Customer Shoots Armed Robber at South Carolina Waffle Restaurant
355 replies, posted
[QUOTE=faze;34406522]Uh what? I already explained the theory why he was shot in the head. Apparently you don't know what muzzle jump is. He didn't "gun him down" as you so elequently put it. He shot an armed robber after trying to stop him and giving him warnings. The asshole pointed his gun at the good person, and the good person shot back in fear for his life.
Why do you non-Americans not understand this?[/QUOTE]
Any way you put it he still shot twice which would be excessive. Non-Americans don't 'understand' killing a guy rather than trying to disable him when it was very much an option.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34410362]Assuming you had the appropriate paperwork filed with the ATF, a spare 15 thousand dollars laying around, and a seller who was actually willing to part with what is actually a rifle that is infinitely more rare than folks believe.[/QUOTE]
um in arizona i can go to the gun show and pick up an ak47 for 3 grand
it's not very complicated here, although the ak would be semi auto
[editline]27th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;34417243]There are very few Kalashnikovs on the civilian market in the states.
Generally speaking everything you see will be a WASR series rifle.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASR_series_rifles[/url][/QUOTE]
saiga makes AK's but they're converted to hunting variants because of the assault weapons ban iirc
also the Cabellas here was selling a WASR rifle labeled "DRAGONOV" for some reason
This reminds me I want to get a CHL when I'm old enough.
[QUOTE=Someoneuduno;34419199]Any way you put it he still shot twice which would be excessive. Non-Americans don't 'understand' killing a guy rather than trying to disable him when it was very much an option.[/QUOTE]
You won't get it. So I am not going to explain why that is totally wrong and stupid.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34419214]um in arizona i can go to the gun show and pick up an ak47 for 3 grand
it's not very complicated here, although the ak would be semi auto[/QUOTE]
Um...most AK or variants that are semi auto you can get for under $800...what are you talking about?
[QUOTE=faze;34419405]You won't get it. So I am not going to explain why that is totally wrong and stupid.
Um...most AK or variants that are semi auto you can get for under $800...what are you talking about?[/QUOTE]
yeah bad estimate i'm basing it on a really nice one that was asking $3000
either way the point is that they're way more accessible than gunfox is saying
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34419592]yeah bad estimate i'm basing it on a really nice one that was asking $3000
either way the point is that they're way more accessible than gunfox is saying[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure he was talking full auto not semi auto.
[QUOTE=Someoneuduno;34419199]Any way you put it he still shot twice which would be excessive. Non-Americans don't 'understand' killing a guy rather than trying to disable him when it was very much an option.[/QUOTE]
haha oh wow
[QUOTE=Someoneuduno;34419199]Any way you put it he still shot twice which would be excessive. Non-Americans don't 'understand' killing a guy rather than trying to disable him when it was very much an option.[/QUOTE]
You cannot and do not shoot someone to disable them. Limbs/Guns/etc are small and fast; as such they are difficult enough to hit even when the shooter isn't pumped up on nerves and adrenaline. If you miss, the bullet keeps going and hits whatever's behind your target, which could be anything from an object the bullet could ricochet off of, to a wall the bullet could penetrate (and hit whatever's behind it), to a bystander. The assailant, unharmed, would have an opportunity to retaliate and fuck up the situation even more. Instead of ending the threat with one dead man, one could conceivably end up with dozens. Thanks, champion of morals.
Even if you were an expert marksman and could hit such tiny targets, you would still end up causing the same amount of damage anyway. Shoot for the gun, you get ricochet everywhere and a hand that will likely never work again (not to mention an assailant that may still be combat capable); shoot for the arm and you run a major risk of inflicting a serious injury, let alone risking complete penetration and hitting anything behind the gunman anyway; shoot for the leg and you're more likely than not to hit the femoral artery and kill them anyway.
Aiming for the center of mass reduces the risk of bystander injury by being hard to miss and more likely to neutralize the threat. Real life does not work like an action movie.
[editline]x[/editline]
Besides, a human being can survive being shot more than once depending on the hit location, bullet caliber and his or her current state of mind, to say nothing of being wounded fatally but able to fight. If anything, shooting only twice is an excellent sign of restraint on the shooter's part.
[QUOTE=Someoneuduno;34419199]Any way you put it he still shot twice which would be excessive. Non-Americans don't 'understand' killing a guy rather than trying to disable him when it was very much an option.[/QUOTE]
What are you going to do, shoot him once in the foot and call it a day?
Real life doesn't work like this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/2APKR.jpg[/img]
You've got half a second to defend yourself in this type of situation. That isn't enough time to figure out how to "shoot to disable". That's enough time to "shoot to remove the threat".
[QUOTE=Noble;34420814]What are you going to do, shoot him once in the foot and call it a day?
Real life doesn't work like this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/2APKR.jpg[/img]
You've got half a second to defend yourself in this type of situation. That isn't enough time to figure out how to "shoot to disable". That's enough time to "shoot to remove the threat".[/QUOTE]
Maybe this is why the Brits needed our help in WW2...
[QUOTE=faze;34420861]Maybe this is why the Brits needed our help in WW2...[/QUOTE]
Now don't start saying stuff like that, you know damned well the Brits kicked plenty of ass.
[QUOTE=The Vman;34396313]Lots of wallets...
[img]http://i066.radikal.ru/1002/49/1eed8dcda27f.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OCd2sO92KZI/TA8DPGurXVI/AAAAAAAACiY/Hxke6zD6HXg/s1600/vlcsnap-2010-06-05-17h34m48s211.png[/img]
I'm definitely not for banning guns in the United States. Far from it, I would never part with my Rugers and Remmingtons. However, I think what we really need is for people to be more educated about guns, and how to use them.
It's like sex ed, you might not be able to take away their equipment, but at least teach them to be safe with it and not ruin their life.
[QUOTE=tyanet;34422692]I'm definitely not for banning guns in the United States. Far from it, I would never part with my Rugers and Remmingtons. However, I think what we really need is for people to be more educated about guns, and how to use them.
It's like sex ed, you might not be able to take away their equipment, but at least teach them to be safe with it and not ruin their life.[/QUOTE]
Yeah pretty much. I'm just sick of hearing all the morons here saying "oh the customer shouldn't have even had a gun, guns are bad, that man didn't deserve to die..." Really??? I guess I'll sit in a corner and cry instead of protecting myself.
bunch of liberal pussies whining about how waiting for the cops was a better idea
the very idea of that makes me sick to my fucking stomach
[QUOTE=Moose;34422906]bunch of liberal pussies whining about how waiting for the cops was a better idea
the very idea of that makes me sick to my fucking stomach[/QUOTE]
They don't realize that cops arrive after crimes are committed almost all the time.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34419214]um in arizona i can go to the gun show and pick up an ak47 for 3 grand
it's not very complicated here, although the ak would be semi auto
[/QUOTE]
Izhmash semi automatic rifles are Saigas, not Kalashnikovs. Ridiculously similar, but they are not the same rifle any more than an AR-15 is an M4. (Not a perfect comparison, I know. Technically M4's are AR-15's. But not all AR-15's are M4's. Unless you accept that AR-15 only refers to the semi automatic model ever since the rights were sold to Colt. In which case the comparison works great! )
Anything that looks like an AK-47 in the states which is semi automatic is either a total knockoff or a saiga that has had an after market face lift to not look like an ugly bag of dicks.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34423180]Izhmash semi automatic rifles are Saigas, not Kalashnikovs. Ridiculously similar, but they are not the same rifle any more than an AR-15 is an M4. (Not a perfect comparison, I know. Technically M4's are AR-15's. But not all AR-15's are M4's. Unless you accept that AR-15 only refers to the semi automatic model ever since the rights were sold to Colt. In which case the comparison works great! )
Anything that looks like an AK-47 in the states which is semi automatic is either a total knockoff or a saiga that has had an after market face lift to not look like an ugly bag of dicks.[/QUOTE]
...and anything that looks like a scary gun in America they call an AK47, which I find hilarious.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34423180]Izhmash semi automatic rifles are Saigas, not Kalashnikovs. Ridiculously similar, but they are not the same rifle any more than an AR-15 is an M4. (Not a perfect comparison, I know. Technically M4's are AR-15's. But not all AR-15's are M4's. Unless you accept that AR-15 only refers to the semi automatic model ever since the rights were sold to Colt. In which case the comparison works great! )
Anything that looks like an AK-47 in the states which is semi automatic is either a total knockoff or a saiga that has had an after market face lift to not look like an ugly bag of dicks.[/QUOTE]
i guess i was right to be reluctant to try and correct you on gun knowledge
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;34406991]If someone is raping you, what would be the equal force? Should she be able to shoot him in the head to stop being raped even though the guy has no intention to kill you, just to rape you?
Why don't you guys actually answer this question for once instead of dancing around it?[/QUOTE]
can moralists please answer this question, instead of pussyfooting and say 'WHATEVER FORCE NECESSARY TO MAKE IT IT STOP', can i get a legitimate answer to this?
if someone is raping you, no intention to kill you, and you have a gun, do you right have the right to kill your rapist even though human lives are sacred, they have right to trial, and they're not gonna kill you?
or should she just take it?
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;34423600]can moralists please answer this question, instead of pussyfooting and say 'WHATEVER FORCE NECESSARY TO MAKE IT IT STOP', can i get a legitimate answer to this?
if someone is raping you, no intention to kill you, and you have a gun, do you right have the right to kill your rapist even though human lives are sacred, they have right to trial, and they're not gonna kill you?
or should she just take it?[/QUOTE]
Rape victims are often killed. If I were a woman being raped I would not hesitate to kill the assailant.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;34423600]can moralists please answer this question, instead of pussyfooting and say 'WHATEVER FORCE NECESSARY TO MAKE IT IT STOP', can i get a legitimate answer to this?
if someone is raping you, no intention to kill you, and you have a gun, do you right have the right to kill your rapist even though human lives are sacred, they have right to trial, and they're not gonna kill you?
or should she just take it?[/QUOTE]
Whenever someone commits a crime which hurts, or has the potential to hurt, others (thus excluding shit like doing drugs), they surrender their right to live in my opinion. Mind you, if they can be safely stopped and put on trial for their crimes that's great, but if they get killed then it's their own damn fault.
I fail to see how anyone could think it's better to let someone inflict non-lethal bodily (and mental) harm rather than kill the attacker (you know, the person who decided to commit the crime in the first place and likely didn't care about the harm they were doing).
[QUOTE=faze;34423660]Rape victims are often killed. If I were a woman being raped I would not hesitate to kill the assailant.[/QUOTE]
I think it was a theoretical question implying that the person knew they wouldn't die from the attack.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;34423600]can moralists please answer this question, instead of pussyfooting and say 'WHATEVER FORCE NECESSARY TO MAKE IT IT STOP', can i get a legitimate answer to this?
if someone is raping you, no intention to kill you, and you have a gun, do you right have the right to kill your rapist even though human lives are sacred, they have right to trial, and they're not gonna kill you?
or should she just take it?[/QUOTE]I'd really like to see this question answered, and not with some stupid five-second reply either. A real, honestly thought-out response that weighs the moral implications of their decision.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;34423600]can moralists please answer this question, instead of pussyfooting and say 'WHATEVER FORCE NECESSARY TO MAKE IT IT STOP', can i get a legitimate answer to this?
if someone is raping you, no intention to kill you, and you have a gun, do you right have the right to kill your rapist even though human lives are sacred, they have right to trial, and they're not gonna kill you?
or should she just take it?[/QUOTE]
Rape's a whole different beast considering that victims often get blamed for getting raped and never get their due justice due to a variety of circumstances. So I would say shoot the fucker. If someone was robbing a waffle house though I wouldn't really give a shit.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;34398786]Most people don't mean to kill someone in these kinds of robberies. The whole reason the 19 y/o probably had the weapon was to get it over quickly as possible with as little trouble as possible.[/QUOTE]
So his attempt at efficiency made it okay? His threat was so no one would get hurt? Does anyone ever listen to themselves anymore?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.