-
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.
-
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.
IBD: The Right To Shoot Back: Another "Gun-Free-Zone" Fail
- Thread starter Freiheit417
- Start date
Jack House
Regular Member
Comparison fail. The two situations are extremely different.
Which "two" situations? Several were mentioned.
And while you are at it, would yu please help me understand why you think there is a difference? Just saying so does not help me understand what you are trying to get at.
stay safe.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
Similarities
Armed individuals attempted to force their will on others
Differences
In one the obvious intention was to terrorize, wound, maim and kill
In the other the initial intention was robbery, what might have happened to any witnesses is unknown. It's not unknown for robbers to kill witnesses or just shoot for the hell of it.
Armed individuals attempted to force their will on others
Differences
In one the obvious intention was to terrorize, wound, maim and kill
In the other the initial intention was robbery, what might have happened to any witnesses is unknown. It's not unknown for robbers to kill witnesses or just shoot for the hell of it.
Freiheit417
Regular Member
"A witness who was inside the store at the time of the shooting told police a man entered the store with a gun and demanded money. The witness said that once the man got the money, he shot Ghazal in the chest and left."
http://articles.courant.com/2012-06...1_meriden-det-citgo-gas-station-gunshot-wound
Truly senseless.
One never knows whether a robber is just a thief or a cold-blooded murderer.
http://articles.courant.com/2012-06...1_meriden-det-citgo-gas-station-gunshot-wound
Truly senseless.
One never knows whether a robber is just a thief or a cold-blooded murderer.
Jack House
Regular Member
The two situations in the image. They're different for a number of reasons. In Colorado, the man threw tear gar canisters then immediately opened fire on the crowd. In Florida, two men, one with a bat and another with a rusted, broken gun attempted an armed robbery of an internet cafe.
Two very different situations.
This is irrelevant, the argument isn't whether or not the man in Florida should have acted(he should have and did), the argument is whether the two situations are identical. They're not.
Aknazer
Regular Member
I would say the "two" in the picture is a comparison fail. Armed robbery vs planned massacre are two completely things. A better comparison would have been the SLC mall incident vs Aurora. In SLC 5 people died before the shooter was taken out thanks to someone (a police officer) being armed and shooting the bad guy. To do a comparison one should compare things as close as possible (armed robbery where people don't have weapons vs where they do, or mass murder where people do/don't have weapons).
davidmcbeth
Banned
Armed robbers don't shoot people? They certainly do. The goals of the two groups may be different but the premise of the comparison is not the crime being committed but the fact that in 1 scenario the lawful group was armed and in the second, not.
Otherwise, one would have to look to Waco as a second one as a comparison but in this instance it was the government who were the "terrorists" and the Davidians were able to stop their assault and hold out for a considerable period of time.
Aknazer
Regular Member
Did I say armed robbers don't shoot people? Why no, no I didn't. I said that a planned massacre is different than an armed robbery. In an armed robbery the bad guys might shoot someone, and they might even plan on shooting a few people (such as guards). That is still very different than where the whole plan is to go in and kill as many people as possible.
And no, one wouldn't have to look at Waco as a second comparison. There's plenty of incidents where the victims of a massacre were armed and plenty where they weren't. And it is those examples that should be compared. Not one crime compared to a completely different crime that has a completely different goal.
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
OK, but there is one thing that is very similar to the two cases ... they are recent. So to go back 15 yrs for another similar case loses the presenters "flavor" wishing to be communicated.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Wow, right from Aurora to the UN ATT in 26 words, no segway required.
regarding the premise of the article cited in the OP, the consistent theme in just about every 'mass shooting' is that lawfully armed citizens, where present, have and can stop further loss of life when nutjobs go nuts.
Oh, Waco is not comparable. Even though the gubmint did it wrong six ways from Sunday, the adult Branch Davidians are to be held equally responsible for the deaths of the children in the compound. The only victims at Waco in my view.
regarding the premise of the article cited in the OP, the consistent theme in just about every 'mass shooting' is that lawfully armed citizens, where present, have and can stop further loss of life when nutjobs go nuts.
Oh, Waco is not comparable. Even though the gubmint did it wrong six ways from Sunday, the adult Branch Davidians are to be held equally responsible for the deaths of the children in the compound. The only victims at Waco in my view.