• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

MORE ON THE FLORIDA BLOCKBUSTER'S SHOOTING

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< Ok, so now you gun control fanatics, tell me how the laws kept the gun out of these 2 criminal's hands. >>



The same applies for (drug-name-here) finding its way in to the hands of a teen. Theres laws against drugs, but does that make a difference?

Point being, gun control or not, it still deters the average citizen from acquiring a gun.

Honestly, do you think that every person in your country should have the ability to be a gun owner?

So, if they make me jump through a few hoops to obtain a license to own a gun, I'm a safe gun owner right?
Just because someone can pass their DRIVERS TEST doesn't make them a safe driver.


 
Hey, I agreed that these guys should have been wasted. I was just pointing out why the anti-gun guy was saying what he was saying. I have shot plenty of guns before. I'm considering this to be somewhat close range. Shooting at a moving guy must not be too hard since he obviously was successful at it.

And yes, they were criminals when they came in the room wanting to rob it. However, we have laws that protect people. And you're right, there are plenty of crazy what if scenerios that are just unreasonable. It's real life. In the same situation, I'd have done the same thing Joe Citizen did.

Again, I'm not suggesting Joe Citizen did anything wrong. He might have, but who knows. I haven't talked to the witnesses. I haven't seen the crime site. There are a million details that I don't know. But, people are always getting on cops for doing exactly what this guy did. People are heralding this guy because he's a citizen.

Anyway, a lot of what I was saying was stupid, I'll agree. But there is a very small idea that Arthur Hayhoe hit upon that should be looked at. He wasn't armed and not of any harm at that precise moment. And its the statement, "reaching for the gun" that I have a problem with.

Oh well.
 
Yes if you jump through a few hoops then fine EVERYBODY should be able to be a gun owner.
Its called freedom and until you do something wrong you should be able to own a gun if you so choose.
 


<< Hey, I agreed that these guys should have been wasted. I was just pointing out why the anti-gun guy was saying what he was saying. I have shot plenty of guns before. I'm considering this to be somewhat close range. Shooting at a moving guy must not be too hard since he obviously was successful at it.

And yes, they were criminals when they came in the room wanting to rob it. However, we have laws that protect people. And you're right, there are plenty of crazy what if scenerios that are just unreasonable. It's real life. In the same situation, I'd have done the same thing Joe Citizen did.

Again, I'm not suggesting Joe Citizen did anything wrong. He might have, but who knows. I haven't talked to the witnesses. I haven't seen the crime site. There are a million details that I don't know. But, people are always getting on cops for doing exactly what this guy did. People are heralding this guy because he's a citizen.

Anyway, a lot of what I was saying was stupid, I'll agree. But there is a very small idea that Arthur Hayhoe hit upon that should be looked at. He wasn't armed and not of any harm at that precise moment. And its the statement, "reaching for the gun" that I have a problem with.

Oh well. >>




OK. I agree w/you on the "people get on cops for doing the exact same thing" point. It's always the criminal element (i.e. inner city, voluntarily unemployed welfare recipients) that do get on the police for doing their job. Most of them are animals anyway. I know this because I used to live in the inner city. I had a job, however. Thanks Mom & Dad for beating my ass every time I strayed too far towards The Dark Side; you kept me relatively straight.

But to say that the guy wasn't armed b/c he wasn't holding the gun; while technically correct, it's not "real world correct." I would bet my life that the other guy WAS reaching for the gun and WAS GOING TO fire it at Mr. Shockley. He was a street punk with a nice, long criminal history. And not like "shoplifting and public urination" type history, either.

This country is better off w/those two gone. It would've been just a matter of time before they killed somebody and/or wound up incarcerated, living off my tax dollars.
 


<< Yes if you jump through a few hoops then fine EVERYBODY should be able to be a gun owner.
Its called freedom and until you do something wrong you should be able to own a gun if you so choose. >>



I agree with the idea. I firmly believe that if I want to smoke dope in my house, I should be able to until I do something wrong...but I can't.

Seriously, don't flame for this, but imagine if we hadn't been allowed guns in the first place. Take England for example. How many homicides do they have a year? In 1999, they had 42; 1997 - 39.

I'm not trying to argue about gun rights here. We are in a totally different situation now and banning guns probably isn't even possible. But, if it had been from the beginning, it might be a slightly different world outside.
 
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Firearms are almost the simplest thing to make in fact they have been around 100's of years.
England's homicide by firearm has gone up since they enacted gun control. Yes they have a low homocide rate but that my friend has nothing to do with gun control.
I also feel you should be able to smoke dope if you want. It has a stigma attached wrongfully. No worse than alcohol IMO.
Man's propensity to violence is not going to dissappear with 6 billion people on earth you will always find some that no matter what the penalty or restrictions will do damage.
 


<<
You asked me to put myself in Joe Citizen's shoes. I'll ask you to put yourself in the robbers shoes. You are robbing this place and think it's going to be a piece of cake. Your buddy is then shot and is laying on the floor in front of you. There is a possability that you go insane and don't know what to do. You may want to check on your buddy who is bleeding in front of you. You may want to run out of the store. You may decide that laying on the floor would be safer. Only, when you go to lay on the floor, you are then wasted.

I'm glad these guys were shot, but I'm not sure it's completely legal. I think Joe Citizen should get off, but people should at least look at it from the other perspective. >>



WTF!!! ok.. i will put myself in the criminal's positon..
" Oooo fuc#!! my partner with the gun just got shot. wonder if he will shoot me if I go for the gun ....."
BANG
"yep.. he shot me alright. damn.. why did i be come a criminal. someone who fuc#ing deserves to be killed.????"

point is.. he is a criminal threatning to kill other people. just because he was a criminal doesn't mean he should be killed. ( maybe ) but because he was threatning other's lives. and hey this way they werent' in some stupid wastfull stand off or on the road running fromt he cops and endangering other lifes as well. it is a damn shame that cops can't stop that crap quickly when people are endangering other lives. to many people out there want to feel sorry for the criminal.. Just wait till one puts you in that REAL LIFE situation. see how much you wish someone would kill the guy.
 


<< Hey, I agreed that these guys should have been wasted. I was just pointing out why the anti-gun guy was saying what he was saying. I have shot plenty of guns before. I'm considering this to be somewhat close range. Shooting at a moving guy must not be too hard since he obviously was successful at it. >>



I havent been getting to the range as frequently as I used to since going to college, but I used to go at least 2 times a month. I know I'm a pretty darn good pistol shot against man sized targets at 25-50 feet. I know I can hit a running squirrel or rabbit with a 22 pistol. Combining those facts, I am pretty sure I can hit a running man. However, I am also pretty sure that I wont do it each and every time in an area that will incapacitate the man with a small caliber pistol (many CC pistols are small caliber so you can conceal them easier). I might have a 95% average, or 99% average, or a 99.9% average, or even a 99.99% average, however, its never going to be 100%. Now, I would guess that the man was as protective of his son as I would be of my mom, sister, or g/f. And anyone who threatened any of those people, while armed, is going to be shot if I have a gun on me. Assuming that "he did it, so its easy" is a really dumb arguement. People have climbed Mt. Everest, but I dont assume its easy. There have been sniper shots at 2500+ yards, but I know that isnt easy. It is easy to sit back and second guess the man in the field after its all over with. IMHO, he did a fine job.




<< Anyway, a lot of what I was saying was stupid, I'll agree. But there is a very small idea that Arthur Hayhoe hit upon that should be looked at. He wasn't armed and not of any harm at that precise moment. And its the statement, "reaching for the gun" that I have a problem with. >>



If you are reaching for a gun, you pose an iminent danger. period.
 
royaldank:

The judgement error you are making is not percieving a violent criminal reaching for a gun with the clear intent to shoot at you as a clear and present danger. It is justified to shoot-to-disable such an act of aggression to protect lives.

i.e. - the very act of reaching for the rifle was an attack on the civilians.
 


<< royaldank:

The judgement error you are making is not percieving a violent criminal reaching for a gun with the clear intent to shoot at you as a clear and present danger. It is justified to shoot-to-disable such an act of aggression to protect lives.

i.e. - the very act of reaching for the rifle was an attack on the civilians. >>



Agreed. But you are also missing the point that it was a quote from the man who shot him. Would he say, "I shot his partner, and figured this guy should get shot as well." Neither of us know what really happened.

And, if he was reaching for the gun, he deserved to be shot. I'll agree with that. However, what people say and what people do are two different things. His idea of reaching for the gun might have changed dramatically after the incedent occured and before the police go there.

Ask Jayson Williams. Stories can get changed quite a lot between the time something happens and the time the cops get there.

Let me reiterate, if the guy was indeed reaching for the gun, I'm all for blowing him away. I'm just saying that with all the information given here, to me, there is still some reasonable doubt. Little, I'll agree, but with the limited info we have, you just can't tell for sure.

And as I said before, if I were in the same situation, I'd have shot both guys myself.
 


<< The other predator then reaches for the rifle. >>




I'm not going to defend the robbers, they are bad people (presumably from their priors) and were doing a very bad thing. BUT this thread doesn't have any counter view points so let me throw this out there. Before you decide to flame me, let me remind you that I am really neither pro- or con- guns per se, but i am against violent crime, as I am sure all of you are. Just try to respond to the below comment without too much slanderous rebuttal. 😀

Counterpoint:

This incident could pretty easily be construed by the anti-gun lobby as EVIDENCE (not proof mind you) that:

1) current gun control laws are NOT strong enough.


  • How was the rifle obtained? Was it purchased? Was it stolen? Guns should be more regulated to keep the guns of law abiding citizens out of the hands of criminals.

2) that there is TOO GREAT a proliferation of guns.


  • The fact that these men were able to get the rifle indicates that firearms are too common place, too available. If there were fewer guns produced there should be fewer guns in general to be used illegally.

3) concealed weapon laws only lead to more death, suffering and costs.


  • We don't know if these men would of shot the employees. They may have, or maybe not. It is impossible to know how different things might of turned out. Likewise, what if the boy's father had been shot first? Also, we don't know how the current concealed weapon atmosphere will affect future criminal behavior. It is possible that criminals will become tactically smarter, more lethally armed (i.e. what if both criminal had rifles?).
 


<< i.e. - the very act of reaching for the rifle was an attack on the civilians. >>




the very act of entering a public place armed and atempting to rob it while it's full of people is an attack on civilians, they forfeted there right to life and freedom at that point, both of them. They just happen to have a spot of bad luck and someone that is NOT a bleeding heart panzy ass came along and handled it like a man, the way things were meant to be handled by the people that put this country together.
Anyone that thinks otherwise, well, I can tell you how to get your passport...


:disgust:
 


<< Point being, gun control or not, it still deters the average citizen from acquiring a gun.

Honestly, do you think that every person in your country should have the ability to be a gun owner? >>



The point of the US gun laws is NOT to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns, it is NOT meant to be a deterent to law abiding citizens owning guns. The point of those laws and the constitutionality of those laws depends on the attempt of those laws to prevent NON-law abiding (criminals) citizens from aquiring these weapons. By attempting to say these laws should be used to take away a basic right (a constitutionaly guaranteed right) from the average citizen just lends weight and fire to the NRA arguements.

I firmly believe that every law abiding citizen in this country can bear arms, with one exception. I think psychotic mental conditions like scitzophrenia should revoke that right.
 
RAHVIN, I agree with you on those points, but, if you begin disclosing Medical Records, then you also violate the Dr./Patient privilige, also, you run the risk of invading a person's privacy. So it is a catch 22, do you disclose Med records, or do you protect the privacy?
 
Ulfwald,

I admit that enforcement of this would be tricky while maintaining privacy. Perhaps something as simple as requiring a doctors note, this way there is no breech in privacy.
 
since when do you have to have the weapon in-hand to be armed?

If I've got a sawed-off slung on my back, a .9mm in a shoulder holster, a .45 on the hip and a 18" machette on the other hip, but nothing in my hands, am I then "unarmed?"

You could then describe most police men, military personnel, fbi, cia and embassy guards as "unarmed"

 


<<
3) concealed weapon laws only lead to more death, suffering and costs.


  • We don't know if these men would of shot the employees. They may have, or maybe not. It is impossible to know how different things might of turned out. Likewise, what if the boy's father had been shot first? Also, we don't know how the current concealed weapon atmosphere will affect future criminal behavior. It is possible that criminals will become tactically smarter, more lethally armed (i.e. what if both criminal had rifles?).
 >>



this is not a flame so hope you don't get mad. 🙂
but.. when people comit to aremed robbery. it is safe to asume that they will kill if needed. now. in this situation and many oters since someone was there to stop itl then they should be stiped.. bye death preferably. why??? becaue they don't desrve to live. they are a plage to everyone else that is not a criminal. what about the first timer you say??? well aparently he wasn't tought enough earler in life so here is a good time for him to get a good look on things. If anyone threatens another human's life in anyway or with anyting they should face death.

why is it in this contry we have to WAIT for $hit to go wron befoer we can do anything about it?? and if you think it isn't like that... then just wake the hell up and look around look at the so called securety procedures that are going on at airports now..

this is directed to anyone who feels the guy should have wated to pick up the gun.
 
jesus christ, now we have to give criminals a fair chance in a gun fight? yeah, great idea, captain peaceful.

would this apply if someone broke into your house as well? "Hold on honey, I can't shoot the burglar until he picks up a weapon. In the meantime, we'll watch him loot our house and do what he pleases." Yeah, ok.

this is absolutely ridiculous, you don't have to be armed to be dangerous, and after seeing his cohort get shot, this guy would probably be even more reckless/desperate to do something. wait for him to pick up his own weapon, at the potential cost of your own life? i don't think so.
 
Robbing Business Establishments is a high risk occupation and it's almost impossible to get life insurance if you do that for a living. The second Predator should have taken the risks of his chosen occupation into consideration before he pursued a carreer in armed theivery. Now he'll have a scar on his chest for the rest of his life to remind him of his foolish decision.

As for the the Armed Civilian: Nice Shot Man!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top