folks previously beating on your car start shooting back.

Genius way to protect yourself!

This is interesting:

The FBI today released preliminary statistics indicating that 41 of our nation’s law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2008.

Firearms were the weapons most often used in these slayings. Of the 35 officers killed with firearms, 25 were killed with handguns, five with rifles, four with shotguns, and one officer was murdered with an unknown type of firearm. Four officers were killed by vehicles, and two officers died from injuries as a result of a bomb.

At the time of their deaths, 30 of the law enforcement officers were wearing body armor. Ten officers fired their weapons, and four of the officers attempted to fire their weapons. Six officers had their weapon stolen, and four officers were killed with their own weapons.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/sta...s%20_051109.htm

1 in 4 odds of having your weapon taken!

Perhaps the Criminals have been watching too much of this guy - the Tony Robbins of hand-to-hand combat

"taken" certainly would include... Cop is dead or disabled and then the gun was taken, not "turned on him" as you are suggesting.... in fact we sometimes don't even know "Who" took the gun.

IIRC we had just such a case not long ago here.

2 cops were shot from behind on a routine domestic, (by an univolved person no less) as they lay on the sidewalk others were scavaging items.

[natty bumppo 297]

Clearly lost on you Natty. Once again.

gotta reset the hook again. this catch and program is pretty cool

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Could mean a lot of things Danno. Just pointing out that its a disturbing statistic

[MrsCat 6]

Could mean a lot of things Danno. Just pointing out that its a disturbing statistic

Maybe I missed something, but what was disturbing about that statistic?

[Danno 1,228]

Chalk one up?

Its not a bloody game...

Its a good thing that noone besides the robber was seriously injured, but presenting cases like this as some sort of masturbatory porno-trip the way the OP is (you too can be a hero, if only you carry a gun!) is just juvenile.

Agreed!

Guns only = one thing.. DEAD PEOPLE!

Alright I understood the need for American's to "have" guns while they were ousting the Brits I mean anyone that's had the need to oust their occupier has had a need for guns e.g. the Brits themselves when they fought the evils of the Nazi's.. modern day Iraqi, Palestinians..etc have that need. So what is the need to have guns now in America? Seriously why is it needed or even a right in this day and age to have to carry a gun? It really shouldn't be a right to carry a deadly firearm with no training just because what some eejit 150 - 200 years ago decided that it was only right and fair to have a gun? Back then it was still right and fair in many places to own a slave or to hang people/guillotine them in public but we don't do that anymore in America do we?

Whats really wrong with this entire county is half the population are stuck in the dark ages! If this country is to push forward to achieve again without being bought out and run by the Chinese or someone else is the need for reform. Reform in the form of a strong united Government. A strong central Government with protects the nation, runs projects run from the top down instead of fragmented and wasted at City, County, State level. We all work and pay taxes... I work for the government and it sickens the $hite outta me to see the amount of waste I see everyday is total

insanity. I really still cant understand what lunitic allowed local governments to accquire so much power where in some cases/areas the personalities of those elected/appointed are what decides spending or wasting!

You started off with this:

"I understood the need for American's to "have" guns while they were ousting the Brits"

We ousted the Brits for a number of reason .. which you can find in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

If you saw the reasoning for "the people" being armed in that case why can you not see the need for the people to be armed should the next tyrant try to rule us?

Your suggestion that we are somehow in the "dark ages" is laughable when in fact, the opposite is true, We are a shining light of what true freedom means, history has displayed this quite clearly.

Yes I know you want a strong central Gov't.... big Govt types always do, they claim it be be more efficient but few can argue that with a straight face, anyway our style of Government was INTENDED to limit a big central Govt (DC).

As for guns and how we would solve this "problem"....do you suggest we just collect them all?

Again, laughable, it would spark the very thing you are concerned with,.. violence and actual armed conflict.

Now you answer me this, how is it you would claim that it's "impossible" to round-up 6-12 million illegals who walk the streets every day but you think you "can" round up hundreds of millions of firearms, which would be hidden all across this country?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That if you're a cop and you are killed on the job, there's a not insignificant chance of it somehow involving your own weapon.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Chalk one up?

Its not a bloody game...

Its a good thing that noone besides the robber was seriously injured, but presenting cases like this as some sort of masturbatory porno-trip the way the OP is (you too can be a hero, if only you carry a gun!) is just juvenile.

Agreed!

Guns only = one thing.. DEAD PEOPLE!

Alright I understood the need for American's to "have" guns while they were ousting the Brits I mean anyone that's had the need to oust their occupier has had a need for guns e.g. the Brits themselves when they fought the evils of the Nazi's.. modern day Iraqi, Palestinians..etc have that need. So what is the need to have guns now in America? Seriously why is it needed or even a right in this day and age to have to carry a gun? It really shouldn't be a right to carry a deadly firearm with no training just because what some eejit 150 - 200 years ago decided that it was only right and fair to have a gun? Back then it was still right and fair in many places to own a slave or to hang people/guillotine them in public but we don't do that anymore in America do we?

Whats really wrong with this entire county is half the population are stuck in the dark ages! If this country is to push forward to achieve again without being bought out and run by the Chinese or someone else is the need for reform. Reform in the form of a strong united Government. A strong central Government with protects the nation, runs projects run from the top down instead of fragmented and wasted at City, County, State level. We all work and pay taxes... I work for the government and it sickens the $hite outta me to see the amount of waste I see everyday is total

insanity. I really still cant understand what lunitic allowed local governments to accquire so much power where in some cases/areas the personalities of those elected/appointed are what decides spending or wasting!

You started off with this:

"I understood the need for American's to "have" guns while they were ousting the Brits"

We ousted the Brits for a number of reason .. which you can find in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

If you saw the reasoning for "the people" being armed in that case why can you not see the need for the people to be armed should the next tyrant try to rule us?

Your suggestion that we are somehow in the "dark ages" is laughable when in fact, the opposite is true, We are a shining light of what true freedom means, history has displayed this quite clearly.

Yes I know you want a strong central Gov't.... big Govt types always do, they claim it be be more efficient but few can argue that with a straight face, anyway our style of Government was INTENDED to limit a big central Govt (DC).

As for guns and how we would solve this "problem"....do you suggest we just collect them all?

Again, laughable, it would spark the very thing you are concerned with,.. violence and actual armed conflict.

Now you answer me this, how is it you would claim that it's "impossible" to round-up 6-12 million illegals who walk the streets every day but you think you "can" round up hundreds of millions of firearms, which would be hidden all across this country?

I ask only that we do our best to disarm the nut jobs whenever and where ever they are found. I know you are talking to natty and not me, but the point really is, does having a gun make you safer, and the answer is in most cases no it does not. I don't really care if responsible people have guns, and understand that daily most of the guns in existence are not used, for good or ill, and there are millions of them out there.

The OP was about a rarer than rare instance, assuming the facts are they appear, where an armed citizen was able to stop a bad guy by shooting him. This is neither the norm with gun violence, nor an incident which proves only the armed are truly safe.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

How low are you prepared to go with that line of argument Charles, really?

just matching you. this is a limbo contest, isn't it?

The right NOT to keep and bear arms is not tantamount to deciding to be a victim. If you own a gun, are responsible with it, and it makes you feel like a real manly man, go for it Charles, but realize the chances that you will ever need it, use it to protect yourself or others, or that it would be used against you are all very remote.

What is it they say? The bigger the gun, the smaller the...

no one is making you get one, don't worry. but hey, if people are gonna make snide comments towards those who chose to be gun owners, don't be surprised if the "fire is returned"

while agreed it's a remote chance, that does not mean that i see a reason not to have one. the same for the earthquake and sinkhole coverage on the house

[mawilson 2,133]

Firearms were the weapons most often used in these slayings. Of the 35 officers killed with firearms, 25 were killed with handguns, five with rifles, four with shotguns, and one officer was murdered with an unknown type of firearm. Four officers were killed by vehicles, and two officers died from injuries as a result of a bomb.

At the time of their deaths, 30 of the law enforcement officers were wearing body armor. Ten officers fired their weapons, and four of the officers attempted to fire their weapons. Six officers had their weapon stolen, and four officers were killed with their own weapons.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/sta...s%20_051109.htm

1 in 4 odds of having your weapon taken!

How do you figure? There are more than 800,000 full-time sworn law enforcement officers in the US;

only 10 had their weapon taken from them.

That's a 1 in 80,000 chance.

Oh I agree that there's a very low chance of being killed in the line of duty.

But... If you are killed the chances of it somehow involving your own weapon are significant.

Can't be dismissed at any rate.

The problem with your argument is the direction of causation. The chances of your weapon

being taken from you are extremely low (1 in 80,000), but if your weapon is, in fact, taken from you,

there's a 1 in 4 chance that you will be killed with it. Of course, if you're so incompetent as to allow

this to happen, you're much more likely to be killed in the line of duty in the first place.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I can't comment authoritatively on the qualitative aspects of that, and neither can you.

The numbers don't require and don't support speculation about the competence or otherwise of the victims.

[mawilson 2,133]

I can't comment authoritatively on the qualitative aspects of that, and neither can you.

The numbers don't require and don't support speculation about the competence or otherwise of the victims.

Yet you were doing just that, assuming that there are "1 in 4 odds of having your weapon taken!"

[MrsCat 6]

no one is making you get one, don't worry.

while agreed it's a remote chance, that does not mean that i see a reason not to have one. the same for the earthquake and sinkhole coverage on the house

And that my friend, is the exact logic that my husband used to get me to change my mind on the subject.

I'd just like to say that I am no retard, gun-nut, dark-ages living, squirrel-eating hillbilly just because we own guns. Like to the rest of the free world, fireworks are expensive and shooting guns off in the air willy-nilly on 4th of July is our god-given right so says the 2nd Amendment.

And yes, if some poor soul wants to enter our abode to steal our stealables, they have been notified out front that we're bitter gun owners who only have religion and guns and we shoot on sight.

[Peikko 1,575]

I thought shooting guns in the air was utterly irresponsible gun owner behaviour? What goes up must come down and all that? Perhaps it's a joke?

Not one of us non gun owners has suggested that responsible gun owners should not have guns - what has been objected to is this notion that to not own one, one is necesserily choosing to be a victim. It's not a sensible conclusion. That and the OP's glorification of something that contains no glory and certainly does nothing to suggest that gun ownership is necessary.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I can't comment authoritatively on the qualitative aspects of that, and neither can you.

The numbers don't require and don't support speculation about the competence or otherwise of the victims.

Yet you were doing just that, assuming that there are "1 in 4 odds of having your weapon taken!"

Sure Mark, that's on an equivalent platform with blaming the victims for their own deaths.