Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumCustomer shoots two armed robbers at Internet cafe.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120714/ARTICLES/120719763The article is too long to post sections of it - too much stuff would be left out, so I will summarize.
The internet cafe had about 30 customers in it. At about 9:45PM two men wearing ski masks, (Both age 19.) one armed with a .45 handgun and the other with a baseball bat entered the cafe. They demanded that all the customers get down on the floor and take their wallets out. The one with the baseball bat smashed a computer. The guy with the gun turned to deal with the cashier, presenting his back to the customers, depending upon the robber with the bat to control the customers. One customer drew his own gun and opened fire, shooting multiple rounds, hitting one robber superficially in the arm, the other robber twice in the butt - once each cheek. They were arrested when they went to a friend's house to get medical treatment. (The friend called the police.)
The shooter will not be charged, police said.
IIRC, FL has about 3% of the adult population that has CCW. If one assumes about 30 adults in the place then there is about a 65% probability that someone will be armed.
The CCWer did not hit any innocent people.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Glad no innocent customers were injured.
Now they'll, (hopefully) do some hard time for armed robbery, and an xtra 25 years for being idiots.
Can't wait to hear about how the armed customer was a "gun totin cowboy who practiced his quick draw in front of a mirror and then shoved a gun or two down his pants and then walked out of his house with the intention of shooting someone so he could become judge, jury, and executioner".
Love those Archives.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and a rusty old gun. why on earth did they need money so badly? drugs? sad. dumb.
permatex
(1,299 posts)so next time they could actually shoot someone. They were definitely on the shallow side of the gene pool.
My favorite statement was the dumbass who said, I didn't think anyone would be armed, well, guess what? Surprise, you win the stupid of the day award.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)a fucking ball bat. I can't get past that.
HALO141
(911 posts)the man with a baseball bat is king.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)The gun would not work and the other only had a baseball bat, therefore he should not have shot them. Only used his"natural fighting skills, a hot latte and a chair to defeat them.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)The rest of us know better. They don't conceal well at all.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)I've got a CCL so I choose a little more concealable weapon to defend myself.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If he would have shot him only once, the shootee would have been reduced to limping around in a circle and saying such things as "Ow, Ow, Ow."
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Ask around.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)seriously, there are still internet cafes?
Why?!?!?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)States nobody but the robbers were injured. Pretty self explanatory that the bullets either lodged in the ass of one of the robbers or deposited itself without injury to an innocent.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 15, 2012, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)
in busy store missing robbers as often as hitting them. Now is that the kind of crap gun carriers think is safe? Or do I have to produce a study that shows that when some cowboy opens fire, misses in a crowded store and shoots through the door toward street, that some innocent people are in danger?
[bFact are: robbers didn't shoot anyone, probably couldn't have with old gun, cowboy opened fire, barely hit robbers, missed a number of times, and while no innocents were hit (that we know of) cowboy's action put innocent people at more risk than the bumbling robbers.
I know that's not how you guys want the story told -- but them is facts, read for yourself.
Another fact is that you guys get all excited when a gun toter shoots someone, that you don't question whether the outcome could have been worse because of the presence of a gun toter.
Or, more likely -- and this is an opinion -- you guys don't care. If the cowboy had hit an innocent, you would have just said that one of the lessons their instructor taught (like an instructor knows what the hell they are talking about) was to be sure of your target. Or you'd say two "gang bangers" are off the street.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Do we now have to question the guy and ask if his gun will shoot real bullets in order to satisfy you?
permatex
(1,299 posts)of course we do.
Citizen to bad guy: Excuse me sir, but you've busted in here with the intent of robbing us while holding a gun. May I inquire as to the operational state of that weapon? I'm asking because I have a working gun, but before I shoot, I need to know if you're bluffing. First, though, I'll throw a can of beans at you and speak in a stern voice to get you to quit before I shoot.
thelordofhell
(4,569 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)endanger innocent bystanders.
Clames
(2,038 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)Hey, at least he's good at something. What I don't understand is why he posts all that when he knows just about every post can be proven a lie, a misrepresentation, or can easily refuted.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Some people just have serious issues. Maybe it's a way of coping...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)All one has to do is read anything you've posted here.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)your not going to bait me into saying something that will get my post hidden. I've proven my point as everyone here can see by your own words. I've actually provided links which is something you have failed to do, so on that note, we are done here. I won't play your little weaver, zimmerman or whoever else game.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Who was it that said that, again?
permatex
(1,299 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)as it's not a question of if, but merely when....
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)innocent bystanders?
As it turns out, the victims were not in any more danger of being harmed than the innocent bystanders the dumb-assed shooter endangered by firing away like a cowboy in unpopulated area. He missed more times than he hit, at close range.
That is not a responsible gun carrier -- too nervous and too stupid.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Were you there? How do you know what he percieved? Obviously the police didn't think he did anything that warranted an arrest at that time, did they?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)What would I say, I would say that it's the POS thugs who initiated the whole thing and they should be charged accordingly. Your always condemning the legal gun owner and never placing the blame where it belongs, with the thugs, why is that?
Protecting your fellow robbers? Just a guess.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)MainlyLurking
(5 posts)How is it that the bad guys got hit by three shots and all of those innocent bystanders got hit by none?
The odds and facts simply do not support your position.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)as would those who would always question use of guns by those most concerned with savings their own rear.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Responsible gun owners, of whom I am one, won't question the shooting.
As far as "blasting away in the same situation" you weren't there, were you? You have no idea what prompted the man to draw his LEGALLY carried weapon and shoot and guess what?
He didn't hit anyone else but the two punks who started the whole sequence of events.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)No he did not hit anyone else, and the two "punks" did not either.
He could have hit an innocent though since he apparently is like many of you -- can't shoot straight in heat of situation despite all the effing training at playing cowboy.
permatex
(1,299 posts)How do you know that he didn't hit what he wanted? Maybe he did exactly what we're trained to do, shoot to stop the threat. Sounds like thats exactly what he did, once the little thugs left, the threat was over, notice he didn't follow them, didn't try to apprehend them? He did exactly what he was trained to do.
He didn't play cowboy, he didn't hit an innocent bystander, he didn't chase them out the door, he waited for police to arrive, bottom line, he did everything right.
Playing cowboy, what a crock of crap.
BTW, I never once claimed I was there, thats why, unlike you, I'm not second guessing his actions. He was there, he percieved a deadly threat and determined that force was needed to stop the deadly threat, so unless you have info of wrongdoing by the citizen, you have nothing.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)just because the dirtbag's gun was inoperable, how was he to know that?
Back to your normal little insults I see, I was wondering how long it would take?
Like I said, neither you nor I were there, but, unlike you, I'm not second guessing him.
Gee, funny thing also, the shooter will NOT be charged.
Guess the cops and DA thought he was justified also.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Earth_Battalion
Service members of the First Earth Battalion would practice meditation, yogic cat stretches and primal screams to attain battle-readiness, and use tui na or shiatsu as battlefield first aid. First Earth Battalion trainees would learn to fast for a week drinking only juice and then eat only nuts and grains for a month. They would be able to: fall in love with everyone, realize the different paths of spirit, perceive the auras of living organisms, attain the power to pass through objects such as walls (phasing), bend metal by using the power of the mind (i.e. psychokinesis), walk on fire, operate based on spirit communications (e.g. mediumship), become a peacemaker, actually change a violent pattern in the world (e.g. the Maharishi Effect), organize a tree plant with kids, calculate faster than a computer, control their heart rateincluding making it stopwith no ill effects, intuit information from the past (retrocognition) or future (precognition), have out-of-body experiences, live off nature for twenty days, be 90%+ a vegetarian, and be able to intuit other people's thoughts and feelings via telepathy[5] LTC Channon coined the term "warrior monk" for these new service members of the First Earth Battalion,[6] which is anyone who has the presence, service and dedication of a monk and the absolute skill and precision of a warrior. In The Warrior Monks Vision, Channon imagined an Army made up of awakened warriors.[7] Channons ideal warrior monk would be proficient at every level of force.[8] The warrior monk will learn different self-defense systems of martial arts (such as taiji, aikido, etc.), which are based on the notion of using the force of their attackers against themselves. To alleviate negative stressors and promote healing in self and others, the warrior monk will employ various affirmation, relaxation and visualization techniques, as well as a number of methods like yoga[9] qigong and reiki[10] to help strengthen and improve the mind/body connection with spirit.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)In another thread he informed me that, indeed, he is a "tough guy" (his words), and that he's "forgotten more than I [bongbong] know".
You get a double threat with some gun religionists - tough AND smart.
Oh, and let's not forget that they're highly sensitive, as they constantly alert on posts that offend their delicate sensibilities.
permatex
(1,299 posts)If you take it that way, too bad, not my problem.
As explained before, I haven't alerted on any of your posts, I'd rather leave them there so people can see for themselves just how juvenile you really are.
But thanks for playing.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Where did I say you're a threat? Being careful with somebody isn't calling them a threat.
Come on, "tough guy" (your own words), as you gun-religionists like to post over-n-over, PROVE IT!
permatex
(1,299 posts)Yes, it looks like you never read Shakespeare, too.
Wasting too many man-years drooling over death-machine guns makes you miss out on life, "tough guy".
BTW, if you're a "tough guy" (as you call yourself), and you need to have a gun to feel safe in public, what does that make me? I don't need a gun to feel safe in public, so I must be a "SUPER DUPER tough guy"!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, meh.
(And the police have a FAR worse hit ratio than this old guy did)
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)sarisataka
(20,409 posts)disarmed the punks, disassembled the gun and bat, threw the pieces into a nearby potted plant and held them so the police could check their papers.
If the punks became aggressive a can of coffee bean could have been employed.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)"He missed more times than he hit, at close range."
Since there is no mention in the article of total number of shots fired, or of any misses, we'll just chalk this up to another case of you making shit up.
"As it turns out, the victims were not in any more danger of being harmed..."
Your after-fact omnicience and prescience is truely awe-inspiring. You should apply it to something useful. Like... garden fertilizing.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Ya see I have done that before, I do not miss.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
And how many cans of beans would you require to subdue them?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)without needing a gun.
you would have thrown a can of beans or a bicycle tire at them, or, you would have snatched the gun away from the thug, dismantled it and thrown it in the nearest bushes.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)By the way, when are you going to respond to the latest news on 17 year old girl thread where you were cheering/defending the "homeowner" who shot her. Sounds like he was a drug dealer AND she sold him the gun days before.
Whatever you think I would have done, at least I don't have to strap a gun on to go outside.
permatex
(1,299 posts)defending, yes. What they were doing is irrelevent, those three still went there with the intent to rob them. That she was killed is her and her fault alone.
permatex
(1,299 posts)This one's just for you
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Got a link?
permatex
(1,299 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)We'll be interested to know what color your underwear ends up.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So where do you get 'missed more often than he hit'?
Nor are you watching the scene from his vantage point. There's a wall there. He's firing a .380. Would I volunteer to be on the other side of that wall? No. But considering that he's reacting to someone he has every reasonable belief that he's holding a firearm as well, he did remarkably well, with a very short barreled handgun against a moving target, even if he was a 20 year old with excellent reflexes.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I resent the implication. rude and inflammatory comments again from Hoyt. taking notes.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Would "coward" or "policewannabe" work better for you.
Take whatever notes you like.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)you need to grow up, Hoyt. the world is not cowboys and indians anymore.
sarisataka
(20,409 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)good times, my friend. good times
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)that someone ccw in that internet cafe, now would we? legal took care of illegal. deal with it, Hoyt.
permatex
(1,299 posts)I think even if the dirtbags started shooting the patrons and this guy pulled his legally carried gun and shot these two, you would still condemn the lawful citizen.
I guess it falls under 1 former robber covering for his comrades.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)how come you haven't posted your conversation with him yet? I mean, after all, you seem to know what he was thinking when he drew and shot. After all, you wouldn't post false statements, would you?
Oh shit, wait.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)have used his bullwhip, which is why there were called "crackers". Don't know much about history do you? I know you don't know shit about cowboys.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)he has nothing contructive to add, just destructive. I think he's close to violating the ToS, but thats not my call.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)Meiko
(1,076 posts)How many rounds hit the robbers? It is not all that clear. Nobody else was hit though so there couldn't have been too many extra rounds flying around.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)all told he fired off roughly 100,000 rounds and the streets literally ran red with blood.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)/they make smaller targets.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Meiko
(1,076 posts)were imprinted so they could be traced back to the owner.
ileus
(15,396 posts)They just wanted some folding money...
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Law enforcement officers have a duty to disarm first and if that fails then shoot. CCWers should be held to the same requirements if they're attempting to stop a criminal in public.
permatex
(1,299 posts)A cops first duty is to protect him/herself. Thats got to be the dumbest thing I've heard today. Are you kidding us?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)yes I can.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)he should just shoot the armed suspects on sight?
permatex
(1,299 posts)LE has NO DUTY to try to disarm first, their first duty is the protection of themselves. Where do you get that idea?
I have two relates who are cops and they would laugh their ass off at your statement.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Otherwise some will assume they're NRA backing Weaver lovers who have a dash of Zimmerman thrown in.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)could be shoot on sight by a responding LE. Do you toters ever consider that?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)got hit in the head with too many cans of beans and deserves what they get. Of course, the cops will first try and disarm them before shooting, right?
permatex
(1,299 posts)Any CCW'er who pulls his gun with police on scene is going to either end up on the ground eating dirt/concrete or with about a dozen bullets in them and rightly so.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)then disassemble their weapon and throw the parts in a bush? Hell if they can do it, it's small potatos for a cop to do it.
permatex
(1,299 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)It's rare, but it's better than trying to disarm or interrogate a person who is in the act of a violent, armed felony.
Here's a scenario:
Is that actually preferable, in your mind, to the head shot?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)In part, because many (if not most) CCW permit classes make such scenarios and how you should behave part of the curriculum. One thing that was driven home in mine was that when the police arrive to find you holding a suspect at gunpoint, they almost certainly will immediately draw and demand that you drop your weapon (even if dispatch has told them what the situation was). They have no idea if the call to 911 that (presumably) described a DGU was a legit description of what was happening, and their first priority is to make sure the only armed people on the scene are them. My instructor took great pains to point out that it's critical to immediately comply...NOT to try to explain things to the cops while you're still holding your weapon.
It's highly unlikely, however, that the cops will "shoot on sight" in such a situation. that will be against their protocols for these types of scenario. Not that they might not screw up...but what's most likely to happen is as related above: they'll immediately demand you drop your weapon.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)I think in the case of the OP, if the suspect were warned first he would have readily dropped his weapon knowing it was inoperable.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Why would you lose the element of surprise? I am under no obligation to warn the thug first. Now, unless the thugs show that they are going to escalate the situation, I myself wouldn't draw, if all they wanted was the money, I would let them have it and I would get the best possible description I could for the police. Sorry, to answer your question, in my CCP class, we were told if we have to shoot to protect ourselves, we better be damned sure and don't announce, just shoot.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)A class in defensive handgun use might do that sort of thing, but that's not really the focus of CCW permit classes. The latter exist to ensure that permit applicants are aware of what their responsibilities are under the law, what legally constitutes a situation in which deadly force is permissible, what to expect from law enforcement, and so forth. It's not really within their purview to teach tactics.
sarisataka
(20,409 posts)Intervening as a third party is discouraged in in CCW classes. It is only in extreme situations that you should do so and is not recommended.
Now say you do intervene, as in this case. The armed citizen must make a split second decision, shoot or demand surrender. The citizen has no way of knowing if the gun is real, fake, broken or anything else, so the assumption must be that it is loaded.
Option A- demand surrender
Pro- no body gets shot if the criminal gives up
Con- criminal may shoot citizen
-criminal may shoot clerk
-criminal may take clerk hostage, seriously complicating the situation
-second criminal may attack citizen before any action is taken
Option B- shoot without warning
Pro- element of surprise
-first hit often will end a fight
-opportunity for well aimed shot
Con- criminal may not be out of fight and shoot bystander
-a miss will give initiative back to the criminal
-possibility a miss or penetrating hit will strike bystander
-if police arrive on scene citizen may be mistaken for criminal
-legal issues of stemming from shooting
notice in both cases there are more cons than pros. A third option is do nothing and be a good witness. May be best choice in some situations, however if the situation turns bad there may be many mental issues for 'not doing something sooner'
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)I am not anti-gun and I think well-trained, armed citizens can be a benefit to society. Too many responses here seem to celebrate the use of the gun without considering other options.
sarisataka
(20,409 posts)I felt you deserved an honest answer.
I cannot say if I would have shot or not; it is unique to every situation. Some may laugh at the idea of mentally running scenarios, or war gaming if you will, but it is extremely helpful if you find yourself in an unlikely situation such as this. You will be able to focus on you options much sooner if you are not starting from base zero.
Note I did not say a carrier should war game these things. A non-carrier should as well. Know where the exits are in case or fire or robbery, is one part of the parking lot better lit than another, etc. It is this situational awareness that will help you avoid being a crime victim in the first place.
If you choose to carry I believe it is critical.
HALO141
(911 posts)but I don't think this was exactly a "third party" situation. The shooter, along with the other patrons, was a robbery victim and almost certainly would have ended up as one of the hostages should that situation have evolved. (By then, of course, the robbers would have his operational handgun as well.)
sarisataka
(20,409 posts)because the armed citizen was not face to face with the gun wielding criminal.
You are correct that he was already involved as opposed to walking in to see a crime in progress. This situation is much clearer to the armed citizen yet the choices are about the same.
HALO141
(911 posts)This sort of situation doesn't seem to fit neatly into 1st party/3rd party categories.
HALO141
(911 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts).45 with a .380.
A pretty shitty proposition in which the bad guy might win, or both parties might lose.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)(or call 911 if at all possible) and let them know what the current situation is. Put the gun down as soon as the police arrive, if it appears safe to do so (i.e. not within reach of the criminal).
Many other possible actions to take as well, which the person asking questions could find out if they'd stop playing disingenuous and actually do some research.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Kinda hard to dial the phone and stay in touch with the dispatcher if you're having to hold the weapon on a home invader who has surrendered...and the weapon takes two hands.
Clames
(2,038 posts)You can't even explain how you reached this illogical path of thought given the thread topic...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It is extremely rare, but it can happen. Thing is, cops are pretty good at reading body language. The fact that you aren't shooting people that are running away, without weapons in their hands, and that you don't turn your weapon on the cops, is pretty reasonable evidence you don't need to be shot by the police.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)In the video of this crime, in a separate thread, the entire event takes 19 seconds. When the cops get there, AFTER all the action, the CCWer will have already put his gun up.
Your imagination is in overdrive.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The guy holding it would have a VERY narrow window of opportunity to drop it. Approximately the timespan the officer needs to draw his weapon.
HALO141
(911 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)and get blown away for your effort.
How much did you think before you made that comment?
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)an armed robbery with a gun or a bat that a police officer is obligated to attempt to disarm you (thus risking his own and other people's lives) before shooting to stop the threat.
That's a joke, but some here might not know it.
Note to readers: If you act as these robbers did in front of some plainclothes police, expect them to shoot at you until they empty their guns, spraying bullets much more wildly than this CCW permittee did, and expect them to face no negative consequences whatsoever.
And if you (or your next of kin) brings up a "duty to disarm first and if that fails then shoot", expect the officers, the judge and members of the jury to look at you as if you have three heads.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)if they were criminals they could just casually take the gun away from the person and use it on them (it is a 100% certainty that if you try to use a firearm in self-defense the criminal will simply take it away and shoot you).
So really we need criminals and their insane ninja like weapon taking skills patrolling the streets.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)Cite evidence to that nonsense please....
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)think of. Wanna piss off someone? walk around with a ballbat. fucking rude as hell. in a goddamn internet cafe ?!!! this ain't no ballfield. holy fuck. that pisses me off. where are these boys' parents??? what kind of raising did they get?
sounds like they got disarmed pretty damn good.
lord, I just can not get past the ballbat.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)He wasn't trying to apprehend them, nor should he be. THAT would be vigilanteism.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)I thought it was hard to type with one hand.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)(On that point and that point alone.)
bongbong
(5,436 posts)"I know you are but what am I?"
Takes me right back to 2nd grade!
Hey, I just thought I'd talk to you at your level.
You know, sans content, sans logic, pure snark.
You shouldn't complain about someone reaching out like that.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...and any room to make that sort of remark to someone else.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Oh, don't be so SENSITIVE! It's just a JOKE!
I wish the gun-relgionists at DU were as tough as they think they are!
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)Yes, oh kings-of-unintentional-irony (I'm looking at all of you, DU gun-religionists trying to convince Liberals that guns are "Like! OMG! The most awesomest thing evah!"
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)"strawman argument"
Do yourself a favor and look it up.
permatex
(1,299 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)I've probably forgotten more than you'll ever learn.
permatex
(1,299 posts)you seem to be the expert at it.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)go do another bong hit
bowens43
(16,064 posts)BAY CITY, Texas (AP) A man who shot four young children and their mother at their southeastern Texas home before killing himself was the woman's husband and children's father, whom she had recently accused of assault, police said Thursday.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)sarisataka
(20,409 posts)It's a news item shared for comment or discussion. If you have nothing to add please refrain from disrupting the thread.
Credit where due http://www.democraticunderground.com/117250571#post12
marsis
(301 posts)a steak knife you'd be against steak knives.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)shall we talk about how little good it did this woman to report the assault? so sad.
jody
(26,624 posts)IIRC, FL has about 3% of the adult population that has CCW. If one assumes about 30 adults in the place then there is about a 65% probability that someone will be armed.
The problem is a variation of the birthday problem and unless my calculations are wrong the probability is about 60% at least one person will have a CCW from:
1 (.97 exponent 30)
Interesting that a criminal taking on 23 people with a population of 3% having CCW has a 50% chance of facing at least one person with a CCW!
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I ball-parked it close enough. We arrive at the same conclusion - keep doing that kind of robbery and sometime in the first few robberies your luck is almost certain to run out. His ran out at n=1.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I think there'd probably be a lot less crime.
Just another reason to improve the education system.
Which blatently begs the question: Does education effectiveness (test scores, graduation rates, etc.) have any correlation to crime rates? Hmmmm.....
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Most likely:
CCW=old white guy who does not do computers or cafes.
Internet cafe=young geek or hipster or UF student that would not have gun.
So much for stereotypes.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Sad that the author/reporter plays along....
Higgs boson
(42 posts)...
2on2u
(1,843 posts)my head.... but I don't want to buffalo you now.... heh heh....
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)that is not a shame. The bottom (no pun intended!) line is that the legal CCW guy prevented an armed robbery without loss of life. That's a good outcome in my book. Criminals go to jail and nobody has to deal with the aftershock of taking a life.
It doesn't always work out that way but in this case, things went as fine as they could given two armed criminals trying to rob innocent people.
permatex
(1,299 posts)It was a positive outcome to a potentially bad situation, and the shooter doesn't have the nightmare of taking a human life on his conscious.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)more opportunities in future to repeat their crimes. And have a few years (or maybe months) of OJT in the crossbar hotel to learn how to rob more efficiently.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)It's hard to tell if he took one shot before they ran or they just ran at the sight of the gun, but any shots fired after they ran were unnecessary vigilante behavior.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)At any moment they might have dodged behind a counter or machine and started shooting innocents. They could have surrendered but no, they were retreating to regroup in the parking lot and then remount the attack. Let me guess, if you were a LEO you would have let them flee?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)according to the employee, the CCW guy is a retired US Marshal. Sorry Hoyt, have to find a new meme.