Alex wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:25 am

Kenr wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:30 am

Alex wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:01 am

orichá wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:42 pm I don't get it. None of you see or want to acknowledge the total and absolute insanity of life in America. Some of you are blatantly racist, ie.: "a dead gangbanger is a good gangbanger".

I think you are all sick in the head for commending and condoning the rotten violence and crazy behavior of American society as if it is okay, normal, just fine for people to shoot ( or "to have to" shoot ) each other to death, senselessly, everyday. ...Is life of no value..?

I just don't understand your banal and amoral acceptance of gun violence as a reasonable form of status quo.

I hope that the next generation outgrows the false and twisted sickness that accepts the presence and ownership of guns among ordinary citizens... Only police should be permitted to use firearms, and then, only under extraordinary circumstances...

As you probably saw in yesterday's U.S. news, a six year old child took his mom's gun to school and shot his teacher. This shows the pathological, deeply engrained insanity of everyday life in America...

Your description of the gun violence situation isn't wrong, but how would you change it or solve the problem? I don't see much benefit in merely lamenting the insanity, and hoping that the next generation will have different views seems quite naive to me.

Even if you enforce that ordinary citizens can't legally own/carry firearms, that would apply to law-abiding citizens only. The problem is, of course, that criminals would still have guns. As seen in many other countries.

With all due respect, you are only a law abiding citizen until you break the law. The majority of mass shooters purchase their weapons legally. It’s how each state applies the laws. If you have a situation, like where gun straw purchases are allowed, no background checks are required and any criminal can obtain a weapon. If you have a situation where a state has no red flag laws, any individual can obtain a weapon.

There are ways to keep weapons out of criminals hands. Unfortunately some states here don’t provide the Federal Government with the appropriate information to deny someone the abllity to purchase the weapon legally, and some states allow gun purchases through straw transactions. So until that is rectified, nothing can or will be done.

This thread is about an armed robbery, not about mass shootings. That makes a big difference for obvious reasons. I'm all for measures that are aimed at preventing mass shootings, BUT even in countries where gun ownership is outlawed, criminals who commit armed robberies still find ways to get their hands on guns illegally.

Big Daikon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:42 am

Newinkow wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:59 am

Big Daikon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:03 am

Newinkow wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:30 am Once the robber had what he wanted, the loot from everyone, the situation was de-escalated. He was satisfied and was leaving.

"Once the criminal had robbed everyone, he should be free to go on his merry way."

Frankly, this is a victim mentality I find repulsive. Completely passive and more concerned with the antisocial criminal than one's own safety.

Not everyone is content to be a passive victim.

Is life only worth a few buck and a cell phone? Was the shooter's life in real danger?

USA supposedly being a civilized country has law that deal with crime and punishment. For the sake of a few bucks, you would kill a man over it instead of letting the law enforcement deal with the situation?

USA is not like KoW where I few well placed $$$ will get you a "get out of jail" card. That's why they have a independent juridical system to enforce the law and determine the punishment.

With your line of thinking might as well go back to the wild wild west days. Any disagreements, precise harm or danger is dealt with by a shoot out. Basically vigilantism.

I'm not saying that if one's life is in serious danger one shouldn't defend myself. What I'm saying is that the danger to the shooter's life was at the point when the gun was pointed at him. He choose not to react to that situation. Yet when the real danger has passed he chooses to shoot the robber in the back while he was leaving. When there was no more threat to anyone life and basically the robbery was at it conclusion. No harm was done but a few lost dollars and some phones.

Maybe some macho ego was damaged. If he was so macho, why wait until the robber's back was turned and he was out of danger before killing the robber? Why not confront the situation at the moment it occurred if he was so macho?

Yes, I think the customers' lives were in danger. The life-threatening danger started with the robber brandishing the firearm and was ended by the other man shooting him.

"He just wants to steal my money and phone. He probably won't kill me."

Again, I find this to be a passive victim mentality that is intolerable.

Username Taken wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:02 am Would the shooter have taken the same action if the robber with the gun was a white guy?

General Mackevili wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:57 am

orichá wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:42 pm I don't get it. None of you see or want to acknowledge the total and absolute insanity of life in America. Some of you are blatantly racist, ie.: "a dead gangbanger is a good gangbanger".

I think it's funny the person yelling "you're racist" thinks that 'gangbanger' refers to a certain race, lol.