2 20 yr olds vs. 71 yr old

[BloodEclipse]

It's wrong to kill, few things justify it. But it's also a fact that most armed-robberies are harmless, conducted by people who know all too well the raising of stakes by making it Murder.

tell that to the 5 women herded into the back of the Lane Bryant and then executed. You seem to have some dreamy view of the world where the bad guys really aren't that bad and everyone who carrys a gun is a vigilante. That shows either your youth or your acceptance of a view without researching it.

 

[Sphynx]

You know, I get told that a lot. Being a bad guy doesn't make you a murderer, and carrying a gun shouldn't make you a Vigilante.

 

[BloodEclipse]

You know, I get told that a lot. Being a bad guy doesn't make you a murderer, and carrying a gun shouldn't make you a Vigilante.

That might be because that is how you come across. This is samples of what has happened in Britian and it seems to be much of what you seem to think is ok.


In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.

In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted �5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.

 

[Sphynx]

Why would you think that? Did you miss the part where I constantly repeat that I think Legal gun ownership is very important to me? o.O

 

[BloodEclipse]

No I have heard you say that... but you have this notion that most of us are closet vigilantes... if not that is how you are coming across. You say you support legal gun ownership but you also say you support more gun control and bans. You sound just like Obama. You can't have it both ways and you must define your limits.

 

[Scam1789]

Head-shot + Chest-shot. What I object to are his kill-zone shots. The punishment for Robbery isn't death. Maybe he was aiming for their shoulders and was just a bit off on his shooting, but seems to me he was aiming to kill. Right to a concealed weapon does not include a right to Vigilant behaviour. Being forced into a bathroom was no at-risk-of-death behaviour. If he had a legal right to take the law into his own hands, no complaints. But if not, then what he did was 100% wrong. Defending your life by taking a life is ok. Killing to defend your right to not be put in a bathroom is not. Killing to prevent a robbery is not.

If you are being forced into a corner by two armed gunmen, any action to save your own life and the life of innocents should be taken against the gunmen. That includes lethal force.

 

[Sphynx]

BloodEclipse, those 2 are not mutually exclusive. Laws that limit access to guns to those that shouldn't have them, do not, and should not, effect your right to bear arms. And no, I do not think 99% of gun carriers are Vigilante. It's always the small number which give a group a bad name. sort of like the portrayal of many Americans that Muslims are, by nature, Terrorists.

Scam, I agree completely. The weight of the sentence lying on the "to save your own life and the life of innocents"

 

[indyjoe]

You know, I get told that a lot. Being a bad guy doesn't make you a murderer, and carrying a gun shouldn't make you a Vigilante.

However, being a bad guy, in commission of a felony with a gun pointed at someone makes you less than a second away from being a murderer. Thinking any other way is admitting that you are fine being a victim and OK with giving them your life.

How does the average person learn to psychoanalyze the criminal to see if they are the type that just shoot people out of spite or to get into their gang (yes, some require killing a random person) from those that are NICE violent criminals?

The term vigilante means a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime. Generally crime that the person was not directly involved in. I believe the correct name for a person surviving an armed robbery is a victim but a survivor.

I've had a knife pulled on me. My life has been threatened. I was able to get them to stand down but telling them if they didn't, the PACT timer said I could draw and put two shot in them in under 2 seconds. I didn't have to. So am I now a victim, but not a vigilante? I did have my hand on the grip of the gun. If they moved 5 feet closer, they would have been perforated. Does that now make me a vigilante? Or am I a surviving victim? You state that you should never point a pistol at someone unless you are shooting. Really? What if I drew my pistol and it stopped the person. Now they are backing up. Do I still shoot? Wouldn't that make me a vigilante?

 

[Windwalker]

Seems like a good shoot to me. The Retd. Marine should not be charged nor should a civil suit be allowed.

 

[flagtag]

If someone pulled a gun on me, I would likely kill them without any hesitation. My concern isn't about this particular incident, but rather the vigilant behaviour a lot of gun owners read from this.

I'm still mixed on my feelings about this particular scene, and wouldn't judge the guy without seeing a video tape or something of the incident.

It's wrong to kill, few things justify it. But it's also a fact that most armed-robberies are harmless, conducted by people who know all too well the raising of stakes by making it Murder. If I were him, it would completely depend on the situation, and if I truly felt threatened, I'd have killed them as well. But I don't think he felt threatened (that is an opinion, not fact). The subway employee would have been trained to just hand over the insured money, putting someone in the bathroom, even at gun point, indicates an unwillingness to want to kill.

Then again, not hard to feel threatened with a gun in your face. So I may very well have killed them as well since it's hard to think things through with adrenaline in your veins.

Have you not heard news reports of victims of "robbery" who were found shot to death in bathrooms/offices? What about those five women near Chicago? It was "just robbery" but they were defencesless. Leaving dead bodies out front of the "store" where they could be discovered earlier, or hiding them in a back room, thereby allowing more time for escape.

If someone wanted me to go into a back room, I would have GREATER cause for fear of rape and/or murder. Especially in today's world - those who commit crimes are less afraid of being arrested and imprisioned and dare to go farther because the penalty isn't harsh enough if caught.

We can't depend on the police to get there in time and we can't depend on the court system to put those people away for long enough periods of time to keep us safe. We HAVE to depend on ourselves to keep us safe.
As far as I am concerned, if a criminal uses a gun to "ply his trade" then I have no doubt he plans to use it to kill to complete "the job". After all, the jail time wouldn't be that much greater and he won't suffer enough (if at all) while in jail. (In fact, he MAY live BETTER than if he were on the streets) And he will have the knowledge that he will get out soon to do it all over again.
Our lives mean nothing to those kinds of people, if fact they just MIGHT "get off" on the killing aspect of the crime.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Vigilantism would be seeking out the criminal to dispense justice as you see it against them. This former/Retired Marine (as opposed to "ex-") was reported to have been confronted with not only disparity of force but also demonstrated criminal intent and armed perpetrators. To fail to act in this situation with due and necessary force would be akin to trusting that those who have no respect for the lives or property of others will be willing to leave live witnesses who can identify them behind. That the criminals happened to be Black is unimportant. What is important is that a man whose likely only intent was to not be a victim was forced into a shoot-or-(likely)die situation:

They weren't herding him into that bathroom to play pinochle.

Blessings,
B

 

[BloodEclipse]

Why would you think that? Did you miss the part where I constantly repeat that I think Legal gun ownership is very important to me? o.O

You also said:

I believe in the 2nd Amendment as written, not as translated. The right for "the people", not "every person" to bear arms. I believe that that right is limited to the right to defend ones home (militia), and if away from home, that right is curtailed.

I want you to show me an example of where Gun laws that provide for restrictions work? From all I find it's counterproductive. Liberal ideas almost always have the exact opposite effect of what they supposedly intend. Here is 1 example.


NEWS RELEASE

Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
MICHIGAN CCW RECORD PROVES ANTI-GUNNERS LIED...AGAIN, SAYS CCRKBA

For Immediate Release: January 8, 2008

BELLEVUE, WA – After six years of expanded concealed carry in Michigan, the record speaks for itself: No shootouts at traffic stops, a decline in firearms deaths and suicides, and violent crime is down. Concealed carry works, and the hysteria pandered by anti-gun extremists who opposed the law has been proven false.

“Michigan’s armed private citizens have provided the evidence we knew would come,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. “Lawful concealed carry reduces crime and does not result in mass mayhem as the anti-self-defense crowd wanted us believe. Six years ago, they pulled out all the stops, fabricated every dire prediction they could imagine, and essentially told lies about concealed carry and passed them off as truth, and too many in the media ate it up as if it were manna from Heaven.”

A recent story in the Detroit Free Press revealed that “the incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.”

“Anti-gun rights extremists established a track record for prevarication in state after state where they rabidly fought right-to-carry statutes,” observed CCRKBA Executive Director Mark A. Taff, “and in case after case, including Michigan, every one of their claims has been statistically refuted.”

The newspaper quoted Woodhaven Police Chief Michael Martin, with the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, who admitted that police fears about passage of concealed carry were misplaced.

“Law enforcement has nothing to fear from legally-armed, law-abiding citizens,” Gottlieb said. “Their concerns were wrongly placed, and now Michigan lawmen and women know what their colleagues in other states have learned. Armed citizens make a difference, and in many cases are the true first responders. Their presence can act as a deterrent.

“The experience in Michigan is like the experience in Texas, Ohio, Florida and other states, and it begs the question, if anti-gun extremists were so dishonest about this, what else have they been lying about?”

 

[Bigum1969]

Head-shot + Chest-shot. What I object to are his kill-zone shots. The punishment for Robbery isn't death. Maybe he was aiming for their shoulders and was just a bit off on his shooting, but seems to me he was aiming to kill. Right to a concealed weapon does not include a right to Vigilant behaviour. Being forced into a bathroom was no at-risk-of-death behaviour. If he had a legal right to take the law into his own hands, no complaints. But if not, then what he did was 100% wrong. Defending your life by taking a life is ok. Killing to defend your right to not be put in a bathroom is not. Killing to prevent a robbery is not.

It's not right, stealing. But it's not a life-taking crime either, no more so than shooting a man for running a red-light.

What was the 71 year old man supposed to do? He's being forced into a bathroom at gun point. You expect him to go ahead and just shoot to wound? Come on, just imagine being in that scenario. You're shooting to save your life. Imagine the adrenaline and fear. You've been watching too many movies if you think this guy should aim for the kneecaps.

You also question whether or not his life was really in danger. How the hell can your life not be in danger when you are being threatened at gun point? Not all armed robberies end up with someone being shot, but many do. Do you really want to play the odds?

 

[BloodEclipse]

What was the 71 year old man supposed to do? He's being forced into a bathroom at gun point. You expect him to go ahead and just shoot to wound? Come on, just imagine being in that scenario. You're shooting to save your life. Imagine the adrenaline and fear. You've been watching too many movies if you think this guy should aim for the kneecaps.

You also question whether or not his life was really in danger. How the hell can your life not be in danger when you are being threatened at gun point? Not all armed robberies end up with someone being shot, but many do. Do you really want to play the odds?

I hear how Sphynx seems against the right to carry but I wonder what he would truly feel if it was him and his family in the Subway? He said:

Someone pulls a gun on me, there better be not even the slightest bit of hesitation to shoot because I will kill the man if he doesn't.

But yet when a 71 year old gets 2 guns pulled on him he shouldn't have a right to kill them. Sphynx we just ask you to be consistent. Not just an antagonist.

 

[flagtag]

The Constitution refers to the PEOPLE - meaning everyone - having a right to own/carry guns. BUT that doesn't mean that there aren't cases where SOME might LOSE that RIGHT - by commiting criminal acts or by the deterioration of one's mental health. But we are ALL born with that right. Nor does the CONSTITUTION limit the type and/or number of firearms.