Robbers starts shooting in restuarant, one is killed by CCW customer.

who DOESNT carry a gun <tic>

register his firearm with law enforcement, maintain a license that includes regular mental and physical fitness check-ups, and carry liability coverage would somehow turn this into a tragedy?

Common sense measures. Join us.

Or sarcasm....

pick one.

#1 "register his firearm with law enforcement "

This does what to stop or slow crimes like this? The Goblins are not required to register theirs. To do so would be "self incrimination".

#2 "maintain a license that includes regular mental and physical fitness check-ups"
The Police would be required to do these tests? What psychologist would take on this task? And I know some older gents who can, and have used a handgun in their defense, several are over 70. Who sets these arbitrary standards.

#3 "carry liability coverage" No insurance firm that I know of has such a policy.

#4 What other civil rights would you apply this to?

is that they are all for rights, but refuse to take responsibilities.

Stolen guns or illicitly sold firearms are a problem in civil society. Register weapons and ballistic signatures. Work with law enforcement (oh wait, aren't you the guys who championed teflon, cop killer bullets).

Felons and the mentally ill are already restricted from gun possesion by statute, just develop a means of filtering those who are already restreicted from possession.

Insurance is necessary because too many gun owners consider themselves cowboys and are irresponsible, then every once in a while a positive story (such as this one) comes around and every cowboy cloaks himself in it. You are transparent. Insurance is necessary to cover the many who are injured and killed by the irresponsibility of those whose behavior you support.

*Asterix because there is no such thing as gun rights. If there was such a thing there would be hand grenade rights, nuclear bomb rights and truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil rights- does not exist.

Stolen guns or illicitly sold firearms are a problem in civil society. Register weapons and ballistic signatures. Work with law enforcement (oh wait, aren't you the guys who championed teflon, cop killer bullets).

Registering and ballistic finer printing have proven to be useless in solving or preventing gun crimes. Hence Canada's and New York's abandoning of such initiatives that did little else but cost taxpayers millions. Teflon cop killer bullets never existed (teflon is incredibly soft and a poor ballistic material). Seems facts and basic physical science are some things you should look into a bit more.

Felons and the mentally ill are already restricted from gun possesion by statute, just develop a means of filtering those who are already restreicted from possession.

That's called the NICS. Look it up.

Insurance is necessary because too many gun owners consider themselves cowboys and are irresponsible, then every once in a while a positive story (such as this one) comes around and every cowboy cloaks himself in it. You are transparent. Insurance is necessary to cover the many who are injured and killed by the irresponsibility of those whose behavior you support.

What a load of self-righteous garbage. No one here supports criminal activity nor the idiotic Brady Campaign/MAIG/VPC noise you are parroting.

Asterix because there is no such thing as gun rights.

2nd Amendment. Look that up after you look up NICS.

who liked to call us cowboys?

Reading so many pro-gun comments on DU, and elsewhere, for many years, I realize that weak, frightened people need a crutch. I can't imagine being so afraid, as the Lord blessed me with a mind and a spine. But, for those to whom the Creator has decided to hobble with insecurities of many kinds, I hope a gun helps you cope with whatever boogie man makes you uneasy. I just want to do my part to promote a secure state by seeing to the regulation of the militia. Common sense regulation is our responsibility.

And Clames, I've been over and over the Constitution and cannot find the word "gun". Not rifle, grenade launcher, switch blade, hell not even sword or musket.....maybe they left it up to us what "arms" we would regulate and how.

Doesn't require special strength, or years of training to be effective. Can be learned quickly and basic skills kept up with a little practice every month or two.

That's why we stopped carrying swords. Or are you simply too predjudiced to let anyone not physically strong and basically independently wealthy defend themselves effectively?

By the way, take the condescension and stuff it back up the passage it came from.

Yes they are, but registration does nothing. If ballistic signatures would actually work, other countries would be doing them. Teflon simply coats the bullet from wrecking the barrel as the hardened bullet goes out, the harder metal wears down the rifling. We did not champion "cop killer bullets" because of irresponsible sense of rights, the problem was a poorly drafted law written by ideologues and ignoramuses that would have banned common hunting rounds like the .30-30. Any rifle round will defeat bullet resistant vests.

In 1982, NBC ran a television special on the bullets (against the requests of many police organizations) and argued that the bullets were a threat to police. Gun control organizations in the U.S. labeled Teflon-coated bullets "cop killers" because of the supposedly increased penetration the bullets offered against ballistic vests, a staple of the American police uniform. Many erroneously focused on the Teflon coating as the source of the bullets' supposedly increased penetration, rather than the hardness of the metals used. A common misconception, often perpetuated by films and television, is that coating normal bullets with Teflon will give them armor-piercing capabilities. In reality, Teflon and similar coatings were used primarily as a means to protect the gun barrel from the hardened bullet; the coating itself does not add any piercing abilities to otherwise normal ammunition.
The round in question could not, in fact, penetrate a police vest. Kopsch pointed out in a 1990 interview, "adding a Teflon coating to the round added 20% penetration power on metal and glass. Critics kept complaining about Teflon's ability to penetrate body armor... In fact, Teflon cut down on the round's ability to cut through the nylon or Kevlar of body armor."

In other words, it is the (pick your favorite inane right wing myth) of the gun control advocates.
For example? It is extremely rare to non existent. You are either misinformed or are projecting.

Registering a firearm with law enforcement is gun registration, and in any case serves little purpose but paperwork. If a state wants to require certain standards for concealed/open carry, that's a state's business, though the "mental fitness check-up" is wholly unworkable, and in any case a violation of the 5th Amendment if not accompanied by proper adjudication. Liability coverage? Forget it. If someone is harmed by someone else firing a gun, let them sue. But to require some kind of insurance would be an unconstitutional restriction on the the Second and a violation of the Fourteenth.

If you want "common sense measures," get your state to open up all purchases of firearms (individuals as well as from dealers), go through a NICS-like test.

Grabbers predictions are almost always right . . . if you flip them 180 degrees.

No need to thank me.

there have been many such situations.

Besides, when your argument states that guns can never be used in self defense and a CHL holder will always fire wildly in to the crowd killing innocent people it only takes one contrary data point to refute that. Not so?

At the same time, another suspect standing guard by the door fired off his shotgun . . .

Bad enough that the bad guys have guns.

But having the "good guy" create a fire fight that puts you in the cross-hairs of cross-fire?

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/20039150/suspect-fatally-shot-during-coney-island-robbery-in-detroit

More guns isn't the answer.

Less guns is the answer.

Johnny Cash sang it best:

It sounds like the robbers shot first and the CC permitee returned fire killing the one perp, notice that no patrons were hit despite what we've been told that someone with a CC permit under fire will probably hit an innocent bystander.
I'm a cop in St. Louis, I've responded to calls of a shooting involving a CC permit holder and not once has an innocent bystander been shot by the law abiding permitee. I fully support qualified citizens being able to CC as long as they meet all of MO's requirements.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000101.HTM

You say less guns are the answer, so how do you get the thugs to turn their's in? Criminals will always be able to obtain firearms, the only ones impacted by gun laws are the law abiding.
Here's another tidbit for you, the police are not responsible for your personal safety unless you're in our custody, you, and you alone are responsible for your own safety.
We're only responsible for the general publics safety, any LEO will tell you that.

And who gives a damn what Johnny Cash sang about, that has no bearing on this conversation, maybe you should address this to the perps who initiated the shootout.

From the article: "He just (came) and put the gun in my face and he (shot) me. He never asked me anything. He never asked me for money," said Adi Avdolli. "He just pulled the trigger."

Once the bad guys start shooting, whatever makes you think they are going to quit out of the goodness of their heart? Once the bad guys start shooting you are in a fight for your own life, even if you don't have any weapons.

It was only after the robbers started shooting that the CCWer drew and fired back. The good guy did not create the gunfight, the bad guys did.

The thug with the shotgun appears to have fired only one shot and ran away. He ran because he was scared of getting shot. In almost all such situations the bad guys run as soon as bullets start coming back at them. The thugs aren't combat soldiers trying to take an objective, they are predators looking for easy prey. Predators will back off if the prey starts to put up a good enough fight because they can't afford to get injured. Injured predators die. Injured human predators get picked up by police, unless they die.

I am amazed that you attempt to blame the CCWer for this when it is clear that he stopped the thugs from further violence.

The bad guy with the shotgun returned fire.

Had I been a bad guy with a shotgun, I would have returned fired.

The good guy pulling and shooting led the already nervous bad guy to start shooting.

Fortunately, from the news, he "only" had a shotgun, and it must not have been a automatic, or even semi, and he apparently wasn't a great shot, or a man willing to stand his ground in a firefight.

His shotgun could have blown the place apart . . .

Or some other a**wipe felon will be holding a fully automatic assault rifle.

It is the guns, gun guys. It is bad enough that the bad guys have them (they're so common in the US, that's hardly a surprise) but when our "heroes" start shootouts with civilians in the middle, the carnage is going to only grow worse.

The criminal fired first. The lawful customer (would-be victim) fired in response to this.

As far as these full-auto weapons you allude to, citations, please. I don't think you'll find them used in crimes in any statistically significant way.

"His shotgun could have blown the place apart . . ." I'm not sure you actually understand how shotguns work.


"...but when our "heroes" start shootouts with civilians in the middle, the carnage is going to only grow worse." Please explain how the victim who resisted "made things worse"? According to the article, he hit only the criminals. How is that "worse"?

In fact, they shot with potential intent to kill, and the carrier responded in kind. In no way did the carrier antagonize the situation; the robbers had already proven intent by discharging firearms in the process of the robbery.

Quick semantic thing: "The bad guy with the shotgun returned fire." Not really. Once his buddy opened fire, it became a two-party firefight, wherein the carrier "returned fire". The guy with the shotgun cannot "Return fire" in a firefight if his buddy opened fire first, but nice attempt at reframing the carrier as a bad guy.

As a point of note, the guy with the shotgun could -not- have blown the place apart. Common movie-gun myth; shotguns, firing either pellet or slug, at such a close range, would deal only marginally more damage than most other given guns (outside .22 rimfire). Given limited ammo capacity on even a semi-auto like a SAIGA, the best the robber with the shotgun could have done is maybe tear up a magazine rack, if he wasted all his ammo. Likewise, shotguns produce minimal collateral damage in close proximity given lack of distance for spread; if he wasn't aiming directly at a patron, there's a -very- good chance that the patrons would have been unharmed. Your argument holds little merit in that regard.


So, given that the robbers had proven intent to kill without provocation (After all, isn't that a gun's designed purpose?), you would suggest that the patrons simply resign themselves to their fate? If my fate was in question, and I watched a man get shot in front of me showing clear intent on the part of the robbers to kill, I personally would like the chance to defend myself. You are flat out stating that I shouldn't be given the chance. Why?

The guy with the shotgun did return fire.

The "carrier" escalated. He also got shot.

You've also carefully limited your statements.

". . . if he wasn't aiming directly at a patron."

"minimal collateral damage in close proximity . . ."

Guy freaked out and started shooting. Good thing he ran. Good thing he didn't have a good semi-automatic twelve gauge, or sawed off.

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=109958

is just as bad as the dirtbags who first open fired with a shotgun, .410 or otherwise? Are you fucking serious? Is your hatred of guns that intense that you would blame an honest citizen who chose to defend himself and equate him to a couple of POS dirtbags?
That's really pathetic.

As opposed to firing at the guy shooting at -him-?

The semantic bit is that the guy with the shotgun, as a member of the aggressing party, cannot "return fire" in point of reference to the firefight, as his party was the aggressors.


And as per your link; If you study the entrance pattern, you'll realize that even buckshot enters the body (or any other target) at a reasonably tight pattern; examine the entrance pattern prior to the temporary cavity. What I'm saying is that a shotgun has very little spread, even with a sawed-off barrel, unless modified specifically to increase spread, via altering the choke or using spreader loads. Even when this is done, however, in order to achieve maximum pellet spread for maximum carnage, the shooter would have to be within around twenty two yards, with diminishing returns after eighteen yards; the spread is not good enough. At a close range, such as within the store, even a sawed-off would have markedly less effect than a semiautomatic handgun firing repeatedly in terms of collateral damage, especially if fired indiscriminately.


Quick question: At what point do you consider this conflict "Escalated"? When the robbers started attempting to kill innocent bystanders without provocation, or when someone fired back at them? If your answer is the second option, I'll happily point out why you're wrong after you respond.

Can you please tell us what dictionary/thesaurus you are using?

of what you claim? There have been thousands of citizens defending themselves in public, so there should be plenty of the carnage you speak of, so lets see your proof.

Two thugs came in. One thug opened fire.

The good guy STOPPED the shooting thug from shooting any more - permanently.

The other bad guy fired one shot and ran away.

You keep trying to blame the good guy and refuse to understand that there was already a bad guy shooting who needed to be stopped. It is obvious that you believe the best course of action was the let the bad guy who was already shooting to keep on shooting.

He was using his guns as a statement of his masculinity. That is a sure-fire way to get into very bad trouble, even in modern times. All CCW classes teach avoidance.

BTW, his song is derivative. It follows along the theme of"The Streets of Laredo" which is an Americanization of the British folk song, "The Unfortunate Lad". In both laments the dying person has taken undue risks with violence and lost. Same with Billy Joe. He mixes booze with being armed.

When I carry I am stone cold sober and avoid dangerous situations whether armed or not. My gun is for trouble that comes to me.

You have lots of misconceptions about those of us who are legally armed.

I am legally armed.

But I've decided to leave my guns at home, realizing I'm more likely to hurt myself or innocent by-standers if I go vigilante.

Most criminals with guns don't want to kill. They want your money, or your iPhone, or your credit card, or that Glock they caught sight of under your sweater.

Most aren't trained. They're probably afraid of their own weapons (that's a surmise). They may be wired on meth. Which makes them extremely dangerous, more likely to do something really stupid. If they do kill someone, they've nothing more to lose by killing everyone. Why leave a witness?

Fire fights in restaurants? Movie theaters? Schools? Parking lots? Freeways?

The temptation to pull on a bad guy aiming a gun at someone else is enormous. Be a hero. Save the day.

And that guy in Detroit, pulling on two armed bad guys, one holding a shotgun?

Not smart.

Yeah. He killed one bad guy. And got some pellets before the shotgun dude fled.

But it could have gone another way, had the man with the shotgun used it to blow the place and everyone inside into smithereens.

There's your first error- this is an example of self-defense, not vigilantism.



You are perfectly free to assume that "Most criminals with guns don't want to kill." I really do hope that assumption works out for you.
But why do you expect others to take that chance, especially after the criminals start shooting people without preamble (a fact you are reluctant to acknowledge)?
Did you seriously expect the CCW holder to assume that the guy who shot him wouldn't finish him off?



Same observation as above- Why are we (and the "guy in Detroit") supposed to rely on the tender mercies of people who have just demonstrated that they are
perfectly willing to shoot people?

And BTW, I rather doubt you are familiar with shotguns, given the tenor of your statements about them on this thread...

Most criminals with guns don't want to kill. They want your money, or your iPhone, or your credit card, or that Glock they caught sight of under your sweater.
Each situation must be judged by itself. In this one, the bad guys opened fire, shooting the owner, as soon as they came in the door. That clearly established that they were in a killing mood, and that everyone's life was in real danger. You seem to have difficulty understanding that the criminals started the shooting.

Most aren't trained. They're probably afraid of their own weapons (that's a surmise). They may be wired on meth. Which makes them extremely dangerous, more likely to do something really stupid. If they do kill someone, they've nothing more to lose by killing everyone. Why leave a witness?

And in such a situation you want innocent civilians to rely on the tender mercies of thugs who have already used deadly force on someone? How many people must be shot before you graciously give a citizen permission to fight for his life?

Fire fights in restaurants? Movie theaters? Schools? Parking lots? Freeways?
Or churches, stores, etc. Anywere a thug places you in deadly danger.

The temptation to pull on a bad guy aiming a gun at someone else is enormous. Be a hero. Save the day.
Not merely aiming - SHOOTING. You are having great difficulty in understanding that the thugs had already opened fire. When the thugs have already started shooting, your own life is in danger.

And that guy in Detroit, pulling on two armed bad guys, one holding a shotgun?

Not smart.

Yeah. He killed one bad guy. And got some pellets before the shotgun dude fled.

He had no choice. The bad guys had already started shooting. Do you think he should have sat passively and waited to be shot in turn? Once the bad guys start shooting, all bets are off. It is then time to fight for your life.

But it could have gone another way, had the man with the shotgun used it to blow the place and everyone inside into smithereens.

Could have, but it didn't. Thugs almost always run away when bullets start coming their way. It is extremely rare that they stand and fight.

You are confusing self-defense with agression.

(BTW, Nicely done on the response GSC)

Are they outright stupid or just blinded by their poorly thought through agenda?

You have a clear report here in the OP of what ACTUALLY happened and the gun control fans insist on talking about what might have happened!

It happens every time something like this comes up.

Never the fuck mind what you think "might", "should" or "could" have happened people. Nobody cares about your active and violent fantasy life based on the movies or your extensive experience with an electronic Garand in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor on your Wii console.

Discuss the incident as it really happened.

If you want to talk about dangerous shotguns ripping up the whole room with a single shot, or a CCW permit holder that shot a car full of orphans and nuns by accident being a "hero", find a god damn story where it actually happened and share it.

Ah, that feels better now.

Smells like... Hoyt-puppet... ?

Now if we start to hear about two guns stuffed in his pants ... or how the CCW in the story was a tea bagger, we'll know for sure you were right.

In the meantime we just try to get the newbie grabbers to grasp some basics of the law and physics, along with some basic reading comprehension, and give them a chance to actually learn something about that which they choose to spew.

1. Self-defense is NOT "going vigilante". It appears that your use of the English language is, at best, random, otherwise, simply mendacious. I'm betting the latter.

2. Please cite stats that support your assertion. We'll wait....

Gays, guns, gin, ganja, and with the new kid on the block, tobacco. It just doesn't work

You may be interested in knowing that Johnny Cash was a firearms collector.

http://www.americaremembers.com/Products/JCASHPRE/JCASHPRE.asp

it can't happen this way. And that's gospel, you know...

I also hope the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office do not file charges against the customer.

True or not? We'll never know... because the one of armed criminals (who fired first) was gunned down by the permittee and the second fled.


Which is kinda the point.