While I completely agree with Texas, I'm not really talking legalities either. I'm more concerned with the theoretical... crime prevention as it relates to gun laws, etc. Of which I still stand by my first statement about theft/property crimes vs. crimes of passion and insanity.
the luby's incident is argument for concealed handguns, but those happen very infrequently. the burger king incident is not, because I think as most seem to agree, its an example of why the job of law enforcement should be left up to law enforcement.
I think my problem is that the guy with the CHL most likely decided that he was going to kill the robber. It's like the guy in Pasadena who killed the two robbers. It isn't that I don't understand why they may be inclined to use force, or can't see where in some cases the decision turns out to be a good one, it's that the decision that's made isn't about "my life is in danger" but rather "I'm going to kill that guy because I have a gun and I know how to and what he is doing is wrong."
Putting aside the argument about whether the vigilante's actions are commendable, why do pro-gun advocates think posting these sorts of stories is persuasive? Each thread is the same. Pro-gun: Look at what this brave soul did because he was able to carry a gun. Anti-gun: He just escalated the problem. Pro-gun: That guy deserved to die. Anti-gun: It wasn't his place to serve justice. Pro-gun: Ya-huh. Are we making progress here? These stories are not persuasive to people who oppose the ubiquity of guns.
In this case there were two kinds. One kind was a person about to perform the crime of seizing property through violence and intimidation. The other kind was a law-abiding, responsible citizen.
question for anti-gun people: do you think violent crime/robberies would increase or decrease if everyone 18 and above carried a weapon in public?
It would absolutely increase. Look at this idiot in Burger King. Look at how stupid people already are in traffic. We have evolved past the Wild West. It didn't work then, it isn't going to work now.
You might have a spike of increase right after the law went into effect. I think it would gradually drop until its a decline from the levels before the law was enacted. "Its all fun and games until someone loses an eye" The novelty will increase awareness and tensions and will probably cause said spike. After enough people foolishly try drawing on someone old west style and fatalities happen, it will go down.
Eventually it would go down after a bunch of people get killed sure, but that would be a result of a decrease in people. I think you underestimate how stupid and crazy people are, and how bad people generally react to things.
well we disagree about law enforcement's job. Their job is to catch criminals and prevent crime through deterrence. The idea behind concealed handguns is to provide people an ability to protect themselves and for a further deterrent. Since this guy died, it is a deterrent for armed robbery.
This thread has taken off. I can't condone what the customer did. I think he was brave but misguided. Even if you are a good shot I don't see how a shoot out in a crowded restaurant can be a good thing and it is tragic that he has already been grieviously wounded in this incident. Its lucky that no one else was.
in reality anti-gunners will never be persuaded by anything. so no progress will ever be made. I mean it's not like it will just settled one day.
no response on your grossly false statements of "fact"? Note for the future, if you have to use google to argue about guns with me, you already lost.
