Guns

[Chrunch Houston]

Anyone agree with this family?

edit: is there any way to post just the video, and not the whole tweet?

 

[Imari]

Anyone agree with this family?

edit: is there any way to post just the video, and not the whole tweet?

I'm pretty sure if you pull a gun on someone, you lose all right to complain when they then do the same to you. They're just pissed that their brother was a moron that tried to rob a dollar store.

Honestly, unarmed robbery is probably a smarter choice than doing it with a gun. Cashiers don't give two hoots and will hand over the cash regardless as that's what they've been told to do in most places these days. And if it goes south or you get caught, the penalties or consequences are much lower.

As far as guns in the workplace, my opinion is coloured by the fact that I'm in Australia and customers are almost guaranteed not to be armed. If I was in a country where any and all customers could be carrying firearms, I think it's fair game for the staff to carry also.

 

[Rallywagon]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[PocketZeven]

Anyone agree with this family?

edit: is there any way to post just the video, and not the whole tweet?

I hope your not insinuating that these people represent anti-gun advocates? There are stupid people for and against gunreform.

But to comment directly it would have made more sense if both did not have guns, but I realise is almost an impossibility in the USA.

 

[Northstar]

it would have made more sense if both did not have guns, but I realise is almost an impossibility in the USA.

Is this based on something or just another case of you having your foot in your mouth?

 

[TetsuKobura]

I hope your not insinuating that these people represent anti-gun advocates? There are stupid people for and against gunreform.

But to comment directly it would have made more sense if both did not have guns, but I realise is almost an impossibility in the USA.

Um, did you even watch the video or do any research on what exactly happened there, or did you blindly post that?

 

[PocketZeven]

Um, did you even watch the video or do any research on what exactly happened there, or did you blindly post that?

Please elaborate.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Please elaborate.

They are mad because their idiotic brother decided, with his infinite intelligence, to rob a convenience store with a gun, and was killed as a result, saying that the store clerk should not have had a gun to begin with.

You’ve been known in countless gun threads to post the same bs regarding how no one should have any guns period. Once again, we have to tell you that even if those types of “laws” were implemented, criminals, like the moron who tried robbing the store, would still find ways to get access to one, so the only ones being harmed are those law abiding citizens, like the heroic store clerk, who got a filthy criminal off the streets.

 

[Biggles]

They are mad because their idiotic brother decided, with his infinite intelligence, to rob a convenience store with a gun, and was killed as a result, saying that the store clerk should not have had a gun to begin with.

You’ve been known in countless gun threads to post the same bs regarding how no one should have any guns period. Once again, we have to tell you that even if those types of “laws” were implemented, criminals, like the moron who tried robbing the store, would still find ways to get access to one, so the only ones being harmed are those law abiding citizens, like the heroic store clerk, who got a filthy criminal off the streets.

Well, no. I know that it may be hard for you, as an American in a country awash with guns to appreciate this ... but in many countries where gun ownership is very restricted, very few "filthy criminals" actually have access to guns. As a consequence it is extremely uncommon for idiotic criminals, like this individual, to use guns to carry out petty crime. I think you will find that in almost all other developed countries support for the "bs" viewpoint that there should be strict gun control is the predominant viewpoint.

 

[NotThePrez]

Well, no. I know that it may be hard for you, as an American in a country awash with guns to appreciate this...

Hi, American here who doesn't own a firearm, is definitely not surrounded by them, and is not in any real hurry to acquire one.

...but in many countries where gun ownership is very restricted, very few "filthy criminals" actually have access to guns. As a consequence it is extremely uncommon for idiotic criminals, like this individual, to use guns to carry out petty crime. I think you will find that in almost all other developed countries support for the "bs" viewpoint that there should be strict gun control is the predominant viewpoint.

This view point doesn't work for a number of reasons:

• There is an extensive (both logistically and historically) illegal firearms market in the U.S. Go to the right corner on the right street in the right city at the right time of night, and you can acquire an Austrian with its serial number etched off for some cash. "Strict gun control" by itself does not affect this, and doesn't nothing to really make criminal's lives harder. We also know from experience that prohibition (or at least very strict regulation) of certain things doesn't really work.
  
• You have to define "strict gun control" in the U.S. in a way that doesn't stomp all over peoples personal rights. Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is a thing, and many American citizens are very fond of it, and the constitution as a whole. Though I am very much of the opinion that it needs to be re-addressed for the modern world.
• From a legal standpoint, for it to be actually effective, you'd have to give gun control, which is primarily decided on a state-by-state basis, direct control by the federal government. Stomping all over individual state's rights generally isn't a good thing. As @Famine mentioned previously, it'd e like giving the EU direct control over gun laws in each and every member country, regardless of each countries actual culture, social, or economic situation.
• "Strict gun control" could and would have economic effects that would need to be taken into account.
• From a logistical standpoint, it would be near-impossible to enforce these laws in a way that's efficient and cost-effective, while, again, being respectful of American citizen's rights.

And I'm pretty confident that there are more reasons that I'm probably overlooking. But yeah, just saying "The US should do what the rest of the world does" overlooks many many aspects of how the US got to its current place.

It also doesn't help that the people in power who actually are for stricter gun control generally don't know a damn thing about guns (3:41-4:52, video mildly NSFW)....



...which makes it harder for many Americans to get on board with gun control.

Do note, I say this as someone who is pretty neutral about guns, though I was previously fairly pro-gun.

 

[TheGeologist]

Anyone agree with this family?

edit: is there any way to post just the video, and not the whole tweet?

"You're getting robbed, oh well"

Oh well. OH WELL?! WHAT THE ACTUAL HELL DOES THAT EVEN MEAN

That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Your brother was committing an ARMED robbery. You kinda run the risk of getting shot when you pull a gun. He brought a gun to a gun fight and the family is mad about that? Lmao nah. Get out of here with that.

 

[TexRex]

Why is this incident part of the gun debate? If the would-have-been victim was permitted by their employer access to a firearm and their employer had the right to grant such permission, there's nothing here.

I suspect they're angling for some kind of compensation and I hope they don't get a danged thing other than much deserved ridicule.

 

[NotThePrez]

Why is this incident part of the gun debate? If the would-have-been victim was permitted by their employer access to a firearm and their employer had the right to grant such permission, there's nothing here.

I suspect they're angling for some kind of compensation and I hope they don't get a danged thing other than much deserved ridicule.

Sadly, and saying this as a black man, I get the distinct feeling that this family is kinda going for the "My brother and my family have it rough, and how he lost his life was wrong" angle, with perhaps the hope of getting some form of compensation. It's kinda the same thing with those videos you see on the cesspool that is Twitter, where people protest police arrests and shootings of black people, despite evidence that police were justified in their actions (not saying that bad incidents never happen, though).

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of ammunition (heh heh) for minorities to use when it comes to being wronged in the United States simply for existing, but every time silly stuff like this happens, it lessens the impact that that the truly horrible events did (and should continue to) have in our country.

 

[Biggles]

Hi, American here who doesn't own a firearm, is definitely not surrounded by them, and is not in any real hurry to acquire one.



This view point doesn't work for a number of reasons:

• There is an extensive (both logistically and historically) illegal firearms market in the U.S. Go to the right corner on the right street in the right city at the right time of night, and you can acquire an Austrian with its serial number etched off for some cash. "Strict gun control" by itself does not affect this, and doesn't nothing to really make criminal's lives harder. We also know from experience that prohibition (or at least very strict regulation) of certain things doesn't really work.
  
• You have to define "strict gun control" in the U.S. in a way that doesn't stomp all over peoples personal rights. Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is a thing, and many American citizens are very fond of it, and the constitution as a whole. Though I am very much of the opinion that it needs to be re-addressed for the modern world.
• From a legal standpoint, for it to be actually effective, you'd have to give gun control, which is primarily decided on a state-by-state basis, direct control by the federal government. Stomping all over individual state's rights generally isn't a good thing. As @Famine mentioned previously, it'd e like giving the EU direct control over gun laws in each and every member country, regardless of each countries actual culture, social, or economic situation.
• "Strict gun control" could and would have economic effects that would need to be taken into account.
• From a logistical standpoint, it would be near-impossible to enforce these laws in a way that's efficient and cost-effective, while, again, being respectful of American citizen's rights.

And I'm pretty confident that there are more reasons that I'm probably overlooking. But yeah, just saying "The US should do what the rest of the world does" overlooks many many aspects of how the US got to its current place.

It also doesn't help that the people in power who actually are for stricter gun control generally don't know a damn thing about guns (3:41-4:52, video mildly NSFW)....



...which makes it harder for many Americans to get on board with gun control.

Do note, I say this as someone who is pretty neutral about guns, though I was previously fairly pro-gun.

I know posting about gun control is a complete waste of time ... but perhaps you should re-read my post, as your comments don't address the points in my post at all (or for that matter PocketZeven's), but just re-hash the same old tired arguments from an entirely American perspective.

We know that there are so many millions of guns already in the US, both legal & illegal, that keeping them out of the hands of criminals, or some prospective psychotic killer who isn't, as yet, a criminal, is difficult-to-impossible. However, my post talks about the alternative: in countries that aren't already awash with guns, most criminals, certainly petty criminals like the one in the video, are extremely unlikely to have access to a gun. In almost all those countries public support for strict gun control is extremely high ... I guess because people are persuaded by the "bs" gun control arguments & have no wish to emulate the situation in the US.

 

[UKMikey]

However, my post talks about the alternative: in countries that aren't already awash with guns, most criminals, certainly petty criminals like the one in the video, are extremely unlikely to have access to a gun.

I'm surprised they're not driving trucks into 7-11s instead if the two threats are supposed to be interchangeable. Perhaps he could have burnt the shop down instead.

 

[Michael88]

However, my post talks about the alternative: in countries that aren't already awash with guns, most criminals, certainly petty criminals like the one in the video, are extremely unlikely to have access to a gun.

In Europe alone there is millions of illegal guns in circulation, thanks to the fall of the iron curtain and the sale of illegal weapons (ex- government property) and also the Balkan wars, and they are unaffected by any gun regulation. If you think or hope that burglars are unarmed than you're gonna have a bad time in most places on earth. (In the places where it really is unlikely to have robbers with guns you're gonna get shanked in the face with a screwdriver)

Can't think of many countries where you can't have easy access to illegal guns. Maybe Japan and Iceland?

 

[UKMikey]

With presumably thousands of illegal guns flooding into the UK I would expect to see a sharp rise in the murder rate. Where I live in the UK we're 94th in this table but the figures are quite old. Definitely post Iron Curtain collapse, though.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murders-per-million-people

 

[Northstar]

With presumably thousands of illegal guns flooding into the UK I would expect to see a sharp rise in the murder rate. Where I live in the UK we're 94th in this table but the figures are quite old. Definitely post Iron Curtain collapse, though.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murders-per-million-people

It’s almost like there is some kind of natural border that would make it easier to control what comes into the country.

 

[UKMikey]

It’s almost like there is some kind of natural border that would make it easier to control what comes into the country.

I guess we can add it to the list with Japan and Iceland, then.

 

[Famine]

I guess we can add it to the list with Japan and Iceland, then.

Nah. Estimated* firearm numbers in the UK are above 3 million (that's about one for every 20 people; just over 2.1m legally registered), while Japan has roughly 400,000 (one for every 330 people; just about half legally registered).

Iceland... actually has quite a lot of guns - one for every 3.3 people, three-quarters legally registered. It also has quite a lot of gun deaths, with between 1.2 and 2.4 gun deaths per 100,000 people most years for the last two decades, or about ten times the rate of the UK.

But then it has a tiny population of 330,000 people, most of them don't live in most of Iceland, and 70%+ of all their gun deaths are suicides (104 firearm suicides from 145 recorded firearm deaths in 20 years). The small population makes the numbers prone to very high error margins - one death increases or decreases the recorded rate, measured in per 100,000, by 0.33, which is more than the UK's total rate...


Compared to Japan, the UK is awash with firearms, with more illegal guns alone than Japan's total firearm count and half the population. The highest count per capita is in Northern Ireland. I think we can possibly just leave the next sentence unspoken.

In essence, when we made them illegal and offered amnesties, we reduced the numbers and the fact we're an island made it harder to increase them again. Not impossible, but harder. There's still cracking on for a million illegal firearms in the UK though.


*And they are estimations; you can't count illegal guns accurately because obviously you can't.

 

[NotThePrez]

I know posting about gun control is a complete waste of time ... but perhaps you should re-read my post, as your comments don't address the points in my post at all (or for that matter PocketZeven's),...

Your post basically boiled down to "The rest of the world doesn't think strict gun control is BS, and neither should the US." Given the culture and situation the US is in regarding firearms, that doesn't really work here, at least by itself.

Also, most of @PocketZeven's questions and points were already addressed by other users, but I will attempt to answer one question that wasn't touched:

Is it easy to buy a gun in a state where its very easy to purchase (even when you are not from that state?) and then smuggle it in your bag to a heavily regulated state?

Yes and No. As Per the ATF an unlicensed gun owner cannot send a weapon out-of-state legally, even if the recipient of the firearm is an FFL (Federal Firearm License) holder. If you're out of state and attempting to buy a gun in a different one, the shop you're buying from will need to call your local shop in your home state to make sure they can ship it to them legally. This is all assuming that the gun shop is even willing to sell you the gun in the first place.

If you buy a gun, put it in your bag, and take it across state lines, that makes you a gun trafficker, and you'll go to jail. Same if you buy a gun from an unlicensed owner and take it across state lines. You can transfer guns across state lines as long as you're an FFL holder, but if you get stopped by police, you're likely going to be asked about the weapon, who it's for, and need to provide paperwork to show that you're not doing anything illegal. In that situation, it needs to be in your trunk, unloaded, and reasonably far away from ammo.

Obviously, if you're a baddie who intends to do bad things (or a dumbass, for that matter), then either you won't really care about these things, or you'll be getting a free ride in the back of a Crown Vic.

The legality of the firearm itself changes on a state-by-state basis. If I recall correctly, in Florida you can own an AR-15 with an adjustable gun stock, provided that the barrel is the appropriate length (16 inches or longer, I think, per federal law), but in California that same AR-15 MUST have a fixed stock.

...but just re-hash the same old tired arguments from an entirely American perspective.

I mean,.... I'm an American, and we're talking about changing laws that effect my country and potentially my way of life. So, what, is my opinion is worth less because of that?

It's not like I'm saying all countries should adopt 2nd Amendment-esque gun laws.

We know that there are so many millions of guns already in the US, both legal & illegal, that keeping them out of the hands of criminals, or some prospective psychotic killer who isn't, as yet, a criminal, is difficult-to-impossible. However, my post talks about the alternative: in countries that aren't already awash with guns, most criminals, certainly petty criminals like the one in the video, are extremely unlikely to have access to a gun.

Ok, and how do you propose that we get to that point, in a way that's realistic, actually effective, still offers up good protection for law-abiding citizens, and doesn't trample upon the rights of American citizens (do note, I'm not talking about the 2nd amendment exclusively with that last one)?

I think you'll find that most reasonable people are all for stricter gun regulation as long as those requirements are met.

In almost all those countries public support for strict gun control is extremely high ... I guess because people are persuaded by the "bs" gun control arguments & have no wish to emulate the situation in the US.

I'm willing to bet that a major reason for that is that in the countries that you're talking about, gun ownership is seen as a privilege rather than a right, and has been seen that way for hundreds of years. Meanwhile, in the same time-frame, the right to own a firearm is almost intrinsic to both American law and identity. Regardless of your take on that particular subject, that is the reality, and the cultural difference is something that does need to be taken into consideration.

 

[Danoff]

Nah. Estimated* firearm numbers in the UK are above 3 million (that's about one for every 20 people; just over 2.1m legally registered), while Japan has roughly 400,000 (one for every 330 people; just about half legally registered).

Iceland... actually has quite a lot of guns - one for every 3.3 people, three-quarters legally registered. It also has quite a lot of gun deaths, with between 1.2 and 2.4 gun deaths per 100,000 people most years for the last two decades, or about ten times the rate of the UK.

But then it has a tiny population of 330,000 people, most of them don't live in most of Iceland, and 70%+ of all their gun deaths are suicides (104 firearm suicides from 145 recorded firearm deaths in 20 years). The small population makes the numbers prone to very high error margins - one death increases or decreases the recorded rate, measured in per 100,000, by 0.33, which is more than the UK's total rate...


Compared to Japan, the UK is awash with firearms, with more illegal guns alone than Japan's total firearm count and half the population. The highest count per capita is in Northern Ireland. I think we can possibly just leave the next sentence unspoken.

In essence, when we made them illegal and offered amnesties, we reduced the numbers and the fact we're an island made it harder to increase them again. Not impossible, but harder. There's still cracking on for a million illegal firearms in the UK though.


*And they are estimations; you can't count illegal guns accurately because obviously you can't.

And since you're all wondering... it's 1.2 guns per person in the US.

 

[Biggles]

Your post basically boiled down to "The rest of the world doesn't think strict gun control is BS, and neither should the US." Given the culture and situation the US is in regarding firearms, that doesn't really work here, at least by itself.


I mean,.... I'm an American, and we're talking about changing laws that effect my country and potentially my way of life. So, what, is my opinion is worth less because of that?

It was the reaction to this post that I was commenting on:

But to comment directly it would have made more sense if both did not have guns, but I realise is almost an impossibility in the USA.

Which apparently is a comment which is bs & doesn't recognize the unique character of the situation in the US ... that is if you have difficulty with basic reading comprehension.

With regard to the particular incident: in this case the store clerk shot the would-be robber. The problem is, how much more likely does this make it that the next stupid kid trying to rob a dollar store simply shoots the clerk immediately, fearing that the clerk might shoot him? This is the circular scenario that occurs when guns are so commonplace that everyone assumes everyone else is packing. So you get incidents like this:

https://nypost.com/2018/09/17/cop-w...ering-wrong-apartment-has-moved-from-complex/

or this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50032290

or this:

 

[BobK]

https://nypost.com/2018/09/17/cop-w...ering-wrong-apartment-has-moved-from-complex/

or this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50032290

or this:

Those examples are more instances of trigger-happy police than anything else. The second one is particularly outrageous. The cops never identified themselves as police. They were prowling around outside shining flashlights into the windows at 2:30 AM. To all appearances from inside it would look like prowlers/burglars out there and I don't think any reasonable person would fault the victim for arming herself (which still isn't established).

 

[Northstar]

The problem is, how much more likely does this make it that the next stupid kid trying to rob a dollar store simply shoots the clerk immediately, fearing that the clerk might shoot him?

So we're not considering that it may also prevent the stupid kid from attempting the robbery in the first place?

 

[Biggles]

Those examples are more instances of trigger-happy police than anything else. The second one is particularly outrageous. The cops never identified themselves as police. They were prowling around outside shining flashlights into the windows at 2:30 AM. To all appearances from inside it would look like prowlers/burglars out there and I don't think any reasonable person would fault the victim for arming herself (which still isn't established).

Bottom line - an innocent individual is shot because of the fear of the police (& of course there are many examples when it is not the police doing the unjustified shooting) that the other person may have a firearm.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

The one odd thing in the Fort Worth shooting...

The cop only fired one shot. Cops never fire one shot.

I kind of think it was a nervous twitch.

 

[UKMikey]

I wonder whether the "nervous twitch" defence will come up at the murder trial.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50050436

 

[NotThePrez]

And since you're all wondering... it's 1.2 guns per person in the US.

I do believe you, but source for the sake of further research?

It was the reaction to this post that I was commenting on:

Which apparently is a comment which is bs & doesn't recognize the unique character of the situation in the US ... that is if you have difficulty with basic reading comprehension.

It's bs because, as I said before, not everyone in the US owns or is surrounded by guns. Speaking personally I've only interacted with guns twice in my life: once when removing some old deactivated firearms from a family member's house, and once when going to a gun shop and shooting range. And I live in an area that turns into a somewhat more crime-frequent area, literally within walking distance, and not once have I feared for my life. At my place of employment I was given specific instructions by my employer on what to do in case of a robbery. You might be surprised to know that none of my instructions included "shoot the suspect." And I'm extremely confident that I'm not the only American in such a situation.

Also, saying "it makes sense if both parties didn't have guns" makes no sense, because that only really works if crime doesn't exist. It also ignores the fact that the clerk survived the encounter because he was armed. And even if you take away the guns from the equation, someone intent on robbing a place will still find a way to do so, and will likely be armed to some capacity. They're not just gonna sit there and yell menacingly at their would-be victim.

With regard to the particular incident: in this case the store clerk shot the would-be robber. The problem is, how much more likely does this make it that the next stupid kid trying to rob a dollar store simply shoots the clerk immediately, fearing that the clerk might shoot him?

Have you considered that the risk of getting shot while attempting a robbery may just as easily be a deterrent to a potential criminal?

There's also the fact that if the baddie does shoot and kill their victim, they've graduated from Armed Robbery to Murder, which gives you a hell of a lot more attention, and depending on your state, ranges from life sentence to life-ending. That by itself is also a deterrent for most criminals. The ones who don't care about such things are the ones who aren't affected by gun laws, because they don't give a damn.

This is the circular scenario that occurs when guns are so commonplace that everyone assumes everyone else is packing. So you get incidents like this:

https://nypost.com/2018/09/17/cop-w...ering-wrong-apartment-has-moved-from-complex/

Trigger-happy cop. That's literally it. There's also a lot about the situation that honestly does not add up, but that's not really a topic for this thread.

Also, she was sentenced for her negligence.

or this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50032290

Police failed to identify themselves as officers before approaching the residence, then proceeded to shine their flashlights inside a dark house at 2:30 at night, at no point identifying themselves during the whole time. The cops on the scene did nothing to make themselves not look like would-be robbers, and the owner rightly (though still somewhat unconfirmed, as the police blurred out everything around the picture of the firearm) armed herself in the event of a robbery. Also, based on the bodycam footage, looks like the officer who killed the victim did so due to a negligent discharge.

There's a guy on YouTube called Donut Operator. He's a former cop and gives breakdowns of police shootings from the police point of view, and has a video on this exact incident including the bodycam footage. I'm not going to link it because while you don't really see the victim get killed, I don't want to risk breaking the AUP, but even he looked at this and pretty much said the officer effed up.

or this:

Sorry, but that guy just did everything wrong the moment police came up on him. Assuming it was a pull over, the guy should've just stayed in his car and waited for the officer. Instead, he gets out, and then dives head-first into his car. He also didn't let the officer know that he was going back into his car to grab his ID. To any cop, the first thing they'd think, rightfully so, is that this guy was diving for a gun of his own.

Now, there's definitely ground for an argument to be made that that cop was a bit too trigger happy, but in the same split-second it took him to open up on the driver, it just as easily could've been enough time for the driver to whip out a pistol and start firing at the officer. If anything, this is a case of both sides being stupid.

Bottom line - an innocent individual is shot because of the fear of the police (& of course there are many examples when it is not the police doing the unjustified shooting) that the other person may have a firearm.

Which wouldn't have been a problem if the cops had followed proper procedure. Fear does not excuse negligence here.

If anything, that is much, much more of a people problem than a gun problem.

I wonder whether the "nervous twitch" defence will come up at the murder trial.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50050436

I hope so, because that nervous twitch came at the cost of an innocent life. I wouldn't spring for murder, though. Manslaughter would probably be a better charge to pursue.

 

[TheGeologist]

I wonder whether the "nervous twitch" defence will come up at the murder trial.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50050436

I hope the cop rots in jail for the rest of his life. I don't care how it happened, but that girl was innocent. Have ya'll seen pictures of her? She looked like the sweetest person in the world. And now she is dead for literally no reason.

In some (not all) of the other police involved shootings, you could make the argument that the people shot were acting sketchy. They definitely didn't deserve to be shot, but I can see why an officer would be nervous. In this case, I don't see how an officer could be in fear for their life. They should have rolled up with their lights on, and knocked on the front door. It was a non emergency call, why were guns drawn?

Police training needs a serious overhaul in this country.