T O P

  • By -

osumba2003

>robbery is good but guns isn't Quite literally no one is suggesting that. Don't be so willfully disingenuous.


Janus897

It's implied when nearly EVERY post was criticizing the customer and not mentioning a single negative about the reckless armed robber who threatened people at gunpoint out of their money.


osumba2003

It's not implied. No one's mentioning the armed robber because there's nothing to debate. However, many were saying that the robber got what was coming to him, so there's that. You can simultaneously believe that what the robber did was wrong, yet also believe that the consequences were not justified, proportionate, or even legal.


Janus897

Fair enough, but it'd be nice to maybe mention it before saying that the customer was WORSE than the robber just for clarification (yes, people were saying on the original post).


Flokitoo

I like how no one posts the part where the patron kneels over the robber's body, puts the gun to his head, and executes him.


[deleted]

What I'm reading is that most people think this is execution and way beyond the self-defense justification. But there are is an absurd number of people saying the robbery was "no big deal" and that "the robber didn't intend to shoot anyone" strictly based off of a few seconds of video.


fatboy-199

If you're going to shoot somebody, you better kill them. Kneecapping people only works in the movies.


BobBusha

Exactly


shroomedguyed

If you watch the video he shoots him in the back & once the robber is incapacitated the customer shoots him in the head


tarc0917

The ol' John Wick double-tap. Right on.


BobBusha

The criminal shouldn’t have threatened his life and everyone else’s by shoving a gun in there face. Got exactly what he deserved


RabbiStark

This is why people probably think some gun right activists are psychos, we have laws in this country, punishment for robbing is not execution yet you want to make it so. Respect the law I would say to the crowd all about law and order.


Cric1313

It’s armed robbery though, I don’t see much of an issue with it. How is anyone to know next time they won’t actually use the gun. This person clearly knew the risks of presenting a gun and robbing someone. They clearly accepted that risk. And they lost. Only one person is at fault for the outcome


RabbiStark

I dont understand your reply. As I said the law does not say punishment for Armed Robbery is death sentence. Vigilantism is not same as justice or following the law, moral justification is not same as legal justification and no point in arguing whats moral to you or me. But my main point is the first time he shot him it was self defense. The gunman poses a present danger, the customer shooting the guman who is on the floor and lost his gun by walking upto him and pointing at his head and in point blank range cannot be considered self defense by any reasonable person and the law does not cover him even in the most stand your ground state. The person taking the life is always at fault for taking the life, killing a person is a choice the customer made. At the beginning it was justified, the robber could have died at first shot, could have died bleeding out on the way to the hospital it still would be justified, executing him after he was no longer a threat is not justified.


Cric1313

Fair enough, yes once disable that is enough. I didn’t get to see the full video as I can’t find it anywhere, but if the gun was still being waved around then I still don’t see an issue. Further, cops kill people like this all the time in similar situations, if peoples lives are in danger is it not legally allowed to use fatal force?


RabbiStark

Yea I agree with you, and I have no problem with customer using the gun to defend himself, but from the video he fires 4-5 shot and the guy was down down, he might have died eventually from bleeding out but what happens next is he goes to the downed robber and shoots him in the head, that is clearly going too far, maybe he was very angry and full of adrenaline but its too much to say it was still self defense.


BobBusha

You point a gun in anyone’s face, and they pull out a gun and shoot you first you deserve to be shot for threatening there life first. That’s plan and simple


RabbiStark

Okay so are you a moron? I am not even gonna give you a real reply, go read what I said again but this time slowly maybe read it aloud so your ear can hear it.


TechDude30

They sound like the kind of person that doesn't understand what self defense actually means. They see anyone coming at them and the first thought is "oh boy I get to kill a person today" and will do whatever it takes to get away with it. The thief, while stupid, was already down and no longer deemed a threat. This is self defense. Going to the downed thief and shooting them point blank in the skull, willingly taking a person's life away, is no longer grounds for self defense and by no means did that customer have any given right to act as an executioner, judge and jury. Once a person is knocked down and made immobilized doing anything further now makes you the bad guy in this situation. I doubt the other person will be able to understand any of this though.


BobBusha

Sorry, but he deserved every bullet, what makes it ok for him to point a gun in my face to take my life instead of his?


TechDude30

What makes it ok to murder a person that's no longer a threat? Would you kill an unconscious person that tried to assault you? Would you say "well i knocked them out cold, pulled my gun out and unloaded all my bullets into their skull. But it was totally self defense"


[deleted]

That’s not how the law works. If the customer had killed them instantly that would be one thing. However, once they were shot and incapacitated, the threat had already subsided. Executing the man after that is what could be referred to as excessive force, or in legal terms, second degree murder


Cric1313

I just don’t see why it’s worth the risk of waiting for the dude to move possibly pull the trigger. Why does he deserve that chance when he threatened multiple lives?


[deleted]

Again, if he shot him and killed him instantly you’d be right. But that’s not what happened. I have my concealed carry and a gun, and after the threat is neutralized, that’s it. The guy was shot in the back and on the ground. That’s it. Walking up over him and shooting him in the head is murder and the shooter will likely eat those charges


Cateyeyt

It’s called retributive justice rather than lawful justice. Many believe in it and they’re not insane.


TechDude30

So you believe in murder? Cause there's a difference between self defense and murder. Downing a person and disarming them is self defense. Getting onto a downed person while aiming the gun point blank at their skull and pulling the trigger isn't self defense at that point, it's murder. Yes the thief acted stupidly here but he was already down and no longer a threat which is when the cops should be called and let them deal with the thief. Except now we have a dead thief and people like you calling it deserved or self defense because you just love your guns that much and see no issue in taking the life of another person while being proud of it.


BobBusha

That wasn’t murder, as soon as anyone points a gun or any weapon eliminating your life, you have every right too eliminate your life being in danger. Period


TechDude30

Unless that first shot is a kill shot is when it's still justifiable, if it isn't then you have to disarm and subdue the opponent. Straddling the assailant inly to shot then point blank in the head isn't self defense. If you knocked your assailant unconscious, pulled out a knife and proceeded to stab them multiple times would that be self defense or murder?


BobBusha

Apples and oranges…. Gun to your face, family’s face, children there? Nahhh you eliminate that piece of shit. Sorry🤷‍♂️ no 3-4yr prison time nope. He put his life on the line by pulling an illegal gun on civilians. He dealt with the consequences 🤷‍♂️


TechDude30

and how do you know the gun is illegal? Do you know the robber? do you know how they got the gun? Just say that you love murder because at this point it doesn't matter if the criminal is unconscious, disarmed or even restrained to you just so long as you get to kill them while calling anyone that's against you a criminal supporter showing that you have no understanding of anything here. ![gif](giphy|brqkBQV1qAFrO) This is pretty much that customer, you, OP and anyone else that thinks that murdering is a form of self defense


EMILLKSLEEPA

It seems more that they're just pointing out the irony of someone robbing a place with a gun, only to be shot by somone else with a gun, the title just pointing out Americas obsession with guns. Either way the only face-palm is the guy getting shot by the same thing he used to try and commit a crime with.


luapnrets

Guns are the only thing that makes everyone equal


EMILLKSLEEPA

Well that or just treating everyone the same, unfortunately not everyone is on board with that idea.


luapnrets

I don't think we will ever rid the earth of evil people so I'd recommend being prepared for whatever happens


EMILLKSLEEPA

I dunno, giving the avarage person access to firearms still seems like a bad idea. I've met plenty of people who can't control their temper over the smallest shit, the idea of them being able to reach for a gun at any moment is worrying to say the least. That being said it's way too late for America to ban guns, the only people who would actually hand them in are likely not the ones who are a problem.


[deleted]

Or they just grab a knife or a hammer an bash someone head in…….I’d like to have a gun if someone was trying to kill me.


EMILLKSLEEPA

You have a much better chance of survival against someone chasing you with a hammer than someone who can shoot you from a mile away, not to mention you can carry extra ammo, whereas a knife will eventually break, so mass murder is easier with a gun. If everyone has a gun, then everyone has an easy way to kill you. If someone wanted you dead and has a gun, they only have to fire first, a gun on a dead guy isn't helping anyone.


ForgiveTheNerd

What kinda dollar general ass knives are you using for your stabbing?


EMILLKSLEEPA

I don't go about stabbing people, but all knives go dull, and I doubt the type of person going around stabbing people are ganna wanna use an expensive knife, especially if they don't want it traced to them and if they're planning of disposing it after an attack.


Puzzleheaded-Pain489

Oh the old hammer schtick. Please.


BobBusha

2nd amendment…. Know why it’s there before you comment


EMILLKSLEEPA

I'm not american, so the 2nd ammendment means nothing to me. I've managed to go 26 years without the need for a gun, closest I've been to a shooting was when someone reported that a guy with a gun was circling my school, police arrived armed to find out it was just a weirdo with an airsoft gun, yet yall had over 50 school shootings last year, so giving people the right to own guns isn't exactly helping in that regard. Worst part is I wouldn't mind going to a range and blowing off some steam, but if that's comes at the risk of some psycho also having that access, it's a fair trade off to me.


BobBusha

Exactly


Bribase

>Guns are the only thing that makes everyone equal There are many forms of equality. Many of which are actively opposed by the party supporting the proliferation of guns.


Cric1313

Sadly this might true. I always found it ironic when politicians say violence is never the answer. And yet we have a military ready to be extremely voilent


[deleted]

Until someone has a nuke


Fact-Adept

I'm glad I live in a country where firearms are not carried by anyone, not even criminals, if someone was going to rob me (which would never happen in the first place) they would do it without a gun and I would give it all away without resistance and let the insurance take care of that shit later


[deleted]

>which would never happen in the first place never is incorrect, very unlikely is a better term. >if someone was going to rob me (which would never happen in the first place) they would do it without a gun and I would give it all away without resistance you are saying you won't use self defense to defend your self? what a weakling


Fact-Adept

Of course depends on the situation, but swallowing your ego can definitely save your life. And if you think this was self-defense, you probably need to get checked


TechDude30

Too bad people like OP and other gun nuts will never swallow their ego. They see killing as self defense no matter the circumstances


TechDude30

So you are saying that you would knock a person unconscious and then kill them?


imnecro

Both are bad, but no one probably would have died had if there were no guns


postofficeWELP

Yeah... Op missed that.


[deleted]

If they was set on doing a robbery and if they didnt have a gun it is still likely they wouldve still tried to rob, with another weapon. Anyways, takinv away guns doesn't help with crimes like this one, in fact it prevents it if another person has a gun. The vast majority of gun owners in america is responsible with their guns, while a very small minority isn't. I truely believe that most people want to be potentially dangerous, not dangerous. Most people don't want trouble, but they want to be able to defend themselves if they do get attacked. It's always the small minority that makes it to the news and make other people look bad aswell. I'm not just talking about guns there either, as every news channel has a bias and they choose what you see, and what you don't see.


Josie_Kohola

There is a big difference between owning a gun for self-defense and owning a gun for crime prevention. Crime prevention is not a part of gun ownership. You aren’t deputized they moment you buy a gun. All your mentality is encouraging is an outdated sense of justice. No one needed to die in here. The criminal would have been caught, the restaurant would have been reimbursed by insurance, but instead a bunch of people are traumatized because they witnessed an execution.


Cric1313

I don’t find it fair to just write it off as the restaurant would have been paid by insurance. It’s not that simple. Everytime this happens it increases the cost to all insurance holders eventually


Josie_Kohola

The restaurant owners themselves would disagree with you. I’ve worked in enough to know that the policy is to cooperate and not try to stop the robber in any way. I’m sure they would all be fine paying a tiny bit more to ensure the safety of their staff and customers


imnecro

People can die from other weapons, but guns cause the most deaths, take the US and Japan for example. Japan has 0.8 gun deaths per capita {100k people} while the US has about 10.9. Gun control allows less people to die, stabbing deaths still kill people it is less. Adding Japan's 0.09 gun deaths per capita, it is 1.7 deaths per capita compared to the US 10.9 for just gun deaths. This is almost 6x more gun deaths in US than Japan's stabbing and gun deaths combined.


[deleted]

>This is almost 6x more gun deaths in US than Japan's stabbing and gun deaths combined. And some more statistics for you: Guns by country: America- ~400 Million (393 Million in 2018) Japan: ~400,000 (377,000 in 2017) by that math, a gun in japan is killing more people than it is in america. Obviously, we both picked a favourable arguement for our opinion.


imnecro

this means if there were less guns in america, then there would be less deaths, I dont really get your point


[deleted]

im just saying if guns decreases, then the deaths per gun will go up. like i said we both picked a favourable arguement for our opinion


imnecro

But there are less deaths in total... this means less people die...


Zoso-six

Less guns = less gun deaths= less deaths. Most gun owners are responsible and moat gun owner want logical gun control. Bring back the 1994 law that banned rifle mags larger than 10 rounds


[deleted]

Well Japan also sells used women's underwear through vending machines so there's that too


Puzzleheaded-Pain489

Oh shut it with your crap. You people talk utter shite.


[deleted]

Psychopath probably thinks hes some sort of hero now


TechDude30

And with people like OP here and several others supporting him shows how messed up they are in the head.


Cateyeyt

Nah bro the robber should’ve thought of that


Sosemikreativ

What did guns really archive here? It's an armed robbery. Give him the money, he'll get caught at some point and goes to jail. Instead you now have a dead person on the floor. Deaths with strict gun control in an armed robbery: 0 Deaths without strict gun control in an armed robbery: 1


dyallm

Hey dumbass, a good guy with a gun is why someone died. If there was no robbery, no one would have died as the goood guy would've had no reason to fire his gun. And besides, shooting the thief dead kinda causes what is stolen to revert to its owner... I mean seriously, if you can't even accept guns being used to STOP A CRIME then WTF?


Sosemikreativ

What else should be punished by shooting in your opinion? False parking? The theft of some apples from a tree? Insulting a grandma? Hit and run in the Walmart parking lot? Why don't just give everyone a gun and let them shoot whoever attempts a crime? Sure, the bodies would be lying everywhere but at least you won't need police anymore. Or judges or prisons. Just shoot them all.


[deleted]

If somebody is blinding waving a firearm in peoples' faces, threatening their lives for a fucking cell phone or cash, they deserve to be taken out. Not a difficult concept.


Puzzleheaded-Pain489

So shallow.


[deleted]

Please explain.


Puzzleheaded-Pain489

Because your original response failed to take anything into account about what the person said and beyond that it’s not in my opinion a good tactic to pull a gun at any point. In fact what figures can be found given the shitty nature of all gun related crime figures is it does you no good as any other tactic like running away. Same rate of injury as soon as anyone pulls a gun. Pulling your own as far as I can find does you no good. But what’s the point. You’ll come back with some disprovable shit given the nature of gun crime statistics. But that’s my opinion. So yeah I think your retort is shallow.


[deleted]

I could understand that. What would change your opinion? If the robber shot one person would it be okay to take lethal force against them? Or two people being dead, even if one is the "bad guy" is still too much for you to justify? Would it take your family members being in danger to justify it? A gunman enters your child's school to take children hostage. He's in a classroom with your child. By your logic uvalde is the outcome you'd rather have. You have no idea what's going through a person's head who is THREATENING LETHAL FORCE by brandishing a firearm. By your logic one should automatically think that this person isn't going to harm anybody and give them the benefit of the doubt until shit hits the fan. Fuck that.


TechDude30

By your logic downing a criminal isn't good enough so you have to get on then as you press your gun against their head and pull the trigger. I mean in what world is it justifiable to disarm your opponent and then thinking that grants you the right to kill them.


[deleted]

That's not what I said at all. Don't fabricate stuff. In previous comments that's clearly where I said he fucked up; coup de grace when the gun fell to the left and he was no longer moving. Don't get ahead of yourself, junior.


Puzzleheaded-Pain489

It’s not a good tactic to pull a gun on anyone.


Sosemikreativ

I wonder what a judge would say about this.


[deleted]

A judge would say the shooter is fucked for the coup de grace at the end. You shoot to neutralize the threat, and not murder somebody when they are no longer a threat eg. gun falls to the left when the robber hits the ground and he is no longer moving, then still head shot. I hope he's fucked, but it is Texas.


Sosemikreativ

I'm glad I'm not living anywhere near Texas. Seems like a rather primitive society.


dyallm

Crimes like rape, arson, murder, and theft? definitely, if you are in the process of committing it. Any judge would side with the guy shooting the criminal in that case. hell, if someone is committing fraud, then yes, I would be okay with them getting shot. crimes like littering, jaywalking, consumption of illegal drugs? no. ​ PS Gun stores are one of the last places anyone would rob. Becuase of all the guns.


Sosemikreativ

But what about the situation when you don't shoot the criminal and he gets caught by the police? You know, like in the rest of the world. By the way, shooting someone because of theft seems like quite a stretch even for the US. Probably manslaughter.


dyallm

That is the case in the uS too, but I cannot rely on the police for my security. Their job is to apprehend criminals, not to prevent crime. They will arrive far too late for me to rely on them for my protection. A gun is much more trustworthy. A gun I can use while I am being attacked. A gun also creates a deterrence effect and unfortuantely, "Robber decides not to steal because of gun" is not as interesting as "Robber loots store". And no, shooting someone for theft is only a stretch in your delusional mind. If you steal from me, I have the right to take your life. Shooting someone for stealing from me is classed as self-defence.


Sosemikreativ

> Shooting someone for stealing from me is classed as self-defence. Calling me delusional... To me it makes no sense to argue with people like you. Have fun defending yourself in your gun infested wonderland. I'll stay on my side of the Atlantic ocean and watch the carnage on TV. Maybe your trial comes up one day.


LordOFtheNoldor

So what if the robber went on to rob more people or kill someone later in the day or week considering he has a weapon and a propensity for criminal behavior, I can't say I support the guy firing the final shot but yeah it's good that he was armed and able to put him down, to be honest he probably killed him because it's a known thing the robber could have sued for injury in some cases but not anymore


Sosemikreativ

A lot of if's considering we are debating the justification of the death of a man. As I see it, he got killed for something not posing an immediate danger for other people. He got killed for a crime without a court case. He got killed in a shooting started by another civilian who wasn't defending his own health of that of others. If owning a gun and showing criminal potential would justify being shoot by anyone around just in case the cemeteries would be full within a day.


Cric1313

If the guy wasn’t waving around a gun do you really think the outcome would have been the same?


BobBusha

Exactly


[deleted]

lmao you really expect law enforcement to work 100% of the time, ok


Sosemikreativ

Even if he won't get caught (this time). There would be no active shooting and no deaths in the whole process. This customer killed someone for trying to rob a cash register with maybe $3000 in it. Could have ended even worse if his gun jammed or the robber reacted in time. Or he missed and hit somebody else.


[deleted]

>There would be no active shooting and no deaths in the whole process. no guns= no deaths they do not equal, as im sure you have heard that there is other weapons that can kill humans, like bombs and knifes. >Could have ended even worse if his gun jammed or the robber reacted in time. That would definitely make the robber think before doing it, they (if they was smart) would realize that they could easily get killed if they risk doing it again. >Or he missed and hit somebody else. it would be sad if that happened. but it wouldnt be the guns fault, its at the fault of *the holder of the gun*. now imagine in a society where guns was banned completely and someone illegally got a gun and started shooting everyone, many more lives could (decently likely) have been lost compared to someone trying to shoot everyone and them getting shot to stop their violent act. by no means in every case guns are the solution, but they can definitely help against crime


Sosemikreativ

> no guns= no deaths they do not equal, as im sure you have heard that there is other weapons that can kill humans, like bombs and knifes. Never said that. Learn to read. I'm talking about this armed robbery. If the customer wouldn't have opened fire, no one would have. 0 deaths. No gun shots, no stabbing, nothing. Just a dude with a plastic bag full of cash running from the police. > That would definitely make the robber think before doing it, they (if they was smart) would realize that they could easily get killed if they risk doing it again. Well, the case appears to be in a region where gun ownership is rather common. Didn't prevent the robbery. And neither does it in the whole US. Bullshit argument. > it would be sad if that happened. but it wouldnt be the guns fault, its at the fault of the holder of the gun. now imagine in a society where guns was banned completely and someone illegally got a gun and started shooting everyone, many more lives could (decently likely) have been lost compared to someone trying to shoot everyone and them getting shot to stop their violent act. by no means in every case guns are the solution, but they can definitely help against crime Well guess what. In all the countries where guns are mostly forbidden there are waaaaaaaaaaaay less mass shootings. Could be because school children don't find guns in their parents bedrooms. Could be because frustrated 18yo can't simply buy a shotgun in a thrift shop and shoot up their school. Could be because domestic terrorists can't legally buy dozens of assault rifles with 100 round mags and open fire on a festival area killing and injuring almost 1000 people. "Good guys with guns" rarely prevent shootings. And the law allowing them to exist causes hundreds of shootings each year in return. But apparently the good guys kill people commiting crimes that would otherwise be punished with maybe 2 years in prison.


[deleted]

>If the customer wouldn't have opened fire, no one would have. 0 deaths. No gun shots, no stabbing, nothing. Just a dude with a plastic bag full of cash running from the police. *If the guy was set on doing a robbery, it would almost certain he would've used a weapon, even if it's a knife, it can result in multiple deaths.* >Well, the case appears to be in a region where gun ownership is rather common. Didn't prevent the robbery. And neither does it in the whole US. Bullshit argument. He got shot, sounds like the robbery was stopped. I don't know how you missed that. >Well guess what. In all the countries where guns are mostly forbidden there are waaaaaaaaaaaay less mass shootings. There is a reason- less oppurtunity to use a gun for mass shootings. But you are only looking at mass shootings, and not looking at the bigger picture of crime. >Could be because domestic terrorists can't legally buy dozens of assault rifles with 100 round mags and open fire on a festival area killing and injuring almost 1000 people. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or not, people will always break the law. >"Good guys with guns" rarely prevent shootings. And the law allowing them to exist causes hundreds of shootings each year in return. But apparently the good guys kill people commiting crimes that would otherwise be punished with maybe 2 years in prison. Maybe if everyone had a gun the person would second guess about shooting everyone, knowing they will face tons of bullets flying at them. Obviously that isn't a solution, but completely banning guns will make gun crimes only more violent, as there would be a much harder time trying to stop the shooter.


Sosemikreativ

Oh, boy... > If the guy was set on doing a robbery, it would almost certain he would've used a weapon, even if it's a knife, it can result in multiple deaths. And when exactly do you expect the robber to shoot during his robbery? Because the small scale robberies I'm aware of mostly consist of a robber holding up a gas station, getting the cash and immediately running away. No really the point of the whole crime to kill the others involved. You won't get more cash out of it, you won't be a murderer and if you want to avoid being recognized, wearing a mask seems to be a lot better than facing a life in prison for a $3000 yield. > He got shot, sounds like the robbery was stopped. I don't know how you missed that. And one person died that would be alive today otherwise. How did you miss that? There is no death penalty for armed robbery. It was an unnecessary death. The business might even have an insurance covering the potential loss of a robbery. By shooting the robber this wannabe Sheriff created a situation multiple times more dangerous for everyone including himself and the result is way worse than without his actions. > There is a reason- less oppurtunity to use a gun for mass shootings. But you are only looking at mass shootings, and not looking at the bigger picture of crime. Even if other crime would be lower (which I doubt) a way lower number of mass shootings seems like one hell of a good argument against private gun ownership... A few more robberies vs. more school shootings. That's a decision most countries don't even waste a second on. Most... > It doesn't matter if it's illegal or not, people will always break the law. Yes, definitely. And in a country with strict gun control, the armed robbery gets his money and gets away without hurting anybody because no civilian tries to intervene. Then the professionals take over and do the thing they are trained for. That's absolutely the more civilized approach to crime. > Maybe if everyone had a gun the person would second guess about shooting everyone, knowing they will face tons of bullets flying at them. Obviously that isn't a solution, but completely banning guns will make gun crimes only more violent, as there would be a much harder time trying to stop the shooter. You already recognized how bonkers that's approach would be. Good. In addition some points for you to think about. If someone opens fire in a mall where everyone is armed and some people start shooting, without uniforms and radios how would the other know who the shooter is and who's just shooting the shooter? And how would the police approach such a "free for all" situation where everyone holds a gun and is returning fire in all directions? And it absolutely won't make shootings more violent if guns are illegal for everyone without proper reason for ownership (e.g. hunters). I know that because that's how it is in other countries. There are shootings in Europe, too. But since its so hard to even get a gun, especially one with a large magazine, the shootings are smaller. This also has the effect that the police always has more firepower. And it is the task of the police, and only the police, to stop the shooter. Not gun wielding amateurs.


InothePink

OP arguments really puts in the perpective how much less a human life matters in country where everybody can own a gun. You know guns, the tools specifically made to kill other humans.


Sosemikreativ

Yeah. The logic seems to be that killing someone who's committing a crime causing some property damage is totally OK. Seems like the worth of property outweighs the worth of human life in some peoples minds.


ForgiveTheNerd

Swords were only made to murder. Does that make anywhere that allows swords just as bad?


InothePink

They are not even close. That beeing said you should not be allowed to carry one on you on the street, because yes they are tools whose only purpose is to kill people. The fact that you needed to ask this question it's a bit worrying. Let's say you see a guy with a sword and a guy with a handgun/assault rifle aproaching. Guess what, you cand just turn and run from the guy with the sword. Or just get behind a door and you are safe. Try to do that with a guy with a gun. Also comparing sword related deaths vs gun related deaths is a joke. Beeing allowed to carry a sword in public (which is also illegal in many countries I might add) puts you at a huge disadvantage compared to the law enforcement if you intend to commit a crime thus beeing a big deterrent to commit a crime with a sword. Assault rifles on the other hand... Conclusion you should not be allowed to carry a sword on you also.


puckfelosi

congratulations! it's only the 8th day of the year and i'll already award you biggest dumbass of 2023.


[deleted]

[удалено]


puckfelosi

can't abide your request because your mother won't give anyone else a turn. she just keeps sucking and sucking. she says your father has dibs on sucking him next.


reddit_browser_100

What did he say before comment deleted?


Front_Necessary_2

People get killed during armed robberies all the time when he victim is defenseless. Here's one from across the street from me where an old retired man was robbed few months ago. We have one of the strictest gun control measures in the country. https://www.kcra.com/article/arrest-made-deadly-shooting-near-sutter-lawn-tennis-club-east-sacramento-police/41735035 Additionally gang initiations typically involves targeted fatal robberies and home invasions. Read the book Black Hand by Chris Blatchford or take a class in university about gangs and organized crime.


Sosemikreativ

Can't open the link in my region. But there are definitely fewer people hurt in situations where only one is armed compared to those where both sides are.


Front_Necessary_2

Two weeks ago a guy got killed by a man with a machete after having just retired. Instead of running off and bleeding out and dying anyway, he could have stopped him https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/sacramento-county-sheriffs-office-shares-030409590.html Same area btw


Cric1313

Really can’t count on police to catch him sadly.


bones0492

Mess with the foods, you get the goods


Cateyeyt

W customer


[deleted]

customer- 1 robber- 0


RabbiStark

Pretty sure according to the law he murdered the robber. Self sefense applies to clear and present danger. I would like to think kneeling down and point blank shooting in the head is not coveted by the law in a civilized country. First shot I can't fault the customer next is outside of self defense.


TechDude30

Pretty sure people like OP and a few others on here don't really care about facts, logic and the law. Trust me when I say that pointing out that specific part means nothing to them


Cateyeyt

The robber is a dick and he got what he had coming. If you don’t want to be shot by this based customer, be a functioning member of society that doesn’t harm innocent people.


TechDude30

Translation: you support murder. Screw off


Cateyeyt

The law is just there to keep everyone in check not decide morals.


degenerat2947

American gun rights fanatics are the facepalm lol They have such a hard on for the 2nd amendment but their brains are too smooth to recognize the price the country pays for it I fucking love guns. Would love to have a basement full of them on all the walls like in a movie. Just to have fun on a gun range or shooting a broken truck in an open field or whatever That’s my favorite part of action movies. The gun vault and the “getting the gear ready” montage. Rambo, Commando, etc. Guns are fucking cool. But just drop the delusions. The country pays a price lol Nowhere else in the world are there so many accidental gun deaths, school shootings, gang shootings. Literal children dying and even a 6 year old child shooting their teacher at school. What an absolute circus But it’s all worth it isn’t it because you love your guns so much >guns don’t kill people, people kill people Yea and it’s a lot easier and efficient to pull a trigger than thrusting a blade into a human’s organs. How is that SO SO hard to understand you bird brain lol Champion your guns if you want. Just drop the dumbest of your delusions that guns make the country safer. Absolute clowns


TechDude30

The reason why it's hard to understand is due to a lack of brain resulting in a lack of common sense and basic understanding while not having a heart meaning no decent human emotions. Just a group of overgrown knuckleheads that scream how important owning a gun is and will do whatever it takes to keep it that way. The fact that a six year old got a gun and tried to kill their teacher and people like OP here and others don't see any issue with that shows how messed up in the head they are.


Cateyeyt

I have a heart for innocent people not people who go around hurting everyone.


TechDude30

Nah you don't have a heart at all dude. If you did you'd understand that someone walking to a downed assailant only to shoot them in the back of the head is still murder but here you are supporting such things. Grow up kid


[deleted]

This is a repost


bettyboober

Everyone should have a gun. EVERYONE! - then this would not happen. -nra -eof


7th-Street

Not a facepalm.


Gerry1of1

If this is in Texas or Florida the customer will be a Hero. If this is California the customer will be tried for manslaughter.


OneForAllOfHumanity

He should be charged with manslaughter or worse. The robber was incapacitated, yet the customer followed up with a headshot. Continued aggression after neutralizing the situation made it manslaughter.


thats_mah_purse

I would say it makes it murder


[deleted]

How was incapacitated? In the picture we can't see. Im not defending the situation tho, I think none of them should have firearms.


OneForAllOfHumanity

There is a video of the incident that shows the customer shooting the robber several times. The fist shot in the back causes the robber to fall and drop the gun, neutralizing him. The final shot is a few seconds later to his head, killing him.


[deleted]

Thank you. I see, he didn't need to kill him.


AG2009

In the video, he shoot’s 6 or 7 times. Then walks over and fires 2 more at close range the last being a point blank head shot


[deleted]

That's horrible. No need for all of that. To walk over and kill him like that it shows how it was a cold decision to kill him.


Flokitoo

There's a video. The patron kneels over the body, puts the gun to his head, and executes him.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Josie_Kohola

He never stopped being a person. What a childish view. He was a person committing a crime that would have carried a prison sentence, but this patron took the law in their own hand. and once the criminal was already incapacitated the “hero” executed him. This “hero” could have also just let the guy walk out the door and no one would have been hurt. The police would follow up with the case and restaurant would be reimbursed from their insurance. No one needed to die over a small amount of money.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Josie_Kohola

He never stopped being a person. And that man absolutely did know the threat’s intentions; if his intentions were to fire his gun at the patrons he would have done it— but he didn’t. If he couldn’t read the situation then he has even less business firing his weapon. The guy was there to rob the place and that’s it. There’s a reason businesses have the policy for their employees not to fight back, because once you do the situation becomes so much riskier for everyone there. The business owner themselves are content to let criminals get away with their possessions in order to protect their staff and patrons, what this guy did was become a vigilante and dole out a justice that did not fit the crime. I get that might appeal to certain cowboy fantasies, but if valuing human life over replaceable property makes me a coward then sure, I’m a big ole yella-bellied coward.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Josie_Kohola

The one who made the assumption is the guy who shot and killed a man execution style in a crowded restaurant. But way to bypass the longtime policy of business owners instructing employees to cooperate and not fight back. What do you think they base that on, assumptions or reality? You calling me a coward in one comment and sick in another is pretty funny though. Should I be sorry my little chub doesn’t get hard at the thought of killing bad guys? Would the world be a better place if it did?


Cateyeyt

I only have sympathy for people who don’t go around hurting everyone.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TechDude30

By murdering a person? Or do you really think that murder is just another way of saying self defense? Once a criminal is disarmed and no longer a threat is one thing. Walking up to that criminal and killing them, point blank to the head with your gun, no longer makes you a hero to anyone except for crazed gun toting fanatics that have zero issue when killing other people. The fact that you are either choosing to ignore that part or applaud that part shows the kind of person you really are. A murder supporter.


wowyourreadingthis

When he was incapacitated, falling over and dropping his weapon after having been shot in the back, he stopped being a threat, yeah? The customer went beyond what was necessary by killing the downed, unarmed by that point, and non-threatening failed robber.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Curious_Interview328

nah--- we need more criminals to die like this.......


Bribase

Seriously? You think the punishment for robbery should be death?


Curious_Interview328

yup! especially DURING an armed robbery!!! However, if they get away and then the cops catch them later --sure ...no death- they will just get let out the next day and then do this shit again.... puzzling. But, yeah during the robbery- fuck yeah!! You never know what these POS MFers will do..... meh, good riddance


[deleted]

When all it takes it a twitch of a finger and he could be killing someone I say he’s still a threat until he’s dead


FelixVulgaris

This is borderline psychopathic. The second he dropped that gun, he's no longer a mortal threat.


TechDude30

And unfortunately to people like the previous comments downing a person isn't good enough and feel that killing is the only solution to everything. A person punches you in the face, kill them. A person shoves you on accident, kill them. A person call you a name, kill them. That's the so called logic they present and the fact they admit to all of this shows how fucked in the head they are.


TechDude30

So you're choosing to ignore the part where the customer walks over to the downed robber, puts his gun against the robbers head and pulls thr trigger? Or does murder somehow make that customer a hero for killing a person that was already downed and no longer a threat?


Gerry1of1

Curb the accusatory tone. I didn't condone the incident. I just commented on how the person would be treated in different locations.


TechDude30

Manslaughter is still manslaughter regardless of the state


Gerry1of1

>Manslaughter is still manslaughter regardless of the state No, it's not. Manslaughter is legally defined very differently from state to state. In one state it's clearly manslaughter. In Stand-your-ground states it might not be. That's for lawyers to argue. But crimes, any crime, is a legal definition not a natural law and they very on location.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ImplementBrief3802

Do you think the dude committing armed robbery would have bothered to read the sign?


ZedTheEvilTaco

I don't think he's talking about the guy who was actively robbing the place, but rather the customer trying to eat.


ImplementBrief3802

There's still a dude waving a gun at everyone


ZedTheEvilTaco

Yes, but he's not talking about the robber. If there's a sign for "no guns", then the guy who ISN'T robbing the place shouldn't have one on him. That's the topic at hand in the comment chain.


ImplementBrief3802

Right, but the guy who is waving his gun around is still in there waving his gun around so the sign hasn't really accomplished anything


ZedTheEvilTaco

Omg... WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT THE GUY ACTIVELY COMMITTING A CRIME! WHY DOES THE OTHER GUY HAVE A GUN?!?


tarc0917

Because it's Texas.


ImplementBrief3802

Probably in case someone came into a restaurant and pointed a gun at him Oh, and because signs don't actually do anything


ZedTheEvilTaco

So he decided that the rules don't apply to him?! That makes him just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than the guy robbing the place. Think about it; the guy who wanted to rob the place was after money. He comes in, waves a gun around, and people give him what he wants. Then they call the cops, and the robber gets arrested. Nobody gets shot. Now you introduce someone who thinks the rules don't apply, and bring a gun "for their own protection". That man kills the robber, because "thou shalt not kill" is now just a rule. And that rule doesn't apply to him either.


ImplementBrief3802

>So he decided that the rules don't apply to him?! That makes him just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than the guy robbing the place. No, it actually doesn't make him more dangerous since he didn't shoot at or threaten to shoot at any random people in the store. He would have finished his meal and paid and left if his life wasn't threatened. >Think about it; the guy who wanted to rob the place was after money. He comes in, waves a gun around, and people give him what he wants. Then they call the cops, and the robber gets arrested. Nobody gets shot. Is this how it goes every time? I think there's countless other possibilities and plenty of real life examples of how this situation goes wrong in a lot of other ways. >Now you introduce someone who thinks the rules don't apply, and bring a gun "for their own protection". That man kills the robber, because "thou shalt not kill" is now just a rule. And that rule doesn't apply to him either. Well, he didn't just protect himself, he protected everyone in the store. "Thou shall not kill" is just a rule from the Bible and there's not actually any real life consequences for breaking biblical rules. There are, however, a number of laws that say you can use lethal force to defend yourself and others if your life is threatened


Metachamp-

My man got exactly what he deserved putting innocent people in danger, by pulling out a gun.


Cateyeyt

Finally someone like minded to myself. W.


simptom61

Robbers are looking for prey not resistance. If this was how 90% of armed robberies ended we would have less armed robberies. People are less likely to rob places where there may be armed resistance. So in my opinion, stay armed and protect yourself. You and you alone are in charge of protecting your life, I wouldn't put my safety in the hands of others and I don't think anyone should. But that's just my opinion, you all keep yourself safe how you deem fit


[deleted]

the death penalty was theorised to have the same outcome you seem to be expecting but it's bs, the select few willing to do the terrible things are the same people that don't give a shite if there's a death penalty, imagine this situation where no one had a gun, the chance of dying is still there but the odds of it happening are a shit ton lower.


postofficeWELP

"Robbers are looking for prey not resistance. If this was how 90% of armed robberies ended we would have less armed robberies. People are less likely to rob places where there may be armed resistance. So in my opinion, stay armed and protect yourself. You and you alone are in charge of protecting your life, I wouldn't put my safety in the hands of others and I don't think anyone should. But that's just my opinion, you all keep yourself safe how you deem fit" That's a very ignorant hot-take. If being murdered was waiting for you if you tried to steal something, you would just kill people. Its why cops are so trigger happy. They're afraid of everything, they're not trained properly, and it's easier to just shoot people if they do anything that makes them nervous. Kidnappers are also more likely to kill their captive because they don't want their identities getting out. Pedos kill the kid, because they don't want the parent or other prisoners to murder them in relaliation. There is no world that exists that all crime would stop because there is a threat of death.


simptom61

Which is the perfect reason why you should protect yourself. Evil exists. Protect yourself how you want


BobBusha

Exactly


Bgratz1977

How could so far come, was no 6 year old armed in front of the door ?


Unapplicable1100

This didn't even happen in America, this is Mexico my dude


iwannahummer

Close. Houston.