• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Seattle Starbuck's robbed by "Concealed" Carrier....

MKEgal

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
joeroket said:
If convicted of armed robbery he will no longer be able to lawfully purchase/possess a firearm. Thats a good thing if you ask me as this guy is, imo, not someone who is mentally strong enough to be responsible with one.
Click to expand...
:banghead: And that will stop him from having one how, exactly??
He wasn't able lawfully to force the clerk to hand over money, yet he did it anyway.
Laws don't stop crime.
They can only punish someone after he breaks a law & is caught.

5918mike said:
a robber is at the counter demanding the money. He claims to have a firearm but you do not see it. Do you draw and confront to try to stop him? What would you do? Let's say he gets some cash and quickly proceeds towards the door, you still do not see a weapon and he's content to get out of there and flee.
Click to expand...
Unless he shows a weapon, I be a good little witness - get a description the best I can.

If he does seem able & willing to do harm, then the evaluating of "where will the bullet go if it misses?" starts happening.

If I can stop him from harming the clerk (or someone else) without me harming someone or being harmed myself, I'd likely shoot to stop him.
 
Last edited:
BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
sudden valley gunner said:
Maybe because many of those who insist on carrying concealed whether licensed or for malicious purposes do it for the same misguided reason of "tactical advantage". :eek:

I have no problem with the post it followed the forum's guidelines to write it like a newspaper headline. It drew us in to read the story.
Click to expand...

Here is the same old argument that still cannot be proven a "tactical advantage" for one type of carry is better then the other, when in reality it depends upon the person, health, abilities, choice and we could go on. :eek::eek:

It has been discussed before about issues of those who concealed carry look poorly upon those that open carry and vice versa, I think it is more about ones ego then anything.

Newspaper Headlines!, many con and pro groups use this tactic to entice readers just to promote ones agenda and is misleading to say the least.
For example, the Philadelphia bus shooting could have read, (A) Open Carriers or (B) Concealed Carriers Shot Up Bus! While both would be somewhat correct, do we really want to associate legal carry in a negative concatenation as this?
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
5918mike said:
Let me ask you guys something, say you're sitting in a coffee shop or restaurant armed, either open or concealed, and a robber is at the counter demanding the money. He claims to have a firearm but you do not see it. Do you draw and confront to try to stop him? What would you do? Let's say he gets some cash and quickly proceeds towards the door, you still do not see a weapon and he's content to get out of there and flee. Does this change what you do?
Click to expand...

I would just walk up behind him and tell him that what he is doing is against the law so that he will stop.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
BigDave said:
Here is the same old argument that still cannot be proven a "tactical advantage" for one type of carry is better then the other, when in reality it depends upon the person, health, abilities, choice and we could go on. :eek::eek:

It has been discussed before about issues of those who concealed carry look poorly upon those that open carry and vice versa, I think it is more about ones ego then anything.

Newspaper Headlines!, many con and pro groups use this tactic to entice readers just to promote ones agenda and is misleading to say the least.
For example, the Philadelphia bus shooting could have read, (A) Open Carriers or (B) Concealed Carriers Shot Up Bus! While both would be somewhat correct, do we really want to associate legal carry in a negative concatenation as this?
Click to expand...

I am with you on your post and I am for "constitutional" carry (with no need to permit our right). But I have had more than one CC guy tell me they want the "tactical advantage", even Alan Gottlieb from SAF said it on National TV.

One guy told me and I quote "I can't wait until someone tries to "F" with me".

And then there are others who for the very reasons you mentioned carry concealed, actually ended up sitting outside Barkley Starbucks having a great discussion with a CC guy yesterday for about an hr. before work. I have no beef with any of them. Even though I find the idea of "tactical" advantage a little disturbing, I still don't care, as long as they only use it justifiably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top