Customer Shoots Armed Robber at South Carolina Waffle Restaurant
355 replies, posted
[QUOTE=faze;34401646]Gun control HAS had zero effect on crime.[/QUOTE]
Well I don't know about that.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;34401860]Well I don't know about that.[/QUOTE]
Being Scottish I should be saying "Oh guns unnecessary blah blah"
but honestly, it makes no real difference. Here; few citizens have guns. Few criminals have guns. Criminals use knives, which are (arguably) more lethal than guns.
Trying to disarm someone with a knife without having a ranged weapon is dangerous. So yes, I agree with Faze. Gun control is probably a good thing.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;34401860]Well I don't know about that.[/QUOTE]
Meh, worded it wrong. Haven't had caffeine for a while and I have a splitting headache. I honestly forget what I meant by that now. I'll remember eventually.
[editline]26th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34401893]Being Scottish I should be saying "Oh guns unnecessary blah blah"
but honestly, it makes no real difference. Here; few citizens have guns. Few criminals have guns. Criminals use knives, which are (arguably) more lethal than guns.
Trying to disarm someone with a knife without having a ranged weapon is dangerous. So yes, I agree with Faze. Gun control is probably a good thing.[/QUOTE]
Gun control in the aspect of allowing people with no criminal background or substance abuse problems to carry guns right?
[QUOTE=faze;34401897]Gun control in the aspect of allowing people with no criminal background or substance abuse problems to carry guns right?[/QUOTE]
Within reason; a small pistol or something.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34401920]Within reason; a small pistol or something.[/QUOTE]
What do you classify as a small pistol? A 22 is not a good sidearm.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34401893]
but honestly, it makes no real difference. Here; few citizens have guns. Few criminals have guns. Criminals use knives, which are (arguably) more lethal than guns.
[/QUOTE]
Depends on the gun. You can also get fancy ammo that does more damage than your average bullet
[QUOTE=faze;34401937]What do you classify as a small pistol? A 22 is not a good sidearm.[/QUOTE]
Something capable of incapacitating someone but not large enough to certify a kill on a body shot
[QUOTE=Lambeth;34401945]Depends on the gun. You can also get fancy ammo that does more damage than your average bullet[/QUOTE]
To kill someone with a gun you have to aim at them. To kill someone with a knife you have to be close to them. Disarming someone who has a gun can be done when they are unable to aim at you, and you have a clean shot. Disarming someone with a knife however (Assuming you do not have a gun); requires you to get close to them whereby they can easily stab you.
[QUOTE=faze;34401937]What do you classify as a small pistol? A 22 is not a good sidearm.[/QUOTE]
Why?
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34401947]Something capable of incapacitating someone but not large enough to certify a kill on a body shot[/QUOTE]
That....isn't really in existence. You aim for center mass, if the person trying to kill you dies...well, oh well. Better him than me.
[editline]26th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;34401971]Why?[/QUOTE]
That doesn't always put everyone down. Look at ballistics. 9mm is the smallest I'd go with.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34401947]Something capable of incapacitating someone but not large enough to certify a kill on a body shot[/QUOTE]
A weapon capable of killing and the weapon capable of serving as a proper sidearm are synonymous.
Shooting to stop almost universally means killing your assailant.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;34401971]Why?[/QUOTE]
Here's a better way to say this... to face facts, the .22 LR cartridge is not generally known as a fight stopper. Yes, it has been used in defensive shootings in the past, and yes it wracked up an impressive body count, but it would not be my first choice in a gunfight.
[QUOTE=faze;34401973]That....isn't really in existence. You aim for center mass, if the person trying to kill you dies...well, oh well. Better him than me.[/QUOTE]
I said certify; not that it rules out the possibility of it. You'd prefer not to *definitely* kill them, but if they die it's no real issue.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34402010]I said certify; not that it rules out the possibility of it. You'd prefer not to *definitely* kill them, but if they die it's no real issue.[/QUOTE]
I'd prefer a 45 as my sidearm, and when Maryland institutes shall issue, I will be carrying my 45. That has a shit ton of stopping power, but generally will not harm bystanders via an exit wound.
Funfact:
All of you people saying LOL US AND THEIR GUN LAWS check your local laws, there's a good chance your country allows open and concealed carry with one permit with less reason behind it than in the US.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;34402076]Funfact:
All of you people saying LOL US AND THEIR GUN LAWS check your local laws, there's a good chance your country allows open and concealed carry with one permit with less reason behind it than in the US.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I know Ireland or Scotland allows open carry.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;34401971]Why?[/QUOTE]
Just off the top of my head, the guy during the attempt on President Reagan used a .22 from close range.
Reagan got shot in the lung. He was fine.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Delahanty[/url]
Shot in the neck with a .22 during the attempt on Reagan. Recovered just fine.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McCarthy[/url]
Shot in the stomach. He is fine.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brady[/url]
Shot in the HEAD and was fucked up, but survived. Has since regained virtually all of his functionality and become a dick gun control supporter. He is where the Brady campaign shit comes from.
He was literally firing explosive rounds. They were tipped with Lead azide.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_azide[/url]
That is why you don't use a .22.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34401947]Something capable of incapacitating someone but not large enough to certify a kill on a body shot[/QUOTE]Man, being shot with a small caliber will usually make the problem worse because if they're, say, high off their ass they'll just be pissed. If you wanted something [i]great[/i] for incapacitation, a pistol-sized, single-shot (or something?) 8 gauge shotgun would most definitely knock a man down, even if firing birdshot.
Really, in terms of a self-defense scenario, your only concern should be stopping the threat. If that means knocking him down into a world of horrible pain, or out-right killing him, then that's the way it has to be. I've always looked at it as an extreme sport, only the armed citizen is the danger that makes it extreme. Mountain climbers, skydivers, bungee jumpers and other certified adrenaline junkies all understand that what they do could kill them. Crime is inherently dangerous, and if somebody dies while attempting to rob a place, well, shit happens.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34402134]Just off the top of my head, the guy during the attempt on President Reagan used a .22 from close range.
Reagan got shot in the lung. He was fine.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Delahanty[/url]
Shot in the neck with a .22 during the attempt on Reagan. Recovered just fine.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McCarthy[/url]
Shot in the stomach. He is fine.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brady[/url]
Shot in the HEAD and was fucked up, but survived. Has since regained virtually all of his functionality and become a dick gun control supporter. He is where the Brady campaign shit comes from.
He was literally firing explosive rounds. They were tipped with Lead azide.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_azide[/url]
That is why you don't use a .22.[/QUOTE]
I agree that carrying a .22 is pretty dumb, but there have been plenty of people who have survived gunshots from larger rounds as well, so I don't think that's a good point to support your argument.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;34402163]Man, being shot with a small caliber will usually make the problem worse because if they're, say, high off their ass they'll just be pissed. If you wanted something [i]great[/i] for incapacitation, a pistol-sized, single-shot (or something?) 8 gauge shotgun would most definitely knock a man down, even if firing birdshot.
Really, in terms of a self-defense scenario, your only concern should be stopping the threat. If that means knocking him down into a world of horrible pain, or out-right killing him, then that's the way it has to be. I've always looked at it as an extreme sport, only the armed citizen is the danger that makes it extreme. Mountain climbers, skydivers, bungee jumpers and other certified adrenaline junkies all understand that what they do could kill them. Crime is inherently dangerous, and if somebody dies while attempting to rob a place, well, shit happens.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Would you rather be hit with a fast moving baseball, or a slow moving train? That is the comparison between a 22 and a 45.
[editline]26th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bones85;34402184]I agree that carrying a .22 is pretty dumb, but there have been plenty of people who have survived gunshots from larger rounds as well, so I don't think that's a good point to support your argument.[/QUOTE]
Um...the chance of survival between the two is very different. Your argument is very poor.
[QUOTE=faze;34402200]Um...the chance of survival between the two is very different. Your argument is very poor.[/QUOTE]
Then support that with scientific evidence instead of saying "here's a list of people who survived being shot by .22 caliber guns."
[QUOTE=Bones85;34402238]Then support that with scientific evidence instead of saying "here's a list of people who survived being shot by .22 caliber guns."[/QUOTE]
GunFox already did that. Read back like two posts.
[QUOTE=faze;34402249]GunFox already did that. Read back like two posts.[/QUOTE]
Okay? Are you going to admit you were wrong when you said my argument was poor?
[QUOTE=Bones85;34402274]Okay? Are you going to admit you were wrong when you said my argument was poor?[/QUOTE]
What? Your argument was poor, he gave several examples of people being shot at point blank with a 22.
Damn ninjad
[QUOTE=Bones85;34402184]I agree that carrying a .22 is pretty dumb, but there have been plenty of people who have survived gunshots from larger rounds as well, so I don't think that's a good point to support your argument.[/QUOTE]
This would be a valid counterpoint if I had used one person. Or several individual incidents.
But this was one incident where four people were shot from near point blank range in traditionally vital organs. The rounds all penetrated and all of them failed to kill their targets.
The same would not have been true with a 9mm using hollow points or even a .45 using FMJ's. The president may have survived due to being hit with a ricochet, as would the guy who got shot in the stomach, but the other two would be long dead.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34402134][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brady[/url]
Shot in the HEAD and was fucked up, but survived. Has since regained virtually all of his functionality and become a dick gun control supporter. He is where the Brady campaign shit comes from.[/QUOTE]
So you oppose these restrictions?
[quote]Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Has a record of being a felon[/quote]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;34401860]Well I don't know about that.[/QUOTE]
Washington DC has strict gun laws, the strictest in the country, it also has one of (if not THE) highest gun related deaths too...interesting.
[QUOTE=Bones85;34402322]So you oppose these restrictions?[/QUOTE]
I don't think many people oppose those restrictions. This law has also started a ton of other anti-gun bullshit, which is why a lot of states still either have restricted carry or may issue.
[editline]26th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=dead.pixel;34402324]Washington DC has strict gun laws, the strictest in the country, it also has one of (if not THE) highest gun related deaths too...interesting.[/QUOTE]
No...they don't. Anyone can carry a gun now, just get a permit. Getting one is very easy. What rock have you been under?
[QUOTE=dead.pixel;34402324]Washington DC has strict gun laws, the strictest in the country[/QUOTE]
But this is 100% warranted; the President is one of if not the most influential person in the world.
[QUOTE=faze;34398523]This 19 year old was a piece of shit, and is part of the reason our society is falling apart.[/QUOTE]
uh
you mean our society is falling apart because 19 year olds are forced to rob restaurants.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34402374]uh
you mean our society is falling apart because 19 year olds are forced to rob restaurants.[/QUOTE]
Our society is falling apart because criminals like this are typically victimized and sympathized with. You read too far into it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.